ML20090K410
| ML20090K410 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 12/14/1983 |
| From: | Barnes L, Cavender J, Gamberg R, Ingram E, Ray C, Roy A, Shropshire J, Underwood J, Robert Williams DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| A-095, A-95, NUDOCS 8405240197 | |
| Download: ML20090K410 (35) | |
Text
N 0
N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N
p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION P
r 2
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINd O khh; In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. )
Docket Nos.g g -,
N
--)
SONi (Catawba Nuclear Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
TESTIMONY OF C. L. RAY, R. L. WILLIAMS, p L. R. BARNES, R. C. GAMBERG, J. E. CAVENDhR, A. W. ROY, J. C. SHROPSHIRE, J. N. UNDERWOOD AND E. A. INGRAM REGARDING THE BOARD QUESTION CONCERNING THE CONTAINMENT SPRAY SYSTEM 1
Q.
PLEASE STATE YOUR
- NAMES, BUSINESS ADDRESSES, AND 2
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS.
3 A.
Mr. Ray:
My name is Clarence L. Ray, Jr.
By business address is 4
Duke Power Company, P.O. Box 33189, Charlotte, N.C.
2824::.
I am 5
currently employed by Duke Power Ccmpany as a Principal Engineer in 6
the Mechanical / Nuclear Division of the Design Engineering Department.
7 In this position I am responsible for managing the section responsible for 8
piping analysis and pipe support design for the Catawba Nuclear Station.
9 A copy of my professional qualifications is attached (Attachment A).
10 11 Mr. Williams:
My name is Royce L. Williams.
My business address is 12 P.O. Box 33189, Charlotte, N.C.
28242.
I am currently employed by 13 Duke Power Company as an Analytical Engineer II in the 14 Mechanical / Nuclear Division of the Design Engineering Department.
In 15 this position I am responsible for the preparation of the Piping Material
-16 Procurement and Piping Installation Specifications for our Nuclear 17 Stations.
8405240197 831214 PDR ADOCK 05000413 G
PDR 1
-e i
1 Mr. Gamberg:
My name is Robert C. Gamberg.
My business address is 2
Duke Power Company, P.O. Box 33189, Charlotte, N.C.
28242.
I am 3
currently employed by Duke Power Company as a Design Engineer I in 4
the Mechanical / Nuclear Division of the Design Engineer Department.
In 5
this position I am responsible for the design of various mechanical fluid 6
systems for Catawba Nuclear Station.
A copy of my professional 7
qualifications is attached (Attachment C).
8 9
Mr. Ingram:
My name is Eulys Albert Ingram.
My business address is 10 Catawba Nuclear Station, P.O.
Box 223, Clover, S.C.
29710.
I am 11 currently employed by Duke Power Company in the Construction 12 Department as Power House Mechanic.
In this position my duties are to 13 fabricate and erect piping according to the requirements of the ASME 14 code and the requirements established by Duke Power Company's Quality 15 Control unit.
A copy of my professional qualifications is attached i
16
( Attachment D).
I 17 i
l 18 Mr. Barnes:
My name is L. R. Barnes. My business address is Catawba 19 Nuclear Station, P.O.
Box 223, Clover, S.C.
29710.
I am currently l
20 employed by Duke Power Company in the Construction Department as 4
21 Planning and Control Manager.
In this position I am responsible for j
22 construction planning and cost control or Catawba Nuclear Station.
A
\\
l 23 copy of my professional qualifications is attached (Attachment F).
l 24 25 Mr. Cavender:
My name is John E. Cavender.
My business address is 26 Duke Power Company, P.O. Box 33189, Charlotte, N.C.
28242.
I am 27 currently employed by -Duke Power Company in the Quality Assurance r l
e
.m 1
Department as Nondestructive Examination Examiner (NDE) Level III.
In 2-this position I am responsible for training and qualification of NDE 3
personnel, the development and approval of NDE procedures, and periodic j
4 review of NDE records.
I also perform periodic reviews of the 1
5 qualification NDE personnel.
A copy of my professional qualifications is 6
attached (Attachment F).
7 8
Mr. Roy:
My name is Alfred W.
Roy.
My business address is Duke 9
Power Company, P.O. Box 33189, Charlotte, N.C.
28242. I am currently 10 employed by Duke Power company as a Quality Assurance Supervisor in I
11 the Vendors Division of the Quality Assurance Department.
In this 12 position I am responsible for surveys, audits and surveillance for piping 13 and materials suppliers and manufacturers.
A copy of my professional i
14 qualifications is attached (Attachment G).
15 16 Mr. Shropshire:
My name is J. C. Shropshire.
My business address is 17 Catawba Nuclear Station,
P.
O.
Box 223, Clover, S.C.
29710.
My 1
18 current position is Quality Assurance Engineer in the Quality Assurance 19 Department.
I am responsible for the mechanical, welding, and NDE 20 quality assurance group.
A copy of my professional qualifications is 21 attached (Attachment H).
22 l
23 Mr. Underwood: My name is Joseph N. Underwood. My business address 24 is P.O. Box 33189, Charlotte, N.C.
28242.
I am currently employed by 25 Duke Power company as a
supervising Design Engineer in the 26 Mechanical / Nuclear Division of the Design Engineering Department.
In 27 this position I am responsible for supervising a group which performs i i
t I
stress analysis on piping systems for the Catawba Nuclear Station.
A
\\
2 copy of my professional qualifications is attached (Attachment I).
3 4
Q.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS TESTIMONY?
5 A.
This testimony is designed to respond to the Board's question that 6
assuming the concerns of In Camera Witness
- 1 regarding 7
out-of-roundness, wall thickness, fit-ups, and stress induced by pipe 8
bending in the Unit I containment spray system are "well founded," how 9
would "the functional use and structural integrity of that system be 10 affected under adverse conditions? What corrective action, if any, would 11 be required for the safe operation of the plant?" Tr. 482.
j 12 13 Q.
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE, COMPONENTS AND IMPORTANT 14 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CONTAINMENT SPRAY SYSTEM?
15 A.
The Containment Spray System is a very low pressure system designed to 16 reduce containment pressure in the event of a loss of reactor coolant 17 accident.
The system accomplishes this by spraying relatively cool water i
18 into the containment atmosphere, condensing any steam that might be 19 present in upper containment and cooling the air in upper containment.
20 Inside the annulus and containment building this system consists of six 21 spray rings each with its own header which connects the ring to a water 22 source in the auxiliary building.
Four of the rings are supplied by the 23 two containment spray pumps (two rings connected to each pump).
The j
24 remaining two rings are connected to the residual heat removal system 25 (each is connected to a different train of the residual heat removal i
i 26 system).
Piping in this portion of the system is 8" in diameter with i
27 short sections of smaller diameter pipe used for test connections and 4
1
, - - ~
I attachment of the spray nozzles to the rings.
Contrary to In Camera 2
Witness #1's allegations, none of the system is located in the pipe chase.
3 RCG.
4 5
Q.
AT THE HEART OF THE BOARD'S QUESTION IS THE ASSUMPTION THAT 6
THE WITNESSES CONCERNS REGARDING OUT-OF-ROUNDNESS, WALL 7
THICKNESS,
FIT-UPS AND STRESS INDUCED BY BENDING PIPES 8
(" COLD SPRINGING") ARE WELL FOUNDED.
ARE THESE CONCERNS 9
WELL FOUNDED?
10 A.
No.
We have conducted a detailed investigation and analyses of these 11 concerns and they are totally without merit.
The factors supporting our 12 determination include the following:
13 14 1.
Out-cf-Roundness:
15 The procurement documents associated with piping for the 16 containment spray system required that the 8" pipe be supplied in 17 conformance with, among other things, Paragraph 2.1 of ASME II 18 material specification SA-312 which invokes ASTM specification A-530.
l 19 Paragraph 12.1 of A-530 establishes ovality limits for the piping.
In 20 providing this piping, the vendor, through his QA program j
21 furnished to Duke a Certified Materials Test Report which certified 22 that the imposed requirements, including those associated with l
23 ovality, have been met.
It should be noted that several sections of 24 the 8" SA-312 piping material were sent to a fabrication shop to be 25 formed into long radius bends for the 6 ring headers and other l
26 bends in the systems.
As required by the purchase order, the 27 fabricator, through his quality assurance program, provided to Duke
-S-t
I the Supplier Quality Assurance Certifications which certified that the 2
bends met the requirements of ASME III.
ASME III NC-3642 and 3
NC-4223.2 require that after bending, the difference between 4
maximum and minimum diameters shall not exceed 8% of the average 5
diameter before bending, or in this case approximately 0.64".
- LRB, f~
6 RLW.
7 8
The piping manufacturers and fabricators conducted appropriate 9
inspections and audits of their manufacturing and fabrication i
10 processes and provided written certifications to Duke Power which 11 stated that piping supplied met Codt; and specification requirements 12 which includes ovality limits.
These vendor QA programs have been i
13 periodically audited by Duke Power Company and no significant 14 deviations in this regard were noted. AWR.
i 15
[
16 In addition to vendor audits and surveillance, upon receipt of this 17 piping Duke Power conducts a separate receipt inspection which 18 includes a review of the vendor certification that code requirements 19 have been met. Further, prior to use of the piping a QA cleanliness 20 inspection, QA fit-up inspection and several QA welding inspections 21 are conducted on the piping.
QA inspectors are trained to be very l
22 conservative and critical in their inspections, and if there were 23 excessive ovality, it would have been detected at least in some of 24 these additional inspections. In addition to all these inspections, QA i
25 conducts periodic surveillance on the material and audits processes 26 ongoing in the plant.
In sum, the numerous inspections on the j h 27 piping conducted by trained Duke QA inspectors provide reasonable
.J
I e
I assurance that any excessive ovality in the piping would have been
.h Significantly, despite all of these inspections we know of V
2 detected.
3 no reported incident of ovality problems concerning piping used for 4
the Containment Spray System. JCS, LRB.
5 i
6 Accordingly,
it's our determination that there is reasonable 7
assurance that there were no deficiencies regarding out-of-roundness 8
of piping used in the Catawba Unit 1 Containment Spray System.
9 JCS, LRB, RLW, AWR.
10 1
11 It should be noted
- however, that in observing authorized i
12 modifications on piping to bring the ends from an acceptable 13 out-of-roundess condition to a more perfectly round condition for 14 welding, In Camera Witness #1 may have incorrectly assumed that the 15 out-of-roundness was beyond acceptable limits. Methods specified in 16 ASME III NC-4231 of improving acceptable ovality conditions include 17 use of bars, Jacks and clamps.
Discussions with cognizant personnel 18 on the-job revealed that indeed these methods were used to adjust i
19 acceptable ovality of the ends of the Containment Spray System 20 piping in order to achieve an acceptable fit-up for welding.
- LRB, i
21 EAl.
22 23 2.
Minimum Wall Thickness:
24 The piping used in the Unit 1 Containment Spray System is 8" i
25' Schedule 40 piping with a nominal wall thickness of.322" and a 26 minimum observed wall thickness of
.250".
The stress analysis 27 performed and used in final design / construction work on the system -.
'n 1
assumed use of a Schedule 20 pipe which has a nominal thickness of b
2
.250" (minimum thickness of
.219").
This design analysis 3
demonstrated that there was significant wall thickness margin in the 4
system.
For grinding to result in a wall thickness problem, the 5
grinding w suld have to result in a reduction of wall thickness from 6
the nominal thickness of.322" (or for a worst case situation from 7
the minimum observed thickness of.250") to below.219".
- RLW, 8
CLR.
9 10 The probability of excessive grinding which would result in such a 11 defect which was not noted and reported by the grinder and 12 corrected is very remote.
Further, the visual inspections required 13 by QA coupled with the 100% radiography of all welds on this system 14 would have assured that any such excessive grinding defect would 15 have been identified and corrected.
In sum, there is reasonable 16 assurance that if there were grinding induced defects on the 17 Containment Spray System which could conceivably have resulted in 18 a minimum wall thickness problem such defects would have been so 19 large that they would have been easily detected by the grinder or in 20 normal QA visual cr radiography inspections. JEC, EAI, JCS.
21 22 '
3.
Fit-Up Inspections:
23 In Camera Witness #1's testimony alleges that in the installation of an 24 8" schedule 40 stainless steel 45* elbow fitting between two sections 25 of pipe which were already in place in the Unit 1 Containment Spray 26 System, a fit-up inspection did not occur.
A review of the records O
indicates that the welds he is referring to are weld joints INS 125-4 Q
17. <_-___________-_____-__ - _-____-
)
'I and INS 75-14. A review of the weld record form M-4A indicates that 2
joint INS 125-4 was originally fit-up and inspected on 7/17/80.
A 3
7/22/80 note on form F-9B for this weld indicates that on 7/17/80 the 4
elbow fitting was modified from 45 to 44*-27'.
While it may have 5
appeared that a fit-up inspection was not conducted due to the date 6
of the note on the F-9B form, the work described was actually 7
performed on 7/17/80 and noted as such on the F-9B form.
8 Therefore, the inspection performed on 7/17/80 included all work i
4.
9 performed on the fit-up of the joint. /RB, JCS.
10 11 In any event, weld record form M-4A for weld INS 125-4 further 12 states that because of unacceptable lack of penetration discovered by 13 radiography, the entire weld was cut out on 8/25/80 and remade, k
l 14 All subsequent inspections, welding and NDE steps on the weld 15 record appear proper, and the weld radiographs were accepted by 16 Duke on 9/23/80 and by the Authorized Nuclear Inspector on 17 9/24/80.
In addition, the weld joint was hydrostatically tested to 18 300 psig on 8/28/83.
LRB, JCS.
19 20 In short, it is clear that the fit-up of this weld, while potentially 21 confusing for a helper such as the witness, did receive an adequate 22 fit-up inspection.
In any event, as previously stated this weld was 1
23 cut out and replaced clearly in conformance with requirements.
24 LRB, JCS.
l l-O l l
'O I Discussions with fitters, foremen and others associated with this i
O 2
erection, as well as a review of records regarding this system 3
provides no indication whatsoever that any fit-up inspections were 4
4 missed. LRB, EAI.
5 6
Accordingly, it is our determination that this assumption is 7
clearly not well founded. JCS, LRB, EAI.
8 9
4.
Cold Springing:
10 At the outset it should be noted that Catawba specifications and 11 procedures clearly state that cold springing is not authorized on 12 piping systems except under controlled conditions, eg, any force 13 in excess of moderate hand pressure to achieve alignment must be 14 applied and checked as required by specific procedures.
15 Responsible construction personnel are well trained on these 16 restrictions. LRB, CLR, E AI.
1 17 18
- Further, quality assurance personnel rigidly enforce these
)
19 procedures during surveillance audits and scheduled fit-up and 1
20 welding inspections. If during any such inspection or surveillance it 21 appeared that there was attempt to use uncontrolled cold springing, 22 the inspector would have reported the violation (moderate hand 23 pressure to achieve alignment is authorized), there were no reported 24 cases of cold springing or attempts to use cold springing on this i
25 system. JCS, EAI.
O -.
'A 1
Indeed, the method used to erect the containment spray system was
\\
l l
2 such that the only closure weld (i.e., welding to a fixed location U
3 from a fixed pipe - the basic condition which must be present for 4
cold springing) where cold springing would be practical was in the 5
system ring headers located in the top of the dome.
The fact that 6
there was no cold springing in the ring headers, was demonstrated 7
when a short section of pipe was cut out of each spray ring header l
8 after closure of the header and in no case did the pipe spring out of 4
9 alignment indicating a cold springing condition. CLR, EAI.
10 11 Discussions with many of the fitters and foremen associated with 12 erection of the system reflect that there was no cold springing on 13 this system. EAI.
14 15 In short, the lack of any QA/QC reports of cold springing coupled 16 with the erection process and discussions with personnel responsible i
17 for and knowledgeable about the erection of this system provides 18 reasonable assurance that there was no cold springing of this 19 system. JCS, CLR, LRB, EAI.
20 21 Q.
IN RESPONSE TO THE BOARD'S QUESTION, EVEN ASSUMING THE 22 ASSUMPTIONS OF THE WITNESS REGARDING OUT-OF-ROUNDNESS,
23 MINIMUM WALL THICKNESS, FIT-UPS AND PIPE BENDING ARE WELL 24
. FOUNDED, WOULD THIS HAVE ADVERSELY AFFECTED THE FUNCTIONAL 25 USE OR STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE SYSTEM SO AS TO CALL 26 INTO QUESTION THE SAFE OPERATION OF THE PLANT?
27 A.
No.
We have conducted a detailed investigation and ' analyses of these 28 issues and determined that even assuming that the concerns are well j l l
I founded (which as noted above is not valid), there would be virtually no 2.
impact on the system capability or structural integrity.
The bases for 3
this determination include the following:
4 5
1.
Out-of-Roundness :
6 The witness states that any pipe which was out-of-round in the first 7
instance was eventually always made round prior to fit-up and 8
welding by " mash [ing) it on the sides."
Tr. 72.
As previously i
9 stated, the ASME code also allows out of roundness present in the 10 pipe to be corrected by use of force when aligning sections of pipe 11 for welding. LRB.
12 j
13 Correction of ovality by force (eA, " mashing") would induce either 14 a cold set in the pipe wall or secondary stresses in the pipe wall.
O 15 Any cold set induced in the pipe wall by correcting ovality (even 16 excessive ovality) would have no effect on the primary stress levels 17 in the pipe.
Any secondary stresses induced by correcting ovality 18 (even excessive ovality) would be reduced by the heat of welding; 7
l l
19 and any remaining locked in secondary stresses would have no effect i
20 on the ability of the pipe to perform its intended function. In sum, j
21 correcting an ovality deficiency by the use of force would have no 22 adverse impact on the system. CLR, JNU.
23 24 2.
Wall Thickness:
25 As previously stated, even assuming that a grinding defect occurred 26 which could conceivably result in a wall thickness problem, the 27 analysis on this system used schedule 20 pipe (nominal wall thickness 28 of.250") instead - of the schedule 40 pipe installed (nominal wall _-
~
1 thickness of.322") so' that the depth of the defect adversely n)
(D impacting the system would have to be so great that it would be 2
3 readily detected in either the visual or radiographic inspections.
4 Upon identification, it would be corrected.
Thus, minimum wall 5
thickness concerns as raised by the witness here would have no 6
adverse impact on the system.
(It should be noted that the witness 7
himself stated that he did not know if grinding violated minimum wall 8
thickness. (Tr. 76.)) CLR, JCS, JEC.
9 10 3.
Fit-Ups :
i l
11 As previously stated, a review of the records indicates that the 12 alleged missed fit-up inspection occurred on a weld that was 13 subsequently cut out and replaced.
Accordingly, the witness' 14 concern regarding the fit-up o is weld would have no impact on 15 the Containment Spray Syste 16 17
- However, assuming that other welds somehow missed fit-up 18 inspections (even though all QA weld record forms M-4A-have been 19 initialed and dated reflecting the inaccuracy of this assumption),
20 each pipe weld in the containment spray system is required to have 21 a full volumetric examination by radiography.
This examination 4
22 assured that full fusion of each section of pipe joined was achieved, 23 regardless of any fit-up problems which may have been missed. JCS, 24 JEC.
l 25 26 The only other concern related to fit-up would be a surface 27 irregularity at the weld caused by misalignment of the pipe sections l
1 being joined.
The potential for this surface irregularity was already 2
accounted for in the stress analysis by the conservative practice of 3
applying a stress intensification factor at the weld of 1.8 which is, 4
as required by the ASME Code, when fit-up is not maintained to 5
close tolerance.
This stress intensification factor is a multiplier 4
6 applied to the calculated stress at the weld joint to account for any 7
surface irregularity -due to misalignments which are greater than 10%
8 of the pipe thickness in magnitude. CLR, JNU.
9 10 In short, any missed fit-up inspection of a weld in the system would 11 have no adverse impact on the system. JCS, JEC, CLR, JNU.
i l
12 13 4.
Cold Springing:
14 As previously stated, the erection process of the Unit 1 Containment 15 Spray System was such that the ossibility of cold springing in the 1
16 system is extremely remot.
)
17 18 However, we have analyzed the potential impact of cold springing 19 piping into position in order to make closure welds.
This analysis 20 consisted of a generic review of how the cold springing would affect 21 the stress / strain characteristics of the pipe, and how it would affect 22 the existing stress levels in the pipe as calculated by the piping i
23 analysis of the Containment Spray System.
The analysis l
24 demonstrated that the deflection used for cold springing the pipe 25 into position result in secondary stresses which are tenned 26 self-limiting. Self-limiting means that the stresses are developed due 27 to a finite deflection, eg, a deflection of 3" - 4".
Therefore, the
..~
I strain in the pipe is limited Stresses - below the yield stress of 2
the pipe will be retained in the pipe, are relieved by any 3
subsequent plastic action,
and will not adversely impact the
-- 1 4
system.
At any time if a combination of this secondary stress and 5
' stresses due to design ' loads reach the yield stress of the pipe, j
6 then these self limiting stresses are relieved without adversely l
7 effecting the pipe.
For this reason, the ASME code does not 8
require that secondary stresses be combined with stresses due to 9
faulted loads.
In short, cold springing of piping as described 10 by the witness (i.e., 3" - 4") in the Unit 1 Containment Spray 11 System would have no adverse impact on the system.
CLR, JNU.
12 13 To provide an indication of the stress levels which would be 14 generated by such cold springing, a computer analysis was performed 15 on a 4" cold springing of the smallest (and thus worst case) ring 16 header in the system.
A ring header was chosen for this analysis 17 because, as previously stated, based on the erection process the 18 only closure welds on the system where it would have been practical 19 to use cold springing occurred in the ring headers.
CLR, JNU.
20 21 This analysis was performed assuming that a 4 inch offset at the 22 closure weld was corrected by springing the pipe into alignment 23 prior to welding.
The results of this analysis showed that the 24 combined stresses under this condition fully satisfy ASME Code 25 requirements. CLR, JNU.
i lO 15-
'l y_..
r__,._s.
,_,_.cw,,
.~m_.-
_,_4
--,4
l I
being joined.
The potential for this surface irregularity was already 2
accounted for in the stress analysis by the conservative practice of 3
time if a combination of this secondary stress and stresses due to 4
design loads reach the yield stress of the pipe, then these self j
S limiting stresses are relieved without adv'ersely effecting the pipe..
6 For this reason, the ASME code does not require that secondary 7
stresses be combined with stresses due to faulted loads.
In short, i
8 cold springing of piping as described by the witness (i.e., 3" - 4")
9 in the Unit 1 Containment Spray System would have no adverse 10 impact on the system. CLR, JNU.
11 12 To provide an indication of the stress levels which would be i
13 generated by such cold springing, a computer analysis was performed 14 on a 4" cold springing of the smallest (and thus worst yse) ring 15 header in the system.
A ring header was chosen for this analysis 16 because, as previously stated, based on the erection process the l
17 only closure welds on the system where it would have been practical l
18 to use cold springing occurred in the ring headers.
CLR, JNU.
i 19 20 This analysis was performed assuming that a 4 inch offset at the 21 closure weld was corrected by springing the pipe into alignment 22 prior to welding.
The results of this analysis showed that the 23 combined stresses under this condition fully satisfy ASME Code 24 requirements.
CLR, JNU.
O,
t
1
.Q.
EVEN ASSUMING THAT ALL THE WITNESS' CONCERNS ARE WELL
\\
2 FOUNDED, AND HYPOTHETICALLY ASSUMING THAT SOME TYPE OF t
. '3~
ADVERSE IMPACT COULD SOMEHOW RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL 4
DEGRADATION OF THE CONTAINMENT SPRAY SYSTEM, WOULD THE 5
SYSTEM STILL BE ABLE TO PERFORM ITS INTENDED FUNCTION?
6 A.
The containment spray system contains two independent, redundant trains 7
of pumps, spray rings and headers, either of which can supply 100% of 4
8 the cooling required to perform system function.
A break in one of the 9
rings (or supply headers) connected to the containment spray pumps 10 could, at worst, result in effectively losing spray from that ring and 11 degrading spray flow in the other ring connected with the same pump.
12 However, assuming no spray from either of these two rings,
the 13 remaining two rings supplied by the redundant pump are capable of 14 meeting required spray flow to assure system function.
If the break 15 were te occur in one of the rings connected to the residual heat removal 16 system, the other ring would be operable and would provide adequate 17 spray.
In short, even hypothesizing a significant degradation of the 18
. Containment Spray c cstem based on assumptions and gross speculations which, as previously noted, are totally without merit, the system can 19 20 continue to perform its intended function. RCG.
21 22 Q.
ASSUMING THAT THE CONCERNS OF - THE WITNESS ARE WELL 23 FOUNDED, THE ~ LICENSING BOARD QUESTION FURTHER INQUIRED AS l
24 TO WHAT CORRECTIVE ACTIONS, IF ANY, WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR
. 25 SAFE OPERATION OF THE PLANT.
O
-26 A.
From the foregoing, the witness' concerns regarding out-of-roundness, 27 pipe bending, minimum wall thickness and fit-ups are totally without i
E i
t.
I merit, and, in any event, would have no adverse impact on the Unit 1 2
Containment Spray System's structural integrity or capability to perform i
3 its intended function.
Accordingly, no corrective action is needed for 4
safe operation of the plant.
4 6
0 l
O f
O.
f
.ma e-m-
,-w-y-wm
-q y,-
-,-w
-w w
---w-e-+n m--
y ay
t l
/
Attachment A in CLARENCE L. RAY, JR.
i PERSONAL:
Home Address:
4848 Spicewood Drive l
Charlotte, NC 28212 l
Telephone:
(704) 545-6212 (home)
(704)' 373-6209 (office)
Age:
36 Height:
6'
.0" Weight:
195'1bs.
s FORMAL EDUCATION:
Old Dominion University:
BSCE 1970 PROFESSIOUAL ACTIVITIES:
Registered Professional Engineer - North Carolina Registered Professional Engineer - South Carolina American Society of Civil Engineers - Member American Society of Mechanical Engineers - Member ASME, Committee on Cranes for Nuclear Facilities-Main Committee Member and Structural Subcommittee-Member.
ASME, BPVC,Section III Working Group on Component Supports - Member ADDITIONAL TRAINING:
Foundation Engineering Seminar - UNCC ACI Code Seminar - NCSU Structural Design Seminar - Lincoln Electric Co.
Management Development Program - Duke Power Co.
Advanced Management Development Program - Duke Power Co.
Effective Management Training Program - Duke Power Co.
t WORK s
EXPERIENCE:
FROM E
TITLE PROGRAM COMPANY 1/82 Present Principal Engineer Catawba Nuclear Duke Station Power s
In charge of section responsible for all piping analysis, piping support design,
~
pipe rupture restraint design, seismic supports for HVAC ducts, and mechanical equipment support design.
Analysis and designs performed in accordance with ASME Section III,' ANSI B30.1 and AISC specifications. Duties include accounta-bility for manpower and expenditure budgets; interfacing with other Departments.
i Divisions and Sections; NRC interface on technical items and licansing; develop-
'put and maintenance of design and erection specifications.and procedures; admini-
,tration of out-o'-house ' contracts; and general personnel management. Manage 260 i
cngineers and 70 other.
c 1s ; i t.a e
e.
j, Pcg2 2
. TO, TITLE PROGRAM COMPANY 11/79 12/81 Senior Engineer Catawba Nuclear Duke.
Station Power In charge of design group and analysis group (beginning 6/81 ) responsible for all piping analysis, piping support design, pipe rupture restraint design, seismic cupports for HVAC' ducts, and mechanical equipment support design. Analysis and dasigns performed in accordance with ASME Section III ANSI B30.1 and AISC speci-fications.
Duties include accountability for manpower and expenditure budgets; interfacing with other Departments, Divisions and Sections; NRC interface on tachnical items and licensing; development and maintenance of design and erection cpacifications and procedures; administration of out-of-house contracts; and g2neral personnel management. Manage 190. engineers and 60 other.
6/77 10/79 Design Engineer McGuire, Catawba &
Duke Cherokee Nuclear Power Stations In charge of group responsible for structural steel design for*all stations, sup-part of electrical cable trsy at McGuire, Catawba and Cherokee Nuclear Stations, cnd the specification and technical evaluation for the purchase of all cranes and hoists for these. nuclear stations. Duties included the establishing of design rGquirements, approval of calculations and drawings,' accountability for schedule end manpower requirements, interfacing with other Departments, Divisions, and ctio'ns, interfacing with vendors and with the NRC.
Supervised 16 engineers.
/75 5/77 Assistant Design McGuire &-Catawba
' Duke Engineer Nuclear Stations Power Had lead responsibility for all major structural steel design for Catawba Nuclear Stction.
Also performed miscellaneous design work on McGuire Nuclear Station.
Duties included the preparation of engineering calculations and design sketches, writing specifications, making cost estimates, checking design drawings and cal-culations, and directing designers in preparing drawings.
=In addition to major.
building structural steel design, assignments included the design of a 404 ft.
railroad bridge and a 252 ft. highway bridge.
11/72 12/74 Associate Engineer McGuire & Catawba Duke Nuclear Stations Power Worked on the design of McGuire and'Catawb'a Nuclear Station structural steel.
Duties included the preparation of engineering calculations and design sketches, writing specifications, making cost estimates, checking design drawings and cal-culations, and directing designers in the preparation of drawings.
6/.70 10/72 Junior Engineer Belews Creek Duke Steam Station Power Parformed fundamental engineering work including engineering calculations. design etches, writing specifications, cost estimates and checking drawings.
Primary signment was design of structural steel for Belews Creek Steam Station..In-Olved in all aspects of steel design including building steel,' platforms, design cf and support for coal handling equipment.
E
Attachment B RESUME ROYCE LEE WILLIAMS PERSONAL:
Home Addrcss: 6531 Foxmeade Lane Charlotte, North Carolina 18215 Telephone:
(704) 536-4504 (Home)
(704) 373-4221 (Work)
Age: 46 Height:
5' - 11" Weight: 195 lbs.
FORMAL
,n 3 EDUCATION: North Carolina State University - BS EngineerAPhysics 1961 ADDITIONAL TRAINING:
Supervision & Management Courses - Duke Power Company Miscellaneous Seminars on Welding, NDE and Code Requirements PERSONAL 1
INVOLVEMENT: Registered Professional Engineer - N.C. 8010 Member - ASME, AWS Member - ASME B & PV Code Section I l
Member - ASME B & PV Code Section I Subgroups on General i
Requirements and Piping Member - ASME B31.1 Code for Power Piping Member - ANSI B36.10 Committee on Welded and Sesmiess Wrought Steel Pipe WORK EXPERIENCE:
l FROM TO TITLE PROGRAM COMPANY 9/73 Present Analytical Engineer II McGuire, Catawba Duke Power and Cherokee Nuclear Stations In charge of Sub-group responsible for preparation of specifications for the procurement and installation of piping materials for ASME Section III and B31.1 applications. Responsible for contract administration an_d engineering coordination on these items. Resolve non-conforming item reports relating to piping material and Code problems. Act as coordinator with other Groups, Departments, and Divisions on Code questions pertaining to materials, fabrication, examination and testing. Supervised two-to-four Engineers and a
-Technical Assistant.
FROM TO TITLE PROGRAM COMPANY 8/71 8/73 Project Engineer Various Power ITT Grinnell l
Plants Industrial.
Piping, Kernersville North Carolina l
T.
Responsible for engineering work in connection with prefabricated piping.
,j Supervised preparation of orders for special. materials and shop spool sketches.
Coordinated engineering and scheduling and acted as liason with Architect Engineers.
Supervised an Engineer and two Draftsmen.
l'
Hesume ot
, R3yce Lee Williams Page 2
'(
FROM TO TITLE PROGRAM COMPANY 6/67 8/71 Department Engineer Various Power and ITT Grinnell Process Piping Industrial Jobs Piping Division Charlotte, North Carolina Responsible for estimating and ordering materials for power and process piping work. Heavily involved in the orde;ing of materials for a 3-Unit Nuclear Power
)
Plant. Supervised an Engineer and three-to-four Draftsmen.
J FROM TO TITLE PROGRAM COMPANY 6/61 6/67 Piping Engineer Various Power and ITT Grinnell Process Piping Industrial Jobs Piping Division Various Locations Involved in estimating and material ordering. Acted as liason with owners and Architect Engineers in the office and on the job site. Approximately 1 1/2 years i
construction time on process and power piping work.
FROM 0
TITLE PROGRAM COMPANY 12/57 9/59 Draftsman Various Power and ITT Grinnell Process Piping Industrial Jobs Piping Division Charlotte,
North Carolina Involved in general drafting, material take-off and field surveys for heating, power and process piping work.
O
Attachmant C ROBERT C. GAMBERG PERSONAL:
Home Address:
1720 Wensley Dr.
Charlotte, N. C. 28210 Telephone:
(704) 373-8575 (Office)
(704) 553-2290 (Home)
)
Age:
30 Height: 6 ' 0" Weight:
180 FORMAL EDUCATION:
University of Virginia: BSNE 1975 ADDITIONAL TRAINING:
Fisher Control Valve Seminar - Charlotte, N. C.
Consolidated Safety & Relief Valve Seminar - Charlotte, N. C.
Pump Seminar - Duke Power Co.
Heat Exchanger Seminar - Duke Power Co.
Professional Development Program - Duke Power Co.
Supervisory Development Program - Duke Power Co.
Fluid Mechanics Seminar - Duke Power Co.
WORK EXPERIENCE:
FROM 0
TITLE DEPARTMENT COMPANY 10/81 Present Design Engineer i Design Engineering Duke Power Co.
Work group leader of 4-6 engineers responsible for the mechanical fluid system design of 25 fluid systems on Catawba Nuclear Station.
Responsibilities. include formulation of design criteria, determination of equipment design parameters, preparation of system design calculations, flow diagrams, system descriptions, review of vendor drawings, & plant licensing, trouble shooting & start up support.
Currently supervise 4 engineers.
6/75 10.81 Design Engineer I Catawba Nuclear Station Duke Power Co.
Assistant Design Engineer Engineer Associate Engineer Assistant Design responsibility for various fluid systems on Catawba Nuclear Station.
Duties are similar to those listed above.
O an-e
Attachment D RESUME Eulys A Ingram
- [%
(
PERSONAL:
Home Address:
17 Hillcrest Drive York, S C 27945 Telephone:
(803) 684-3099 (Home)
(803) 831-1512 (Work)
FORMAL EDUCATION:
Seminole High School - 1958 ADDITIONAL TRAINING:
None WORK EXPERIENCE:
FROM
_TO TITLE PROGRAM COMPANY 6-17-80 Present Powerhouse Mechanic Catawba Nuclear Duke Power Station Install oiping according to Design and by the instructions of crew foreman, Kreg Myers.
Duties are to fabricate and erect piping according to the regula-tions of ASME boiler and pressure vessel codes and by the codes established by Duke Power Company's Quality Control Unit.
()
6-77 6-80 Self-Employed Co. President ingram Plumbing
& Heating Installed industrial and residential piping which included steam systems for cotton mills, commercial laundry mats and dry cleaning establishments.
Install gas piping for service stations and Bosice Cascade Comnany.
Licensed in the state of North Carolina.
- PH 6402 11-75 6-77 Pipe Foreman Scholl incorporated Rockingham, N C Supervisor and instructed a crew of 12 craftsmen in the Installation of miscella-neous industrial piping.
Duties also included the Installation of heating and air conditioning in residential areas.
3-70 11-75 Foreman Tri City Inc.
Rockingham, N C t
l Supervised crew of craftsmen in the installation of commercial fire protection, plumbing and heating. Also storm drains and other related piping.
Later, was
~
superintendent during the construction of Tri City Shopping Center with the responsibilities of the installation of all piping, heating and air conditioning, electrical work, and fire protection.
3-60 3-70 District Installation Sears Roebuck
()
Manager _
Greensboro, N C Service and installation of household goods until 3-67 then moved up to District Installation Manager over 22 stores.
Responsible for the'insta11ation of household goods including garages, fencing, appliances, and etc.. sold by the 22 stores. Also instructed classes in the installation of the above mentioned items.
1.
RESUME Eulys A Ingram f
Page 2
?
WORK EXPERIENCE:
(Cont'd) l FROM TO.
TITLE PROGRAM COMPANY 11-58 3-60 Rock Hill Printing
& Finishing Co.
Rock Hill, S C Operated a set of finishing frames which set the width of cloth.
3 i
i i
i i
i 1
- m. m - _ _ _., - _
Attachmsnt E RESUME LARRY RONALD BARNES PERSONAL:
Home Address:
306 Be1 wood Drive Belmont, N.C. 28012 Telephone:
(704) 825-5533 (Home)
(803) 831-1512 Ext. 273 (office) 2 Age:
37 Height':
5'10" Weight:
175 lb's.
FORMAL
,ECUCATION:
Auburn Univecsity: BIE 1967 ADDITIONAL TRAINING:
Nuclear Power Officer Training - U S Navy Advanced Management Development - Duke Power Effective Management Program - Harbridge House Enhancing Project Management Skills - Project Management institute ASME Boller & Pressure Vessel Code Section lli - Ohio State Univ.
PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT:
Registered Professional En SC 5699 Member - ASME, AACE, ANS (gineer - NC 6867 local)
Commander - U S Naval Reserve WORK EXPERIENCE:
FROM 3
TITLE PROGRAM COMPANY 10/81 Present Planning &
Catawba Nuclear Duke Power Control Manager Station Directing the activities of 70 engineers, technicians, and clerks to provide estimating, long and short range construction planning, budget preparation, cost and schedule performance monitoring, and reporting.
Provide direct support per-sonnel in a matrix organization to the Unit I and Unit 2 general superintendents to maximize planning timeliness and effectiveness.
Direct planning activities for Unit 2 construction testing and preoperational checkout activities.
1/81 10/81 Support /
Catawba Nuclear Duke Power Restraint Mgr.
Station Direct the activities of 85 engineers, technicians, and clerks to provide tech-nical direction and administrative support for the fabrication, installation.
and rework of piping supports and restraints to meet requirements of ASME section lit subsection NF.
Developed and Implemented procedures for document control, production control and tracking, process control, material control, constructa-bility review, technical problem resolution, and completion verification.
Re-structured and staffed organizattor.' and trained personnel to maximize production during a period of complete-redesign of all supports /restraintr..
1/79 12/80 Construction Multiple Power-Duke Power l
-Services Manager Plants
- Directed the activities of the 50 member Construction Services Division.
Pro-L vided general office staff support to the Vice President, Construction and to
five construction sites with a total department workforce peak of 7000.
Developed and coordinated multiple-site systems for planning, scheduling, budgeting, cost control, material control, equipment maintenance and manage-ment, Industrial _ engineering, and future project planning.
Represented company on Electric Utility Cost Group, Southeastern Electric Exchange Con-structior Committee, and Project Management Institute forum on powerplant construction.
3/76 12/78 Construction Multiple QA Manager Powerplants Duke Power I
Directed operations of the Construction Division of the Quality Assurance Department to perform all quality assurance activities related to the construction of seven pressurized water reactor electric powerplants.
Played key role in ASME implementation survey resulting in renewal of cor-porate N, NPT, and NA authorizations.
Served as principal contact for NRC Inspectors for the construction phase. Administrative supervision of 50 quality assurance personnel and functional direction of approximately 240 j
inspection personnel.
10/75 3/76 Mechanical Barton Nuclear Alabama Power Engineer Station Planned and scheduled mechanical construction activities for Alan R. Barton Nuclear Plant, a four unit boiling water reactor power plant. Project cancelled prior to beginning construction.
5/74 10/75 Senior QA McGuire Nuclear Duke Power Engineer Station As a member of a special task force, helped define a corporate reorganization resulting in an independent Quality Assurance Department.
Rewrote the quality i
assurance program to reassign and add responsibilities under the new organiza-tion for acceptance by the AEC and ASME. Preser.ted the new QA program to an i
ASME manual survey team for Owner's Certificate, NPT, and NA authorization.
Recruited and trained a 22 person construction project QA staff to perform all QA functions on site.
Implemented the new QA program and within 6 months successfully underwent an ASME implementation survey resulting in the issue of an Owner's Certificate, NPT, and NA authorizations from ASME.
Underwent recurrent AEC inspections without being cited for any violations.
1/72 4/74 Assistant / Assoc.
Oconee Nuclear Duke Power Field Engineer Station Provided technical direction to craftsmen, inspectors, and technicians for piping material traceability, weld record traceability, and installation of piping supports and insulation. Performed overall QA review function for site act iv i t i'es. '
12/67 12/7'1 Naval Officer Nuclear Submarine U S Navy Force Served as consnunications, sonar, reactor control, and refueling officer aboard a fleet ballistic missile submarine. Qualified as Engineering Officer of the Watch, Officer of the Deck, and Qua11 fled in submarines.
(2)
Attachmant F Form n E.B Revision 1
26251 (8 8 0 DUKE POWER COMPANY CERTIFICATION OF NONDESTRUCTIVE EXAMINATION PERSONNEL Name Method John E Ca ' ender Radicaraohv Level Lin !tations (if Any) (if None So State) lII None Education and experience Background See Attached Resume ON THE JOB TRAINING PROJECT / SENIOR QA ENGINEER EYE EXAMINATION Date Started Date Completed N/A N/A
^
Date Da e ame m
H urs Date Completea CLASSROOM TRAINING N/A Additional Required Qualifications Ratle flD F FwaminatInn Senre It 47 - this grade is not included in the comoosite grade Required Length of on the Job Training N/A Examinations:
NDE PROCEDURES QUALIFIED TO:
General Grade 98 x 0.3 18.2 Al1 RT l
Specific Grade 95 x 0.3 28.5 Practical Grade 100 x 0.4 30.0 Composite Grade 97.7 t
l l
O CERTIFICATION LEVEL lli EXAMINER:
M/A DATE:
@ RECERTIFICATION CERTIFil O BY:
CERTIFICATION PERIOD:
f fN ~ ?> L Ll
- I-H * % *$
Cor pm}c.Oualit}Auurance Ma%ger. " " -M r Sr..x.
From To ANNUAL EVAL.lJAT'"'
nhd9d
'O RESUME OF JOHN E CAVENDER FOR CERTIFICATION AS LEVEL 111 IN RADIOGRAPHIC TESTING Graduated South High School, Knoxville, Tennessee June, 1954 Enlisted in U S Navy, June, 1954 Associate Degree in Mechanical Engineering, Central Piedmont Community College Charlotte, NC June, 1982 Class C - Industrial Radiography School, May, 1963 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br />, San Diego, California Class C - Nondestructive Testing of Metals School July, 1964 12 weeks.
Certified as inspector for Radiography to NAVSHIPS 250-1500-1 (Nuclear) and NAVSHIPS 9922 (Conventional).
1964 to 1066 Supervisor of Radiographers U S S Bryce Canyon (AD36), reviewed all work requests, determined RT procedures and techniques required to accomplish requested inspection in accordance with specifications, interpreted results of all RT inspections.
1966 to 1968 Supervisor of Radiographers, U S S Shenandoah (AD26) initial planning, setting up and qualifying the Radiography Lab to the requirements of NAVSHIPS 250-1500-1 and NAVSHIPS 9922.
Reviewed all work requests, determined RT procedures and techniques to be used, performed radiography of all welder Qualifications tests.
Evaluated and interpreted results of all RT performed, also performed evaluation and interpretation of radiography for other activities.
1969 to 1970 Supervisor of Radiographers, U S S H.W. Gilmore (AS16) assigned personnel work requests, determined RT techniques and procedures to be used, certified as Examiner for RT to NAVSHIPS requirements, updated procedures and techniques, trained and qualified personnel as RT operators and Inspectors.
Reviewed all Radiographs prior to final acceptance.
1970 to 1971 Supervisor of Radiographers, U S S L.Y. Spear (AS36) trained and qualifled personnel as RT operators and Inspectors in accordance with NAVSHIPS requirements.
Assigned personnel job tasks, determined RT techniques and procedures to be used.
Wrote and qualified RT procedures to requirements of NAVSHIPS 250-1500-1.
Reviewed all radiographs for final acceptance.
Performed audits of other Radiographic facilities.
1971 to 1974 Assigned as Senior Radiographic Instructor, U S Navy Nondestructive O
Testing of Metals School, San Diege, California.
Taught Radiography theory, method, techniques and acceptance to the requirements of NAVSHIPS 250-1500-1, NAVSHIPS 9922, and ASNT-TC-1A.
Certified as RT examiner in accordance with NAVSHIPS 250-1500-1.
1974 to 1979 Performed training of Personnel in the Construction, quality Assurance, Steam Production and Design Engineering Departments of Duke Power Company to reout rements of ASME and SNT-TC-1 A.
/
NM p
U ig79 to 1981 Assigned as Supervisor of the QA Service Group, responsible for the QA/QC Inspector training program (NDE, Mechanical, Electrical, and Civil) and NDE Level lli Examiner for the QA Department and provided NDE services to other Depa rtments.
1981 to Present Assigned to the QA Technical Services Division as the Level ill NDE and Welding.
Responsibility for:
providing NDE procedures for performing required examination; review of NDE & Welding inspec-tors annually; review all NDE and welding inspection training material; provide technical NDE services to other QA Divisions and Company Departments requiring information and assistance on NDE matters; and reviews vendor inspection records and aid in resolving problems related to vendor supplied materials.
The above statements are attested to be true based on documentation in company flies.
Accordingly, John E Cavender is recommended for certification as Level lli Examiner Radiographic Testing.
Recommended
{
W.O. Hen [y quality Assurance Manager, Technical Services Certifled Level lli Radiographic Testing to the requirements of SNT-TC-1A for Duke Power Company, 422 South, Church Street, Charlotte, NC 28242.
[.
i s
h\\w e A v.s s,_
\\G.W.GNr,k!'
Date Corporate Quality Assurance Manager, Duke Power Company
[
l l
f m
Attachment G l
O PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MR. A. W. ROY l
TO BE PROVIDED.
i t
l i
l O
O
.~
Attcchment H RESUME NAME:
Joe C. Shropshire P' RESENT POSITION:
QA Engineer Catawba Project PERSONAL DATA: Age - 39 Marries - Two children i
Address - 1204 Dumbarton Road Gastonia, NC 28054 EDUCATION:
Graduate of Drewry Mason High School, Ridgeway, VA 1962 Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institue,1967 Graduate study in Civil Engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute in 1969-1970 p
Various technical courses and seminars.
V 1
Various Duke Power Company management training courses.
EXPERIENCE:
Virginia Department of Highways, Richmond, VA.
1967-68 Highway Engineer Trainee. During my training I worked as a
bridge design
- engineer, materials
- engineer, hydraulics engineer, and construction field engineer.
Was given responsible charge for several projects.
^
Project experience included structural design, drainage studies, materials evaluation, and tunned construction.
t Bluefield State College, Bluefield, WV 1968-69 Instructor.
I was an Instructor of Civil Engineering Technology and was responsible for the quality and content of courses taught.
Some courses taught.were Structural Steel and Reinforced Concrete Design, Statics, Strength of Materials, Surveying.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VA.
i 1969-70 Coordinator of Men's Residence Halls.
I was responsible for the overall student management for two student dorms.
RESUME Joe C. Shropshire Page 2 Wake Technical Institute, Raleigh, NC 1970-71 Instructor.
I was an Instr.uctor of Civil Engineering Technology and was responsible for course development, content and quality.
Courses taught included Materials, Statics,
Strength of Materials, Reinforced Concrete Design.
Bluefield State College, Bluefield, WV 1971-73 Administrative Assistant (Part time instructor in Technology).
I was responsible for developing and writing grant proposals and coordinating federal funding, directed institutional research and served on the Board of Regents Committee for Institutional Research, numerous special projects.
Was partially responsible for developing Mine Supervisory Training Program.
Virginia Department of Highways, Richmond, VA 1973-74 Highway Materials Engineer "A".
I was assistant Head of Soils Lab and was responsible for soils testing and evaluation of test results; responsible for materials studies; responsible for development and evaluation of test procedures.
Advised other department engineers on foundation location and design, slope design, subsidence problems, materials resources.
Spartanburg Technical College, Spartanburg, SC 1974-77 Department Head - Civil Engineering Technology.
Responsible for the course content and quality of the Civil Engineering Technology program.
Taught all courses in curriculum.
Was responsible for department budget and maintenance and purchase of equipment.
Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory, Atlanta Office, Atlanta, GA 1977-78 District Manager and Engineer.
The responsibility for managing the Atlanta Office and overseeing the engineering and testing activities was mine.
The office offered general, and some specialized, engineering and testing services to architects, engineers, contractors, and manufacturers.
Testing, QA services, materials research and engineering analysis were supervised by me.
Duke Power Company, Charlotte, NC 1978-79 Assistant QA Engineer.
Assigned to QA-Engineering and Services.
I was responsible for developing, coordinating, and training QC-Civil inspectors in structural steel, concrete, soils, and coatings.
1979-80 Associated QA Engineer. Assigned to the QA-Construction Division at the Catawba Nuclear Project as QA Engineer Mechanical, Welding, NDE. I Am responsible for providing the supervision and direction for the implementation O
of the QA program in the areas of mechanical piping,
7-RESUME Joe C. Shropshire equipment. and systems testing, and welding and NDE.
1980-Present QA En rineer. Assignment same as 1979-138] except t1at c uring 1981-1982 I was also responsible for the implementation of the QA program for support / restraints.
PROFESSIONAL:
Registered Professional Engineer in West Virginia
(#6476)
Member of American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Member of National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) 4 O
1 4
e O
I l
Attachment I RESUME JOSEPH NORRIS UNDERWOOD
. ~
PERSONAL:
Home Address:
6821 Old Post Road Charlotte, NC 28212 Telephone:
(704)537-5478 (home)
(704)373-8828 (office)
Age:
36 Height:
6'-
4" Weight:
190 lbs.
l FORMAL EDUCATION:
North Carolina State University, BSME 1969 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATES:
Registered Professional Engineer North Carolina #7266; South Carolina #6232 Member - American Society of Mechanical Engineers ADDITIONAL TRAINING:
Miscellaneous Computer Program Usage Seminars (SUPERPIPE, PISOL, ANSYS) - Duke Power Company
()
Piping Analysis - Duke Pcwer Company, EDS Nuclear, Inc.,
I Teledyne WORK EXPERIENCE:
FROM TO TITLE PROGRAM COMPANY 7/82 Present Supervising Catawba Nuclear Duke Design Engineer Station Power In charge of group performing ASME Class 1, 2, and 3 piping stress analysis for Catawba Nuclear Station.
Responsible for developing criteria and procedures to insure all calculations meet ASME Section l
III and ANSI B31.1 Codes, Regulatory Guides and Company defined l
guality assurance guidelines.
Scope includes the analysis of new piping systems, backfit analysis to meet the NRC's IE Bulletin 79-14, and the certification of systems for ASME Code stamping.
5/79 7/82 Supervising McGuire Nuclear Duke Design Engineer Station Power l
Similar piping analysis responsibilities as described above for the McGuire Nuclear Station, but only for ASME Class 2 and 3 systems.
Jn addition, performed equipment qualification analysis and was i
rssponsible for contract administration of companies supplying
Jostph Norris u..amt.euvd PQge 'l
- 1 onsulting services to Duke in the piping analysis and support /
estraint design fields.
Interface directly with management of consulting firms in resolving schedule problems and approving budgets, work scope and budget change requests.
Developed reports to the
' NRC concerning adherence to codes and standards and interfaced
.with that group during audits.
Provided input in developing station cafety analysis report.
9/75 5/79 Assistant Catawba Nuclear Duke Design Engineer Station Power Supervisor of a group of engineers performing piping analysis for the Catawba Nuclear Station.
Responsible for interviewing pro-spective employees, training new engineers and providing general cupervisory functions for the group.
Determined analysis schedules supporting the design of piping systems and supports by other groups.
Provided technical expertise to the group in interpreting codes, developing analysis criteria and procedures and solving major problems uncevdred during the analysis phase.
Developed sections of the station dynamic loads on piping and equipment.
6/72 9/75 Engineer Belews Creek Duke Associate Steam Station Power Work Leader for a group performing piping analysis for the Belews reek Fossil-fired Steam Station.
Identified piping systems requiring
' analysis.
Determined code requirements and developed analysis pro-cedures to meet those requirements.
Scheduled the work of a group of analysts to meet design and construction schedules and checked the analysis performed by the group.
Interfaced with other design groups to optimize plant and equipment design.
Helped author and review purchase specifications for equipment and piping components.
Developed erection and cold pull procedures for high temperature (1000F) piping systems and directed field installation of these systems and their supports.
6/69 6/72 Engineer Oconee Nuclear Duke Assistant Station Power Performed basic engineering calculations on piping components and systems for the Oconee Nuclear Station.
Included static and dynamic analysis to determine thermal flexibility of piping and design loads on supports.
Used hand calculations as well'as state-of-the-art compu te r programs.
Helped develop analysis techniques and verify that computer programs accounted for requirements defined in the ASME Section III Code for nuclear power components.
O
S' I
l i
I i
A////
c?/iI&
C i l /
w h$
/.h,I I
/
/
s e
I t) '* 4 c,
/
e g
jv 3
% 8
,'p
. ~.
. n s
y o
U ?N lf f O}
,,, y
?
l
!' / l/ j 'i N, ~
/
1
?
8 Q%
c i t I
j l
l D
l c;1:isi il l4
/
! i c e I
i
[d
/?'f
/s C VE :
1 l
/
Cl o r
- g v
i
.s I I ab
'i s a
i I
i O
.