Applicant Exhibit A-97,consisting of Testimony of Je Cavender,We Rogers,Dh Llewellyn & Lr Barnes Re in Camera Witness 2 Allegations Concerning Accuracy of RadiographsML20090K440 |
Person / Time |
---|
Site: |
Catawba ![Duke Energy icon.png](/w/images/7/75/Duke_Energy_icon.png) |
---|
Issue date: |
12/15/1983 |
---|
From: |
Barnes L, Cavender J, Llewellyn D, Rogers W DUKE POWER CO. |
---|
To: |
|
---|
References |
---|
A-097, A-97, NUDOCS 8405240205 |
Download: ML20090K440 (9) |
|
|
---|
Category:EXHIBITS (DOCKETING AND SERVICES BRANCH INFORMATION
MONTHYEARML20116F4931984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-161,consisting of Undated Investigation Results Re Concern 1, Violation of Interpass Temp. No Evidence Found That Interpass Temp Exceeded by Craft in Making Stainless Steel Socket Welds.Table of Welds Encl ML20116F6441984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-172,consisting of Undated Organizational Chart Depicting Welding Craft,Including Crew & Beep Numbers ML20116F2941984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-144,consisting of Undated Listing of Welds,Reflecting Acceptability & Identification of Welder ML20116F5911984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-168,consisting of Pp 207-208 of Item 27, Investigation/Resolution of Concerns, Re Concern 9, Cold Springing ML20116F6171984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-169,consisting of 840316 Memo Forwarding Info Re Welding Foremen Who Have Worked for Wa Smith,Including Performance Review Dates.List of Welders Who Have Worked on Ja Moore Crews Also Encl ML20116F6241984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-171,consisting of 840719 Summary of Util 840620 Meeting W/Nrc & BNL Re Review of Potential welding-induced Sensitization ML20116F4021984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-156,consisting of 840417 Table, Summary of Concerns from Interviews ML20116F5271984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-163,consisting of 840615 Handwritten Notes Re Critical Welds ML20116F3051984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-145,consisting of Undated Table, Welds Requiring Metallurgical Evaluation & Photographs of Various Welds,Including 1NM86-31,1NM55-7 & 1BB130-18 ML20116F5671984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-167,consisting of Pp 32-34 of Item 5, Investigation/Resolution of Concerns, Re Concern 2, Removal of Arc Strikes ML20116F5451984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-165,consisting of Undated Code Ansi/ ASTM a 262-77a, Std Recommended Practices for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Stainless Steels ML20116F3571984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-152,consisting of Util 840726 Employee Rept on Wa Smith.Employee Reprimanded,Removed from Position as Welder General Foreman & Transferred to Duke Station Maint Support Dept on 840803 in Nonsupervisory Capacity ML20116F4551984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-159,consisting of Pp 80-90 of Item 12, Investigation/Resolution of Concerns, Re Concern 1, Interpass Temp ML20116F4231984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-158,consisting of Undated,Handwritten Page A6-i, Assignment Sheet ML20116F4371984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-160,consisting of Pp 53-54 of Item 8, Investigation/Resolution of Concerns, Re Concern 5, Quality of Work Affected by Production Pressure ML20116F3471984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-151,consisting of 840802 Memo Re Second Shift Welding Insp & 840709 Memo Re Second & Third Shift Welding Insp ML20116F6191984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-170,consisting of 840803 Memo Forwarding Technical Comments on Disposition of Welding Concerns 8 & 10 Re Violation of Interpass Temp & Quality of vendor-supplied Welds,Respectively,Per Request ML20116F3941984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-155,consisting of 840808 Memo Re Counseling of WE Rogers on 840802 Concerning Removing of Two Employees from Supervisory Positions.Responsibilities of Welding Superintendent Reiterated ML20116F3731984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-154,consisting of Undated Employee Relations Concerns Action Plan. Plan Includes Specific Action to Be Taken on Listed Individuals & Discussion of General Meeting W/All Craft Superintendents ML20116F3671984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-153,consisting of Util 840726 Employee Rept on a Moore.Employee Reprimanded,Removed from Position as Welder Senior & Transferred to Duke Station Maint Support Dept on 840803 in Nonsupervisory Capacity ML20116F5621984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-166,consisting of 840815 Memo to File Re Individual 148 Concern About Welder B Rept on Arc Strikes ML20116F5041984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-162,consisting of Undated Listing, Generation of Computer Weld List ML20116F4131984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-157,consisting of Tabulation of Concerns from Screening Interviews, ML20116F3251984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-149,consisting of Page 198 of Undated, Unidentified Rept Listing Item 26 - Concern 15 Re Cj Parker Concern About Foreman Giving Copy of Redhead Test to Crew Prior to Test.Unexecuted Affidavit of Cj Parker Encl ML20116F3161984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-148,consisting of Page 195a of 840911 Unidentified Rept Summarizing 840808 Meeting W/T Robertson, J Lewis & Cj Parker Re Resolution of Concerns Raised by Parker During Previous Interviews ML20116F3091984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-147,consisting of Re Util Investigation of Alleged QA Violations at Plant.Prof Qualifications of Author Encl ML20116F3351984-10-11011 October 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-150,consisting of Page 185 of Undated, Unidentified Rept Listing Item 24 - Concern 5 Re Cj Parker Concern About Violation of QA Procedures in Strand Pipes on Groundwater Sumps.Unexecuted Affidavit of Cj Parker Encl ML20106A4131984-06-0808 June 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-J-EP-15,consisting of Updated South Carolina Shelter Listing & Capacities ML20106A3821984-06-0808 June 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-J-EP-53,consisting of Forwarding Student Emergency Plan Brochure.W/O Encl ML20106A3771984-06-0808 June 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-J-EP-54,consisting of Info & Instructions Re Tornado Drill for 840216 ML20106A4151984-06-0707 June 1984 NRC Staff Exhibit S-EP-3a,consisting of Forwarding FEMA 840417 Interim Findings Rept Re Adequacy of Offsite Radiological Emergency Response Preparedness for Facilities.W/O Encl ML20106A3941984-06-0707 June 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-J-EP-52,consisting of Undated Rept on Chemical Fire Noted in Fire Incident 82-3630 ML20106A4071984-06-0606 June 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-J-EP-51,consisting of Unddated Tracking Surveys Info ML20106A3631984-06-0505 June 1984 Applicant Exhibit A-EP-21A,dtd 840530,consisting of Ltr Forwarding Revised Page 6 of Testimony of Eh Harris & Jt Pugh on Behalf of Applicant Re Emergency Planning Contention 8 ML20106A3681984-06-0505 June 1984 Applicant Exhibit A-EP-21,dtd 840416,consisting of Transcript of Testimony of SD Coleman,Jt Pugh,Eh Harris, Pr Lunsford,Wm Mcswain,Be Phillips,Lw Broome & Ps Thomas Re Emergency Planning Contention 8 ML20099J0991984-05-25025 May 1984 Joint Intervenors Exhibit I-50,consisting of Undated Emergency Planning Zone for Southwest Charlotte,Nc as Proposed in OL Proceeding. One Oversize Map Encl.Aperture Card Available in PDR ML20106A4101984-05-24024 May 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-J-EP-49,dtd 840104,consisting of Transcript of Prefiled Testimony of Jl Riley Re Emergency Planning Contentions.Testimony of R Twerry Encl ML20099J3771984-05-24024 May 1984 Applicant Exhibit A-EP-20,consisting of Commenting on Washington Post & Wire Svc Repts.Articles Seriously Misinterpret Draft Repts & Other Info,Giving Public Distorted Picture of Accident Probabilities ML20099K8041984-05-24024 May 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-Joint-EP-48,dtd 840416,consisting of Transcript of Sc Sholly Re Emergency Planning Contention 11. Prof Qualifications Encl ML20099J3891984-05-23023 May 1984 Applicant Exhibit A-EP-19,consisting of 840416 Testimony on Emergency Planning Contention 11 & PRC Rept Effect of 'Shadow' Evacuation on Time to Evacuate Catawba Station Emergency Planning Zone ML20099J3641984-05-23023 May 1984 Applicant Exhibit A-EP-18,consisting of Undated Clarification by Ha Nurkin of Emergency Mgt Planning Review Committee 840516 Action on Request That Board of County Commissioners Contend Emergency Planning Zone Before ASLB ML20099J3541984-05-23023 May 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-EP-46,consisting of City of Charlotte Protective Response Plan for All Hazards,1982 ML20099J1061984-05-23023 May 1984 Joint Intervenor Exhibit EP-44,consisting of Map of North Carolina.One Oversize Map Encl.Aperture Card Available in PDR ML20099J3391984-05-23023 May 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-EP-43,consisting of Table, 1980 Population & Population Density 5 to 30 Miles North Through East Sectors ML20099J3241984-05-23023 May 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-EP-42,consisting of Request for Board Action, Dtd 830913.Study Committee on Emergency Mgt Planning Requested ML20092E1891984-05-11011 May 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-EP-41,consisting of J Lutes Re Carowinds Evacuation ML20092E2571984-05-11011 May 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-EP-39,consisting of T Moore Informing That Emergency Plan Has Not Changed & Plan Will Be Revised Prior to Opening on 840318 ML20092E3851984-05-11011 May 1984 Applicant Exhibit A-EP-17,consisting of 840416 Testimony of RM Glover,Jt Pugh,Pr Lunsford,Wm Mcswain,Be Phillips, Lw Broome & Ps Thomas Re Emergency Planning Contention 9 ML20092E1951984-05-11011 May 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-EP-40,consisting of Agenda of 830201 Carowinds/Ptl Planning Meeting ML20092E2441984-05-10010 May 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-EP-38,consisting of Prefiled Testimony of Palmetto Alliance & Carolina Environ Study Group on Emergency Planning Contentions 1984-06-08
[Table view] Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20197J2871998-12-11011 December 1998 Initial Decision (Application for Senior Reactor Operator License).* Appeal of R Herring of NRC Denial of Application for SRO License Denied.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 981211 ML20151W5721998-09-11011 September 1998 NRC Staff Presentation in Support of Denial of Senior Reactor Operator License for Dl Herring.* Staff Decision to Fail Dl Herring on Category a of SRO Exam,Clearly Justified. Staff Denial of Herring SRO License Should Be Sustained ML20151W5941998-09-11011 September 1998 Affidavit of Cd Payne.* Affidavit Re NRC Staff Proposed Denial of Rl Herring Application for Senior Reactor Operator License for Use at Catawba Nuclear Station,Units 1 & 2 ML20151Y0601998-09-11011 September 1998 Affidavit of DC Payne.* Supports Denial of Application of Rl Herring for SRO License ML20151W6131998-09-0808 September 1998 Affidavit of Mn Leach in Support of NRC Staff Response to Rl Herring Written Presentation.* ML20151W6311998-09-0808 September 1998 Affidavit of ET Beadle.* Affidavit Relates to Denial of Senior Reactor Operator License Application for Rl Herring. with Certificate of Svc ML20237B6931998-08-13013 August 1998 Rl Herring (Denial of Operator License for Plant).* Rl Herring Submitted Written Presentation Arguments,Data, Info Matl & Other Supporting Evidence,Per Presiding Officer 980630 Order & 10CFR2.1233.W/one Oversize Drawing ML20237A3831998-08-12012 August 1998 NRC Staff Request for Extension of Time to File Response to Rl Herring Written Presentation.* Staff Respectfully Requests Motion for Extension of Time of 2 Wks to Respond to Herring Presentation Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20237B5571998-08-12012 August 1998 NRC Staff Request for Extension of Time to File Response to Rl Herring Written Presentation.* Granted by C Bechhoefer on 980818.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 980818 ML20236T8511998-07-21021 July 1998 Specification of Claims.* Rl Herring Claims That Answer Given on Exam Was Correct When TSs Are Considered & When Design Basis Document Considered in Conjunction W/Duke Power Nuclear Sys Div.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 980727 ML20236F5391998-06-30030 June 1998 Memorandum & Order (Hearing File & Spec of Claim).* Orders That Brief Spec of Claims Should Be Filed by Herring,Telling Why He Believes Staff Erred in Grading Exam.Staff Must Furnish Hearing File.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 980630 ML20236F5631998-06-30030 June 1998 Notice of Hearing.* Presiding Officer Has Granted Request of Rl Herring for Hearing on NRC Denial of Application for Operator License for Plant.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 980630 ML20149K8221997-07-29029 July 1997 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR70.24, Criticality Accident Requirements. Exemption Granted TXX-9522, Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources1995-08-26026 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources ML20065P4491994-04-21021 April 1994 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50.55 Recommendation to Incorporate Proposed Rule to Adopt ASME Code Subsections IWE & Iwl ML20044G7371993-05-25025 May 1993 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171, FY91 & 92 Proposed Rule Implementing Us Court of Appeals Decision & Rev of Fee Schedules;100% Fee Recovery,FY93. Opposes Rule ML20101R5931992-07-0606 July 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Loss of All Alternating Current Power & Draft Reg Guide 1.9,task DG-1021.Opposes Rule ML20091Q8661992-01-31031 January 1992 Comment Opposing Draft NUREG-1022,Rev 1, Event Reporting Sys,10CFR50.72 & 50.73,Clarification of NRC Sys & Guidelines for Reporting ML20087F7471992-01-15015 January 1992 Comment Opposing Rev 1 of NUREG-1022, Event Reporting Sys ML20246J6571989-08-31031 August 1989 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty on Licensee in Amount of $75,000 for Violations Noted in Insp on 881127-890204. Payment of Civil Penalty Requested within 30 Days of Order Date.Evaluations & Conclusions Encl ML20247J8921989-08-31031 August 1989 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $75,000, Based on Violations Noted in Insp on 881127-890204,including Operation in Modes 1-4 W/One Independent Containment Air Return & Hydrogen Skimmer Sys Inoperable for 42 Days ML20205N1471988-10-20020 October 1988 Comment on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-50 Re Provision That Authorizes Nuclear Power Plant Operators to Deviate from Tech Specs During Emergency.Request by C Young Should Be Denied ML20234D2821987-09-15015 September 1987 Joint Intervenors Emergency Motion to Continue Hearing for 2 Wks & for Immediate Prehearing Conference.* Urges That Hearing Re Offsite Emergency Planning at Plant,Scheduled for 870928,be Continued Until 871013.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20198C5771986-05-14014 May 1986 Transcript of 860514 Discussion/Possible Vote on Full Power OL for Catawba 2 in Washington,Dc.Pp 1-86.Viewgraphs Encl ML20203N4561986-02-20020 February 1986 Unexecuted Amend 6 to Indemnity Agreement B-100,replacing Item 3 of Attachment to Agreement W/Listed Info ML20151P2231985-12-31031 December 1985 Order Extending Time Until 860110 for Commissioners to Review ALAB-825.Served on 851231 ML20136H7231985-11-21021 November 1985 Decision ALAB-825,affirming Remaining Part of ASLB OL Authorization,Permitting Applicant to Receive & Store Spent Fuel Generated at Duke Power Co Oconee & McGuire Nuclear Power Facilities.Served on 851121 ML20138B3611985-10-11011 October 1985 Order Extending Time Until 851025 for Commission to Act to Review ALAB-813.Served on 851011 ML20137W4311985-10-0202 October 1985 Order Extending Time Until 851011 for Commission to Act to Review ALAB-813.Served on 851003 ML20134N5761985-09-0404 September 1985 Order Extending Time Until 851004 for Commission to Act to Review ALAB-813.Served on 850904 ML20126M2091985-07-30030 July 1985 Order Amending First Paragraph of Footnote 126 Re Need for Power & Financial Qualifications in ALAB-813 . Served on 850731 ML20126K7701985-07-26026 July 1985 Order Extending Time Until 850730 for Commission to Act to Review Director'S Decision DD-85-9.Served on 850729 ML20129C2351985-07-26026 July 1985 Decision ALAB-813 Affirming Aslab Authorization of Issuance of Full Power Ol,Except Insofar as Receipt & Storage Onsite of Spent Fuel Generated at Other Facilities.Served on 850729 ML20129K1651985-07-19019 July 1985 Order Extending Time Until 850726 for Commission to Act to Review Director'S Decision DD-85-9.Served on 850719 ML20129H9361985-07-10010 July 1985 Unexecuted Amend 5 to Indemnity Agreement B-100,changing Items 1 & 3 of Attachment ML20128K2171985-07-0808 July 1985 Order Extending Time Until 850719 for Commission to Act to Review Director'S Decision DD-85-9.Served on 850709 ML20127P0991985-06-28028 June 1985 Transcript of 850628 Supplemental Oral Argument in Bethesda, Md.Pg 99-169 ML20133C5201985-06-26026 June 1985 Undated Testimony of PM Reep Re Welding Inspector Concerns. Rept of Verbal Harassment Encl ML20127K7171985-06-24024 June 1985 Order Extending Time Until 850709 for Commission to Act to Review Director'S Decision DD-85-9 ML20126K6391985-06-17017 June 1985 Order Advising That Counsel Be Familiar W/Content of Commission Request for Public Comment on Decision to Exercise Discretionary Price-Anderson Act Authority to Extend Govt Indemnity to Spent.... Served on 850618 ML20126B8101985-06-13013 June 1985 Order Scheduling Supplemental Oral Argument on Pending Appeals on 850628 in Bethesda,Md Re Public Notice of Hearing Concerning Use of Facility for Receipt & Storage of Spent Fuel from Oconee & Mcguire.Served on 850613 ML20126E4601985-06-13013 June 1985 Notice of Supplemental Oral Argument on Pending Appeals on 850628 in Bethesda,Md.Served on 850613 ML20125B4251985-06-0707 June 1985 Responds to Aslab 850603 Order Requesting Response to NRC 850529 Filing Re Whether Notice of Proposal to Use Catawba to Store Oconee & McGuire Spent Fuel Discretionary or Required.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20126A7631985-06-0404 June 1985 Director'S Decision DD-85-9 Granting & Denying in Part Palmetto Alliance Request for Mod,Suspension or Revocation of CPs for Facilities Due to Harassment & Intimidation of QC Inspectors ML20129A6381985-06-0303 June 1985 Order Allowing Applicant to File & Serve Response to NRC 850529 Assertion Re Storage of Spent Fuel Generated at Another Facility Constituting Use of Commercial Utilization Facility No Later than 850607.Served on 850604 ML20128P0001985-05-29029 May 1985 NRC Views on Whether Notice of Proposal to Use Facility to Store Oconee & McGuire Spent Fuel Required or Discretionary. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20128P1031985-05-29029 May 1985 Memorandum Responding to Palmetto Alliance/Carolina Environ Study Group & Staff 850517 Memoranda Asserting That Fr Notice Not Reasonably Calculated to Inform of Requests Re Spent Fuel.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127K0231985-05-20020 May 1985 Order Extending Time Until 850529 for Aslab to Act to File & Svc Reply Memoranda.Served on 850521 ML20127G2281985-05-17017 May 1985 Memorandum Responding to 850425 Aslab Order Addressing Four Questions Re Receipt & Storage of Spent Fuel.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127H0041985-05-17017 May 1985 Response to Aslab Questions on Adequacy of Notice of Proposed Use of Facility to Store Spent Fuel from Oconee & McGuire Facilities.Aslab Has No Jurisdiction Over Proposal. Certificate of Svc Encl 1998-09-08
[Table view] |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
77 r
/41A'N s v UCm
.. /b UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 67 43 % \)
\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO 7 "9.? i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINk N6 y
'g In the Matter of ) ~1 HG
) -x DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413 (Catawba Nuclear Station,
- -- ) 50-414
)
Units 1 and 2) )
TESTIMONY OF J. E. CAVENDER, W. E. ROGERS, D. H. LLEWELLYN, AND L. R. BARNES REGARDING IN CAMERA WITNESS #2's ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING ACCURACY OF RADIOGRAPHS 1 Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAMES, YOUR BUSINESS ADDRESSES, AND 2 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS.
3 A. Mr. Cavender: My name is John E. Cavender. My business 4 address is P.O. Box S3189, Charlotte, N. C. 28242. I am a 5 Nondestructive Examination Examiner (NDE) Level III. My
@ 6 responsibilities include training and qualification of NDE personnel, 7 the development and approval of NDE procedures, and the periodic 8 review of NDE records. A copy of my professional qualifications is 9 attached to Applicants' testimony addressing the Board's Question 10 Concerning the Containment Spray System.
11 12 Mr. Rogers: My name is W. E. (Bill) Rogers. My business 13 address is Catawba Nuclear Station, P. O. Box 223, Clover, S. C.
14 29710. My current position is Welding Superintendent. I am 15 responsible for Welding at Catawba. My department consist of 16 approximately 550 employees. Prior assignments have included 17 Welding General Foreman, Welding Foreman, Welding Inspector, and 18 Welder with Duke Power. A copy of my professional qualifications nen88ra8aara o
d _
'1 .is attached to Applicants' testimony addressing In Camera Witness 2 .#2's Allegations Concerning Foreman Override.
3 4 Mr. Llewellyn: My' name is D. H. Llewellyn. My business address 5 is Catawba Nuclear Station, P. O. Box 223, Clover, S. C. 29710.
6 My present position is group leader of Technical Support - Welding.
7 A copy of my professional qualifications is attached to Applicant's 8 testimony addressing In Camera Witness #2's Allegations Concerning 9 Foreman Override.
10 11 Mr. Barnes: My name is L. R. Barnes. My business address is 12 Catawba Nuclear Station, P. O. Box 223, Clover, S. C. 29710.
13- My current position is Planning and Control Manager of construction 14 at Catawba Nuclear Station. A copy of my professional i
15 qualifications is attached to Applicants' testimony addressing the .
16 Board's Question Concerning the Containment Spray System.
17 18 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH IN CAMERA WITNESS #2's ALLEGATION 19 THAT RADIOGRAPHS WERE BEING INACCURATELY INTERPRETED i 20- AND THAT THIS COULD HAVE RESULTED IN UNACCEPTABLE 4
21 DEFECTS IN WELDS?
l l-22 A. Yes. We have reviewed his testimony. As support for his allegation-23 the witness' major concerns include the following:
24 (1) ~ Although he is "no radiographer", he states that in attempting 25 to correct -welds which radiographers have determined ' are 26 deficient, at times he could not find the defect noted by the O 27 radiographer or would find a defect .in a location in the weld
)
l l
l t,
~
- ]f NJ 1 other than that noted. Also , he alleges that at times 2 radiographs of corrected welds would point out defects not 3 noted in the earlier radiographs.
4 5 (2) The witness alleges that in early 1982, Mr. Pridmore (one of 6 the "better welders" in Henry Best's crew) had informed him 7 of a weld in the Unit I reactor building which had passed a 8 radiograph inspection in 1960 and in early 1982 had been 9 rejected by a visual welding inspector. [M 10 11 Q. HAVE YOU INVESTIGATED THE ALLEGATION?
12 A. Yes. This investigation consisted of a review of relevant portions 13 of records regarding this issue and discussions with Level I and II 14- radiographers, welders , welder foremen, welder general foreman, 5 and the welder superintendent.
16 17 Q. WHAT WAS THE RESULT OF YOUR INVESTIGATION?
18 A. From our investigation, we determined that radiographers at the 19 Catawba site are qualified to do their job, that adequate controls 20 are in effect to assure that radiographs are accurately interpreted 21 and that unacceptable weld defects are identified and repaired.
22 Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, there are no defective 23 welds. in the Catawba plant. Factors providing support for' this 24 determination include those noted below.
25 1. There are three levels of radiography certification, i.e. ,
26 Level I inspectors (assist in making radiographs), Level 27 II inspectors (may make radiographs on their own and
~. . . .. - .-
I l
. 1
[b 1 2
may interpret them if assigned to an interpreter's position) and Level III examiners (may also perform I
3 functions including administering qualification exams) .
4 The Level I radiographers at the Catawba site are 5 certified only after an extensive and thorough period of' 6 instruction (on the average about 6 months) culminating 7 in a comprehenrive written and practical examination 8 during which they must prove their abilities. To be 9 selected as a candidate for Level II testing and 10 certification, the Level I radiographer must train for a 11 minimum of nine additional months during which time his 12 work is checked to assure that he is completely qualified 13 and that he has sound, basic interpretive skills. The 14 Level II certification is awarded only after another very 15 extensive written and practical exams (e.g. , the practical 16 exam lasts about 2 days). Even after certification, the 17 Level' II radiographers must still undergo an 18 " apprenticeship" before being considered to fill an 19 interpreter's position at Duke. (No Level II QC 20 interpreters at Catawba have had less than 3 years 21 experience, and no Level II QA interpreters at Catawba 22 have had less than 8 years experience.) Further, even 23 af ter being assigned an interpreter's position, the work 24 of the Level II radiographer (like all other certified l 25 radiographers assigned radiographer positions) is i I
26 ' reviewed at least annually and every three years he must i
~O-C/
l 27 undergo a recertification. In short, the radiographers at l
_ _ _ _ _ .I
/~ 1 Catawba are well-trained and highly skilled employees
'2 whose proficiency is. continuously reconfirmed. JEC.
3 4 2. QA Procedure M-4 paragraph 4.7 requires that every 5 radiograph be reviewed and evaluated by a certified NDE 6 Level II Inspector. Procedure NDE-10 paragraph 18 7 requires that the inspector verify that the radiograph is 8 properly exposed and has adequate coverage for 9 interpretation, and that he interprets the radiograph to 10 identify any indications of weld defects which would be 11 rejectable under ASME III NB-5320 or NC-5320, as 12 appropriate, for the weld. In addition, QA Procedure 13 NDE-10 Paragraph 17.2 requires that a separate .avel II 14 inspector check the interpretations of the first inspector 15 for accuracy. If it is determined that a rejectable defect 16 exists , QA Procedure M-4 requires that the weld be 17 rejected until corrections are made and the weld is again 18 radiographed and accepted by two certified Level II 19 Inspectors. This rejection cycle will continue until 20 acceptance is achieved. After total acceptance by two 21 certified NDE Level II film interpreters, procedure M-4 22 paragraph 4.11 requires that ASME Code weld records be 23 made available for review by the Authorized Nuclear 24 Inspector. If he should find a rejectable defect , the i
25 entire cycle begins again. In addition , the Level III 26 inspector periodically reviews the work of the two 27 interpreters. Significantly, In Camera Witness #2 has not 28 identified any weld which is defective or any specific weld 1
t .
- h. I which he questions. In short, procedures require b 2 thorough and independent review of all radiographs by at 3 least two qualified inspectors and periodic checks of these 4 reviews by a third Level III Inspector and the Authorized 5 Nuclear Inspector. JEC, LRB .
6 7 3. With regard to In Camera Witness #2's concerns regarding 8 not finding defects or finding defects in locations other 9 than that identified by the Level II radiography 10 reviewers, there are several possible explanations for 11 this. First, when a welder cuts into a weld using an air 12 arc to remove an identified defect, he quite likely will 13 remove the metal so quickly that some defects may be 14 removed before he sees them. When blending out a 15 smooth repair area, he might also come across a small 16 area of porosity or slag that he might consider to be a 17 defect , but because of its size may be acceptable under 18 the Code. JEC, WER, -
19 20 Second, the actual process of radiographing and 21 providing the welder information on any identifiable defect 22 will, in many cases, result in a shift in the observed 23 location of the defect. To explain, when a defect is 24 identified on a radiograph, the interpreter prepares, on a 25 piece of translucent plastic, a tracing of the radiograph 26 showing the location and nature of the rejectable defect 27 by referencing it to location numbers around the 28 circumference of the weld. Prior to repairing the weld,
- p 1 the welder should align the location numbers on the 2 tracing to the corresponding locations on the weld which 3 were marked during radiography. Failure to carefully 4 and accurately align the location numbers and weld 5 configuration can result in improperly marking the defect 6 locatior. on the weld , i.e., shifting of the defect. In 7 addition, the geometrical relationship between the source 8 used in radiography, the defect, and the film can result 9 in the defect location on the tracing being displaced from 10 the actual defect location on the weld circumference. In 11 any event, the allegations that defects pointed out by 12 radiographs may not be found by the welder, or may not 13 be found in the precise locations noted, provides no basis 14 for concluding that rejectable defects in welds are not 15 being identified and corrected. The witness has not 16 pointed out any welds where this is the case. (It should 17 be noted that we raised this issue with many other 18 welders at Catawba and they stated that this was not an 19 area of concern). In any event, because radiographs of 20 areas of weld repair are done on not only the area of 21 concern but also on the two adjacent areas, any rejectable 22 defects not corrected in the initial repair effort will be 23 identified in the subsequent radiograph. While this could 24 lead to a greater expenditure of Duke resources, it is not 25 a situation affecting plant safety. JEC, WER, DHL.
.26 27 4. With regard to In Camera Witness #2's concern that new 28 radiographs of welds which had previously been corrected
y-4 D'
Q -1 reflected defects in areas which were not repaired, there
. 2 are several possible explanations. First, the new i
3 radiograph may have been made using more sensitive film 4 than was used originally. (The Code requires that film
-5. have a certain minimum sensitivity, but we sometimes use 6 more sensitive film ' to aid the interpreter to evaluate 7 This is completely in accordance I borderline indications.) !
8 with the Code and is not indicative of faulty ['
9 interpretation of the initial radiograph or rejectable n
10 " defects" slipping by the process. JEC.
Y 11 i 12 A second possible explanation regarding "new" defects in 13 reradiographed welds is the practice of opening a small i 14 hole through the weld on the opposite side from the 15 repair area so that the interior side of the repair can be 16 observed during welding in order to avoid root defects.
17 This " viewing port" must be rewelded, and its area 18 reradiographed to assure no defects are present. This f 19 appears to be the situation that the In Camera Witness #2 20 is referring to on Tr. 291. JEC, WER.
21 22 A third possible explanation regarding "new" defects in 23 reradiographed welds is that if a defect is repaired near l
24 a location marker; not only is the area - in which - the 25' repair was made. reradiographed, but also - the adjacent 26 area in order to assure complete coverage. This different 27 radiograph geometry could detect a previously undetected .
28 . indication . Because of Duke's conservative policy this I
-, ,_, _ , .,m,._. _ _ - , - _ . - _ , . .
e.
.O
(
1 new indication would receive appropriate attention. JE C ,
2 WER.
3 4 The significant point regarding this concern is that while r 5 more welder time may be needed to repair defects in areas 6 where originally no defects were noted, or defects which 7 " suddenly" appear in locations other than where they 8 were reported, in neither case is the interpretative skill
- 9 of the reviewer called into question or the final adequacy 10 of the weld at issue. It should be noted that we asked 11 many welders at. Catawba if they had a concern similar to 12 the witness and in no case did any respond that they 13 did. JEC, WER.
14 15 5. With regard to In Camera Witness #2's concerns regarding 16 the rejected weld of Mr. Prid more (identified as 17 INC56-8), this incident was docum nted on nonconforming 18 item report 12549. The report and subsequent discussions 19 revealed that the NDE Level III Inspector had evaluated 20 this weld ~ and determined that the radiograph was
_ 21 accurately interpreted and that the weld was acceptable.
l 22 However, in that there was some disagreement (of whh.h I
l 23 thh hard h:: alrady h--A +- " =y) regarding the l 24 weld , Duke chose the conservative approach and took 25 appropriate action. Specifically, some additional grinding 26 was done on the weld , it was reinspected and G
l b 27 reradiographed and determined to meet requirements of l
28 ASME III NC-4424(e). JEC, DHL, LRB.
.g.
l
G~
/
A /
n )/ / . .-
,8M,? Q ',)'g l/ 9/ /f e .,.<
8 "y f e' /
! 7'
.$y?4h,i ! '
/ ,
sp{////l/)?:Qf
.; '?' l ,/ ,/
4N5 ,f ,' ,/,! ,
/j' I C l c';/,,/,//}Q c ,e
'W' _$
G J ,/
, /
r O