ML20090L022
| ML20090L022 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1983 |
| From: | Crisp C DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| A-057, A-57, NUDOCS 8405240545 | |
| Download: ML20090L022 (8) | |
Text
- _ - -
Applicants' Exhibit f
W e
y29 83 a
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION poegtID t
\\
S-t V
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING IdhRDJ\\R 20 GM"
)
V cIsb CH p#*#
In the Matter of
)
,g, 3
)
q, DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. )
Docket Nos.
50' m
i
)
50-414' -
(Catawba Nuclear Station,
)
1 Units 1 and 2)
)
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES D. CRISP 1
Q.
STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR WORK ADDRESS.
2 A.
Charles D. Crisp, Catawba Nuclear Project, P.O. Box 223, Clover, 3
SC 29710.
4 Q.
WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT JOB WITH DUKE POWER COMPANY 7 5
A.
Weld Inspection (Visual) Unit #1 Reactor 6
Q.
SUMMARIZE YOUR EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS, INCLUDING 7
OTHER DUKE AND NON-DUKE
- JOBS, EDUCATION, O
8 CERTIFICATIONS, AND COMPANY SPONSORED COURSES AND 9
TRAINING.
10 A.
After high school and 1\\ years of college, I worked approximately 11 10 years with Daniel Construction Company.
I was schooled in 12 welding.by Daniel Construction Company and worked as a certified t
13 welder with them on different projects for approximately 9 years.
14 After coming to Duke Power Company, I welded for 7 months 15 in 1977.
I have been certified in acid etching.
I have been 16 schooled-in MT and PT and have reached Level I stage and finished a
17 Level II schooling, but am not yet Level II certified.
I have also 18 been schooled by Duke on ASME welding symbols.
I have been a 19 certified Level II Visual Inspector for approximately 54 years with -
20 Duke.
L 8405240545 831129 DR ADOCK 05000
1 Q.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH WHAT IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS g
2 THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS WHICH WERE EXPRESSED IN 3
LATE 1981/EARLY 1982?
4 A.
Yes.
5 Q.
WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THESE CONCERNS 6
WERE?
7 A.
My understanding is that these concerns dealt primarily with a lack 8
of support of the QA Inspectors from upper management.
In many 9
instances, upper management seemed to be influenced by the 10 Construction Department in resolving QA - craft disputes and in 11 many cases did not back the inspector.
12 Q.
DID YOU EXPRESS ANY CONCERNS AS A WELDING INSPECTOR TO 13 ANY OF THE TASK FORCES OR TO DUKE POWER MANAGEMENT?
14 A.
Yes.
15 Q.
TO WHOM DID YOU EXPRESS YOUR CONCERNS?
16 A.
I expressed my concerns to Bob Morgan, and Task Force I.
17 Q.
WERE YOUR CONCERNS WRITTEN?
18 A.
Yes.
19 Q.
DESCRIBE EACH DOCUMENT WHICH CONTAINS YOUR EXPRESSION 20 OF CONCERNS, AND INDICATE WHO IT WAS SUBMITTED TO.
21 A.
I had six written concerns, which were submitted to Larry Davison.
22 Q.
DID YOU FEEL FREE TO EXPRESS ALL OF _ YOUR CONCERNS?
23 A.
Yes.
24 '
Q.
DID YOU EXPRESS ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS?
25 A.
Yes.
O i
1 Q.
DO THE DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO YOUR TESTIMONY AS 2
ATTACHMENT A REFLECT YOUR WRITTEN CONCERNS?
e 3
A.
Yes.
4 Q.
ARE ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS INCLUDED IN THESE -DOCUMENTS?
5 A.
Yes.
t 6
Q.
PLEASE SUMMARIZE AND EXPLAIN WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO 7
COMMUNICATE BY YOUR CONCERNS.
8 A.
(1) I was concerned that we inspectors would have freedom to -
l 9
perform our jobs without influence from the Construction i
10 Department, and that management would support us 100% in 11 performing our jobs according to procedures.
12 (2) I was concerned that the inspectors would be treated fairly in 13 all ways by Duke. Power;- that there be no attempt to get back 14 at inspectors involved in the recourse proceedings; and that.
i 15 inspectors be considered for promotions to other positions.
I 16 was also concerned that inspectors' positions be : evaluated 17 fairly as to the job that inspectors 'are required to do with l
18 Duke.
19 Q.
WERE YOUR CONCERNS INVESTIGATED BY THE TASK FORCES?
20 A.
Yes.
21 Q.
DID YOU ATTEND ANY MEETINGS WITH TASK FORCE AND/OR QA 22 MANAGEMENT MEMBERS WHERE THE TASK FORCE FINDINGS, l
23 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WERE DISCUSSED?
i
\\
O
' t
.,.,....____,,w.-.-.,.._-,_~..m..
,, _,.,...,,,,, ~.,
=
1 A.
The welding inspectors' concerns were discussed with the Task 0'
2 Force and inspectors in these meetings.
Then they were further 3
investigated by the Task Force to determine whether they were 4
technical or non-technical.
The coicerns that were considered 5
technical were then to be resolved.
6 Q.
WERE TIIERE ANY CHANGES MADE IN THE QA PROGRAM AFTER 7
THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS AND THE TASK FORCE 8
INVESTIGATION OF THESE CONCERNS?
I 9
A.
Yes.
10 Q.
DESCRIBE THE CHANGES OF WHICH YOU ARE AWARE IN THE QA 11 PROGRAM.
12 A.
(1) There were some upper management changes, Supervision i
13 re-arrangement.
14 (2) Better management response to problem situations.
4 15 (3) Employee Relations Department set up for QA.
16 Q.
TO WilAT EXTENT HAVE THESE CHANGES ADDRESSED ISSUES 17 RAISED BY THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS AND TO WHAT i
18 EXTENT HAVE THESE CHANGES ADDRESSED YOUR PARTICULAR 19 CONCERNS?
20 A.
We have had better response to problems from management.
We 21 have been backed better by management since these changes were 22 made and more attention has been shown toward problems, as far as 23 correcting them within the guidelines of the QA procedures.
We 24 have felt less pressure from Construction over problems.
In other 25 words, in solving problems there is now less of a lean toward 26 satisfying construction's wishes.
O
t i-1 Q.
DO YOU FEEL THAT ALL OF YOUR PARTICULAR CONCERNS HAVE 0
2 BEEN RESOLVED?
3 A.
Not entirely.
4 Q.
IF NOT, DO ANY OF THESE UNRESOLVED CONCERNS RELATE TO 5
THE QUALITY AND SAFE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PLANT?
6 A.
No.
My other concerns involved the lack of opportunity for 7
inspectors to promote or - transfer into other jobs.
Also I still 8
disagree with the decision on the pay reclassification.
9 Q.
THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS HAVE BEEN I
10 CHARACTERIZED AS CONCERNS ABOUT THE QUALITY AND 11 SAFETY OF CONSTRUCTION AT CATAWBA.
DO YOU AGREE OR l
12 DISAGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION?
13 A.
I disagree.
I feel that Catawba Nuclear Plant is built well and is 14 within all safety codes and procedures.
In fact, I feel that the 15 overall construction at Catawba, from what I know about it, is built 16 with more quality and safety than the codes require.
[
17 Q.
DID THE EXPRESSION OF YOUR CONCERNS INDICATE YOUR l
18 BELIEF THAT THERE WAS A BREAKDOWN IN THE QA PROGRAM 19 OR INDICATE THAT THE QA PROGRAM WAS NO LONGER 20 WORKING?
21 A.
No.
I feel we have at present and have always had an exceUent 22 QA program here at Catawba. There were some areas which needed 23 some improvement, like the communict.tions between inspectors and 24 management, yet there was never a situation in which the program I
25 was not working, to my knowledge.
l 26 Q.
DID YOUR CONCERNS REFLECT A BELIEF ON YOUR PART' THAT
! h 27
-THE CATAWBA PROJECT IS NOT BEING CONSTRUCTED SAFELY?
a
,m 1
A.
No.
I do take my job as being a very serious job which I want to
)
.( V 2
perform to the best of my ability, and I want to see that all nuclear 3
safety related projects are constructed according to design.
I do 4
feel that this project is being, and has been in the past, 5
constructed extremely well.
6 Q.
IN YOUR VIEW, HAS THE QA PROGRAM BEEN EFFECTIVE WHILE 7
YOU HAVE WORKED AS AN INSPECTOR AT CATAWBA?
8 A.
- Yes, I feel that the QA program as a whole has been very j
9 effective.
The concerns that were raised were dealt with in a very 10 professional manner and resolved.
Here, I mean all concerns that 11 were found to be of a technical nature.
The non-technical concerns 12 were dealt within a professional manner, and there have been some 13 improvements because of these concerns, but I still disagree with 14 the pay reclassification and have some questions about whether some O'
15 of the non-technical conserns have been resolved.
16 Q.
ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY DEFICIENCIES IN CONSTRUCTION OR IN 17 THE QA PROGRAM WHICH WOULD CAUSE YOU TO QUESTION 18 WHETHER CATAWBA IS SAFELY BUILT?
19 A.
None.
20 Q.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO YOUR
.21 TESTIMONY?
22 A.
Nothing as far as Construction Safety; however, inspector morale 23 has seemed to be lower since our job classification was lowered.
24 The same incentive, just doesn't seem to be there as there one time 25 was.
O v.
t 1
Q.
HAVE YOU APPROVED ANY WORK THAT DID NOT MEET THE QA 2
STANDARDS AND CRITERIA BECAUSE OF THE PAY 3
RECLASSIFICATION OR LOWER MORALE?
4-A.
No.
5 i
6 7
i 8
I hereby certify that I have read and understand this document, and I
9 believe it to be my true, accurate and complete testimony.
10 IE
(%1u
- 13. /%h 13 Charles D. Crisp-
~
/
14 15 16 Sworn t and subscribed before me 17 this /$ /V day of September,1983.
I 18 0
(
k'4 417 lM urA/
l 21
(
Notary Public ~'
~
22
)
23 Commission Expires eft [ I//98 i
l I
O l
~7~
.,_,,.-..---,,...--..,.,-..)
Coiv.2.ernis i
Y
\\c, Ars we.go;ny ts k.;e. scJ, oat Mw h imfto /e. +b t-do Aud doWV 5ihs#1/ ten 2,%d ofteu seen lo Jenn 4o an,d.I.l, e. wishes o b fh e. Consfeuch on i depff p e, A re 41, e c),ance.s a f ndwie=.m ent tw/ke.
K company to betra, p s, /,sa.r.bott, in pg A nd ini open in 9 s iw aMe depnrf<**e&
9on3 +v i m p <o <= !
1 ( s. Are qc teapafag goin9 Fo be bseJred.
1 o o 7s b
"' ^ " ^9 ' " l ' "
y,,-p s sm en t ca se s.
t No firt wAplS fcEnf -l o be befndlcd / dog
'N
$dirll Pecordo',,$
Ja, job gng gll,egpong,j,/, /g, n n 4 d.< lie S invo Ire 2, l)4 e Power-campsoy support F4 e
% Does k
.'k id e. A. fh nt' we.ldi ny in sp e--c.rs es sa dh pt.
ju lif:enllo., s f h n f o,.,o st o+- ou r- ;,, spe ch e.r h e r e. h n es e O s< e 9 *l**l* ed fo r-4kele jo b AnL lh n f DJs. doesn ? n eed in s poe.%>.s,a;,j.h
?
tuch 0.< mliI:ca Usn s,
t F So w h y Are..
lk e y n c 4-l to ttd 4 I" f in Sf *t lD 'S I* b I h e e' ff pc s,'fs o ns we S '; c 4 +h e o r-Q u a t {lc Ah c.,c, ex 6. LAli I l 'll, e r.e.
ce n f ta, u e. +o fe j;pg,.,j,
$0witrd ineny NC T$ -fhn f M re. Q e fln,'fe.
0lo ite.fa'o n $ e $~ proce.dures!
ODbl9 O
i
a m--
-~a u
n>a u.u a-4 m
m.a I
O:
C<\\ /.
/
/
-x 7
./
/
/
/
m'
/' /
f
/\\<f ),
j
-,/
cJ n N;/
n s.,cT J '
se l
v4 s w p' x:-,'
l
, ^., q f
/e 7
b g
l P_/
~,,'
y l
/..
r e '>
/
,S'
{
ia>
/
.).
(. fg 7
s.$
v e
eq O
,/
)
l I
I o 9 1
I
, -. -