ML20090K493

Applicant Exhibit A-103,consisting of Testimony of RA Morgan Re Langley Allegations of Prior Notification of NRC Insps

ML20090K493
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	12/16/1983
From:	Morgan R DUKE POWER CO.
To:
References
A-103, NUDOCS 8405240225
Download: ML20090K493 (6)

Text

. -. - . .

4 Exhibit 103 et v

/

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA M' .I//

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSibN' ~Ib C) BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

/: -

%v

'O

._ ; , n

'fO4 In the Matter of ) -

g:qE51 t7

) - s cu M .O DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Dock 'Nos. "5d-413

) w @'"'50p14-(Catawba Nuclear Station, ) i Units 1 and 2) )

TESTIMCNY OF ROBERT A. MORGAN CONCERNING MR. LANGLEY'S ALEP.GATION O.5 PRIOR NOTIFICATION OF NRC INSPECTIONS 1 Q. STATE YOUR Ni AE AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.

2 A. My name is Robi et A. Morgan and my business address is Catawba j 3 Nuclear fitation, P. O. Box 223, Clover, South Carolina, 29710.

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

7 A. I am presently Senior Quality Assurance Engineer at the Catawba 8 Nuclear Station. A complete description of my job, as well as my 9 professional experience and qualifications, is set forth in my 10 previously filed testimony.

11 1

12 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH MR. LANGLEY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE 4

13 COMPANY WAS AWARE OF WHEN THE NRC WAS COMING TO THE 14 SITE FOR INSPECTIONS?

15 A. Yes, I was present. when Mr. Langley. testified about this allegation -

16 in. Rock Hill, South Carolina and I have also reviewed the transcript 17 of his testimony.

O

• 8405240225 831216 POR ADOCK 05000413

g. PDR

4, -

l.

l l

1 Q. TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THERE ANY BASIS FOR 2 THIS ALLEGATION?

3- A. No. I have been on the project since 1976 and have never had any 4 prenotification of an -NRC inspection. I am, and have been, the 5 primary NRC ' contact for the project QA organization. The

. 6 majority of the NRC inspections are unannounced, and to the best 7 of my knowledge, the company is not aware of the timing of 8 these visits. The NRC inspectors simply appear at the site when 9 they are ready to begin an inspection. We have been ' asked by the 10 NRC Regional Office to advise them of our schedule on certain 11 activities. These activities are events that will occur only 12 once per project, like reactor vessel setting, and concrete 13 pours on the reactor dome. In these _ instances, we expected Q 14 an NRC inspection during these activities. Since a resident 15 has been assigned to the Catawba project we have not had to 16 advise the NRC regional office of these type events.

17 18 Q. DID NRC EVER SPECIFY WHAT .THEY WANTED TO INSPECT?

19 A. Yes. Upon arrival at the site it is normal practice for the 20 visiting Region II inspector to advise the project management 21 of the major areas which he plans to examine during his 4

l 22 inspection. For example, if 'the visiting inspector told i

23 management ' in the preinspection conference that he planned to 24 look at containment erection and . welding, we advised supervision 25 in .the affected area that a - visiting inspector from NRC was on 26 site. We advised supervision in -the area so that .'we could have h' ~ 27 Construction and QA Technical Support _ personnel available

l

-4 2,>e.... -

1 . to answer procedural and code questions, QC inspection 2 supervision available to answer inspection questions, and Craft J

3 supervision available to answer erection and welding questions.

i i

k i

I A.

1

(

e O

i l

i L

O

-- a.a a a .ma m a '- e - en.,a m a

)

k i

9 I

f l

l ic

/

O I f 1 / /

I

. '/ /r' y Q /

I

'5

' 4G) l

1. . y/

Qi si - hi w/,/

c;9 c s;, / , '/

+ cs. :

j q i/,i 6'nyf?r '

? / cf f f ,' ',I $?

/ /

s!ft i

l

, . ! ,7?D g

69 / , ,

E i Y y

}e . e

-l el ~e. . .;

,'d l

/ /

v w

.tli e

0 >-,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k/g3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

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

--)) 50-414

/

Units 1 and 2) )

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. MORGAN CONCERNING MR. LANGLEY'S ALLEGATION OF PRIOR NOTIFICATION OF NRC INSPECTIONS 1 Q. STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.

2 A. My name is Robert A. Morgan 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.

7 A. I am presently Senior Quality Assurance Engineer at the Catawba 8 Nuclear Station. A complete description of my job, as well as my 9 professional experience and qualifications, is 1,et forth in my 10 previously filed testimony.

11 12 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH MR. LANGLEY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE 13 COMPANY WAS AWARE OF WHEN THE NRC WAS COMING TO THE 14 SITE FOR INSPECTIONS?

15 A. Yes, I was present when Mr. Langley testified about this allegation 16 in Rock Hill, South Carolina and I have also reviewed the transcript 17 of his testimony.

/~7 (O.

l

1. 1 Q. TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THERE ANY BASIS FOR 2 THIS ALLEGATION?

3 A. No. I have been on the project since 1976 and have never had any 4 prenotification of an NRC inspection. I am, and have been, the 5 primary NRC contact for the project QA organization. The 6 majority of the NRC inspections are unannounced, and to the best

7 of my knowledge, the company is not aware of the timing of 8 these visits. The NRC inspectors simply appear at the site when 9 they are ready to begin an inspection. We have been asked by the 10 NRC Regional Office to advise them of our schedule on certain

]

11 activities. These activities are events that will occur only 12 once per project, like reactor vessel setting, and concrete t

13 pours on the reactor dome. In these instances, we expected I 14 an NRC inspection during these activities. Since a resident 15 has been assigned to the Catawba project we have not had to

, 16 advise the NRC regional office of these type events.

, 17

) 18 Q. DID NRC EVER SPECIFY WHAT THEY WANTED TO INSPECT?

19 A. Yes. Upon arrival at the site it is normal practice for the

20 visiting Region II inspector to advise the project management

( 21 of the major areas which 'he plans to examine during his 22 inspection. For example, if the visiting inspector told 23 management in the preinspection conference that he planned to i 24 look at containment erection and . welding, we advised supervision 25~ in the affected area that a visiting inspector from NRC was on 26 site. We advised supervision in the - area so that we could have 27 Construction and QA Technical Support personnel available L

• .i ,,, .- ,, . . - - - - . . - . - - - - - -- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

)

l ?'

,- n 1 to answer procedural and code questions, QC inspection 2 supervision available to answer inspection questions, and Craft i- 3 supervision available to answer erection and welding questions. -

i i

4 l

I e

I' 4

s i

I i

3-1 b

9

---

___r --- - -r- - , - - s r,--e- -,-s-- - ,e m aw e-, r -,-,,-n ,-e-w. - - , - -------,---m---n~-w-e-- -w -- ~,e,--www--e. - we,- mm4-or

,m, - -~

r 6

(

i 0

v.

y

,m

/

. //

<LG 3

N .

/'

y

/ j

'}

1. f&?f2 gvch .

p/ ,

- N,..

cOf./o / , . -',

, /-

/ ,/

/ -

z ' ,e yt\~

,- s p

j]- j#' ,/

so'

~ ' ,

l ,

q!

9 I

V' ,"" ,,

f,/

' 4 ,, / -

$"' f '

l ss- O

l

'l l

l l

OI 1

i t

! I

_ . _ _ _ - _