ML20133C472

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Testimony of Cd Crisp Re Welding Inspector Concerns
ML20133C472
Person / Time
Site: Catawba, 05000000
Issue date: 09/13/1983
From: Crisp C
DUKE POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20132B649 List:
References
FOIA-84-722 NUDOCS 8507200506
Download: ML20133C472 (8)
v • d • e


Text

" ~

ApM icants ' Exillbit _

7" UNITED STATES OF AMERICA $l3/73

, NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.5D11SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413

) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )'

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?

5 A. Weld Inspection (Visual) Unit #1 Reactor l

6 Q. SUMMARIZE YOUR EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS, INCLUDING 7 OTHER DUKE AND NON-DUKE JOBS, EDUCATION ,

8 CERTIFICATIONS, AND COMPANY SPONSORED COURSES AND 9 TRAINING.

l 10 A. After high school and 1\ years of college, I worked approximately l 11 10 years with Daniel Construction Company . I was schooled in l

12 welding by Daniel Construction Company and worked as a certified

( 13 welder with them on different projects for approximately 9 years.

l 14 After coming to Duke Power Company, I welded for 7 months l

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 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 5 years with 20 Duke.

N. ,

8507200506 850524 PDR FOIA

_ _ _ _ _ _ ____----_______ M Q -_722 _ _ _ _ PDR_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______ ___ _ ___ Je pr] _(py g1___g___ .

's.

1 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH WHAT IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS 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.

1 Q. DO THE DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO YOUR TESTIMONY AS 2 ATTACH >ENT A REFLECT YOUR WRITTEN CONCERNS?

3 A. Yes. '

4 Q. ARE ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS INCLUDED IN THESE DOCUbENTS?

5 A. Yes. .

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 9 perfonn our jobs without influence from the Construction 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 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 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 MANAGEhENT MEMBERS WHERE THE TASK FORCE FINDINGS ,

23 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WERE DISCUSSED?

L

% i' *

.e.

n 1 A. The welding inspectors' concerns were discussed with the Task

('

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 concerns that were considered 5 technical were then to be resolved.

6 Q. WERE THERE ANY CHANGES MADE IN THE QA PROGRAM AFTER 7 THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS AND THE TASK FORCE 8 INVESTIGATION OF THESE CONCERNS?

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 13 re-arrangement.

14 (2) Better management response to problem situations.

k' 15 (3) Employee Relations Department set up for QA.

16 Q. TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE THESE CHANGES ADDRESSED ISSUES 17 RAISED BY THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS AND TO WHAT 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.

l 1 Q. DO YOU FEEL THAT ALL OF YOUR PARTICULAR CONCERNS HAVE 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 10 CHARACTERIZED AS CONCERNS ABOUT THE QUALITY AND 11 SAFETY OF CONSTRUCTION AT CATAWB A. DO YOU AGREE OR 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 L 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 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 excellent 22 QA program here at Catawba. There were some areas which needed 23 some improvement, like the communications between inspectors and 24 management, yet there was never a situation in which the program 25 was not working, to my knowledge.

26 Q. DID YOUR CONCERNS REFLECT A BELIEF ON YOUR PART THAT 27 THE CATAWBA PROJECT IS NOT BEING CONSTRUCTED SAFEi.Y?

n 1 A. No. I do take my job as being a very serious job which I want to 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 CATAWB A?

8 A. Yes, I feel that the QA program as a whole has been very 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 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.

i i .  !

r..

1 Q. HAVE YOU APPROVED ANY WORK THAT DID NOT MEET THE QA STANDARDS AND CRITERIA BECAUSE OF THE PAY 2

3 RECLASSIFICATION OR LOWER MORALE?

4 A. No.

5 .

6 7

8 I hereby certify that I have read and understand this document, and 9 believe it to be my true, accurate and complete testimony.

10 f b. 2112 AJ

~

/

Charles D. Crisp 13 14 15 16 and subscribed before me 17 Sworn this / t!NV day of September,1983.

18 dM/L -

b/7 JArA/

21 ( Notary Public 22 23 Commission Expires [ffe'[ 7/998 D

j i ?,

  • f OV1WS la Ars we.g.n9 to hue. g.hw hdw fc

{i Y intfn te. fh e. do A ud doWV S i h A' o n s,hi

(

o f ts u se.e m. So lenn 4. owned +4 e. wishes o f- fh e. consfruete on i depf.'

l

)o A re 41, e cJ,ances a f Advanc.e m ent s'ene.

\ Comfnny f a beirv pc so h sns . bon, in 94 And lu openings iw *We deper k ens':

90 np to im p re ss. !

1 QC, lssfecl' ors ping fo be N ( s. Ars.bpegel ;oo q bh manopereen l t n N ,,, ,.,.s S Srn en t* M Se S ? .

Q 1, 7 gre ws.ys gelng 4 o be hnndled icoS

\ .fnlrly pcc oro'r'<,$ lajc1,airdal/eeSfo"5'blbe

'- A n f. s lo S o nvo lve s, Duke. Power-Curnpsny support M u

[* h 5aDoes Ed <. A. %f we.lds n y lnsjo <-c rs es mlh }s,e plif.' cal:a.,s H n F nost a+ ou ;n sp<ch<.r h e r e. h n ee ,s e e., a s< - 4.< 4 *'l o ed fo r- nele jo j,;

AnL lh n b t)nke doesn ?' 11 ted in s pclres .o;j.h tuch 0.ostil:c.*ladns , _[E So wh~ is t e. .

I lk*y ' n 1/3<c h " 5 $

  • b *'$ ' e t' pe s:+,o n c,,sf } (C M 4 l"a f 't + h e , a<v l;; cJ. a c, wa<+4 1

/

6. HR l l 4h e re. ce n k s e. +o b e. ;; ;, e ,n j ,,, ,,

\ i o w se r d m s ,7 Nc d 4 f ,1r.e. act.,,, %

U;o it*.fr'c n S a $ proc e.d.< re sa' 00 0 J

~~ ~ - - -- . - . . , . . , _ , , , _ _ _

_

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20133C472&oldid=2882503"