ML20090K447

Applicant Exhibit A-98,consisting of Testimony of Lr Davison Re Langley Allegation of Prior Notification of NRC Inspectors Visits

ML20090K447
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	12/16/1983
From:	Davison L DUKE POWER CO.
To:
References
A-098, A-98, NUDOCS 8405240209
Download: ML20090K447 (5)

Text

h

• hs

'4 f' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

s f [/f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9 - 2 11

~

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING OA D

[sj D0ct:.w In the Matter of ) L', D 1984,>. j

) -

cr."avQics  :

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. %5.0-413pq q' cu A

-) "50 414 X,N (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2)

)

)

'7 kgO TESTIMONY OF LARRY R. DAVISON CONCERNING MR. LANGLEY'S ALLEGATION OF PRIOR NOTIFICATION OF NRC INSPECTIONS 1 Q. STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.

2 A. My name is Larry R. Davison, and my business address is Catawba 3 Nuclear Station, P. O. Box 223, Clover, South Carolina 29710.

4 5 Q. STATE YOUR PRESENT JOB POSITION WITH DUKE POWER 6 COMPANY AND DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF YOUR JOB.

i 7 A. I am Project Quality Assurance Manager responsible for Quality 1

8 Assurance during construction of the Catawba Nuclear Station. A 9 detailed description of the nature of my job , as well as my 10 professional experience and qualifications, is set forth in my 11 previously filed testimony.

12 i 13 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH MR. LANGLEY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE 14 COMPANY WAS AWARE OF WHEN THE NRC WAS COMING FOR SITE 15 INSPECTIONS?

16 A. Yes, I am familiar with Mr. Langley's allegation that inspectors I

17 received prior notification of forthcoming inspections by the NRC or 18 the Authorized Nuclear Inspectors. To me, Mr. Langley's testimony 19 is unclear. He says that he knew when NRC was coming, and that I-l 8405240209 831216 PDR ADOCK 05000413

-Q PDR

is ,

s 1 he got notes in his " pigeonhole" or. message box that said a hold ,

2 point was going to be looked at, but he didn't know who was going 3 to look at it; he thought it might be the NRC.

4

, 5 Q. DESCRIBE YOUR ROLE AND RELATIONSHIP WITH NRC i

6 INSPECTORS WHO VISITED THE CATAWBA SITE.

7 A. Most NRC inspections were unannounced. That is, no one at Duke 8 knew when they were coming until they arrived at the site. Upon 9 arrival, the NRC inspectors would generally hold an entrance 10 conference with site management to let them know they were there 11 and let them know what area of interest they would be looking into.

12 i

13 Once the NRC inspectors indicated the general areas they were l going to be looking at, the NRC inspector would be directed to the

, 14 15 people who handled that area. The areas to be inspected were not 16 secret and word of these areas was communicated by management so l 17- that the appropriate people would know they would be seeing the 18 NRC inspectors. For example, if the NRC wanted to look at pipe 19 welding, they would be escorted to the field where they would 20 select what specific welds they wanted to see. If we knew the NRC l

21 inspector was going to look into pipe welding it wat not uncommon

! 22 to make craft, technical support, and QC supervisors aware that I

f 23 the NRC would be looking into those areas. This was done so that l 24 the appropriate people could be available to answer questions or l_ 25 provide information to the NRC.

i l0

.4 s 1 If the NRC wanted to inspect specific one time events, such as a

.C) (.s 2 specific concrete pour or the setting of the reactor vessel, they 3 would ask us to notify them just prior to the event. In these 4 cases Duke did know in advance what the NRC might be inspecting, 5 but this knowledge did not have any effect on the work activity.

6 These inspections by the NRC were rare compared to the 7 unannounced visits.

8 9 Q. HAVE YOU INVESTIGATED THIS ALLEGATION?

10 A. Yes, I have reviewed his testimony and researched the allegation to 11 determine if it is valid. I have discussed the allegation of 12 prenotification with QC welding inspectors, and the first level 13 supervisor during Mr. Langley's employment. I have personal 14 knowledge of the practice of disseminating information to

('

15 inspectors.

16 17 I have also talked with other site personnel and these discussions 18 did not substantiate his allegations.

. 19 20 The inspectors usually learn of the presence of an NRC inspector 21 on site by word-of-mouth. Before the assignment of a resident 22 inspector in 1979, visits by the NRC were " news." When the NRC 23 inspector identifies to site personnel his area of interest, it has 24 been our practice to notify supervision in that area that they 25 will be visited by the NRC inspector.

L i 1 Q. WHAT ARE YOUR CONCLUSIONS AS A RESULT OF THIS 2 INVESTIGATION?

3 A. I find no evidence that prior notification of NRC inspections of 4 items is or has been a practice at Catawba.

5 6 From discussions with inspectors and the welding inspector 7 supervision, prenotification to welding inspectors of specific 8 items to be inspected by the NRC did not occur unless the NRC 9 had an announced inspection. Even then the work and inspections 10 were not modified because of any notification.

11 12 Q. HAVE YOU FORMED AN OPINION OF WHAT MR. LANGLEY MAY BE 13 REFERRING TO IN THIS ALLEGATION?

14 A. Yes. Mr. Langley may have been referring to the Authorized 15 Nuclear Inspector ( ANI), a resident inspector required by the 16 ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code. They have the authority to 17 establish hold points on the work travelers (process control) to 18 indicate specific steps they may want to inspect. In such cases 19 the specific step is clearly indicated to the inspector and 20 craftsmen. ANI's also have the right to inspect work in progress 21 randomly, and they do so. The ANI might have indicated to an 22 inspector a specific step they wanted to witness by placing a 23 note in the inspector's box.

24 0

a .

l t 1 It appears that Mr. Langley is ' confused on what the notes were for 2 and he did not understand them. Mr. Langley probably did know 3 by word-of-mouth when the NRC was on site and looking at welding 4 and he probably incorrectly assumed the notes he saw were about ll 5 these inspections.

I b.

l i

i i

t 2

i I

l

-_- m .a  ; wm, - g ----,,-, -s1 e

5 l

l I

/

' n

,n, G$ -

i

/

/

!.//

.7 4

s-,- ,e /

/ /

N-- a '? '/ /

i ,

e i i

/> ,Y j N-f -

c. ,4 a /

,- /

sl /

7

=~ <' , . ( / /

,6,.

b

/

F:.J u' <

'* 7'

> i

' k'f ,!

r f,V, ,,/ / /

/ j' ,h'; ,

I

/ / /

l/ / ,/ ,

j.'fa /b e; /  ;/ ',',,' ,i/ c/ f % M

/j 'y

. o . , . i l ;

c-

/ j '

l

~

/ i

,'Y g / /

,y f>

R l

l I

l r

e

__ -_ .__ - -_