ML20133C552

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Testimony of Jr Mccoy Re Welding Inspector Concerns
ML20133C552
Person / Time
Site: Catawba, 05000000
Issue date: 09/13/1983
From: Mccoy J
DUKE POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20132B649 List:
References
FOIA-84-722 NUDOCS 8507200526
Download: ML20133C552 (8)
v • d • e


Text

Applicants' Exhibit 9l f

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 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 JOHN R. MCCOY 1

Q.

STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR WORK ADDRESS.

2 A.

John R. McCoy, Catawba Nuclear Station, P.O. Box 223, Clover, 3

SC, 29710.

4 Q.

WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT JOB WITH DUKE POWER COMPANY?

5 A.

I am QA Welding Inspector, inspecting welding of all kinds,

6 primarily in the Auxiliary Building.

7 Q.

SUMMARIZE YOUR EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS', INCLUDING

(

8 OTHER NON-DUKE JOBS, EDUCATION, CERTIFICATIONS, AND 9

COMPANY SPONSORED COURSES AND TRAINING.

10 A.

I have been a

welder since

1970, primarily with Daniels 11 Construction Company.

I have one year of vocational trauung and 12 one year of college.

13 Q.

WHAT OTHER JOB POSITIONS HAVE YOU HELD WITH DUKE POWER 14 COMPANY?

15 A.

I was a certified welder prior to transferring to the QC inspector 16 position in 1979.

17 Q.

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH WHAT IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS 18 THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS WHICH WERE EXPRESSED IN 19 LATE 1981/EARLY 1982?

20 A.

Yes.

s C

B507200526 850524 h

PDR FOIA

\\

(

BELL 84-722 PDR fo i A f Y 7 A 1

mm 1

Q.

WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THESE CONCERNS 2

WERE?

3 A.

The welding inspectors as individuals had some concerns that the 4

Construction and QA Procedures from time to time were not being 5

followed as outlined and they got together and submitted these 6

feelings.

7 Q.

DID YOU EXPRESS ANY CONCERNS AS A WELDING INSPECTOR TO 8

ANY OF THE TASK FORCES OR TO DUKE POWER MANAGEMENT?

9 A.

Yes.

10 Q.

TO WHOM DID YOU EXPRESS YOUR CONCERNS?

11 A.

I talked to Task Force I,

the Technical Task Force, the 12 Non-Technical Task Force, Lew Zwissler, and Warren Owen.

13 Q.

WERE YOUR CONCERNS WRITTEN?

14 A.

Yes.

15 Q.

DESCRIBE EACH DOCUMENT WHICH CONTAINS YOUR EXPRESSION 16 OF CONCERNS, AND INDICATE WHO IT WAS SUBMITTED TO.

17 A.

I submitted the handwritten statement, which is attached to my 18 testimony as Attachment A, to my supervisor.

l l

19 Q.

DID YOU FEEL FREE TO EXPRESS ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS?

20 A.

Yes.

21 Q.

DID YOU EXPRESS ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS?

22 A.

Yes.

l 23 Q.

DOES THIS DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO YOUR TESTIMONY REFLECT 24 ALL OF YOUR WRITTEN CONCERNS?

25 A.

Yes.

26' Q.

ARE ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT?

27 A.

Yes.

s,

O 1

Q.

PLEASE SUMMARIZE AND EXPLAIN WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO 2

COMMUNICATE BY YOUR CONCERNS.

3 A.

As I stated in the concerns I submitted, the biggest concern that I 4

had as far as not being supported in implementing the QA Program 5

is the fact that at times resolutions and general gray areas seem to 6

be watered down in order for craft to meet scheduling dead lines.

7 A lot of these occasions have been exactly opposite of procedure 8

requirements, yet the problems being brought up were to be 9

ignored, because at that p6 int it seemed that quality didn't matter, 10 only dead ifnes mattered.

11 Q.

' EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEANT WHEN YOU SAID IN YOUR CONCERNS l

12 THAT RESOLUTIONS TO NCI'S SEEM TO BE WATERED DOWN IN 13 ORDER FOR CRAFT TO MEET SCHEDULING DEADLINES.

14 A.

Normally craft would strive to meet the more stringent Duke 15 procedures, but if this was not possible and in most cases this 16 would only happen when trying to meet a schedule dead line, that 17 work which didn't meet Duke's procedural requirements would be 18 approved because it still meet ASME, AWS, or ANSI codes.

19 Q.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE VARIATIONS FROM PROCEDURES 20 RESULTED IN ANY UNACCEPTABLE OR POOR WORKMANSHIP 21 BEING APPROVED?

22 A.

No.

23 Q.

DID YOU APPROVE ANY WORK AS A RESULT OF PRESSURE TO 24 -

MEET CRAFT DEADLINE THAT WAS UNACCEPTABLE OR OF POOR 25 QUALITY?

26 A.

No.

27 Q.

WERE YOUR CONCERNS INVESTIGATED BY THE TASK FORCES?

28 A.

Yes..

-..e

...---.n-

9 1

Q.

DID YOU ATTEND ANY MEETINGS WITH TASK FORCE AND/OR QA 2

MANAGEMENT MEMBERS WHERE THE TASK FORCE FINDINGS,

3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WERE DISCUSSED?

4 A.

I met 'with a group from the Technical Task Force and my particular 5

concern was discussed.

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.

There was a change in the inspection criteria between the time the 10 incident occurred and the time the concern was submitted.

11 Q.

DESCRIBE THE CHANGES OF WHICH YOU ARE AWARE IN THE QA 12 PROGRAM.

13 A.

We (inspectors) are now not required to check mismatch in repair 14 cavities as before.

15 Q.

TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE THESE CHANGES ADDRESSED ISSUES 16 RAISED BY THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS; AND TO WHAT 17 EXTENT HAVE THESE CHANGES ADDRESSED YOUR PARTICULAR 18 CONCERNS?

19 A.

These changes eliminate my concern because we are no longer 20 required to check the area of concern.

21 Q.

THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS HAVE BEEN I

l 22 CHARACTERIZED AS CONCERNS ABOUT THE QUALITY AND 23 SAFETY OF CONSTRUCTION AT CATAWBA.

DO YOU AGREE OR 24 DISAGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION?.

-r-a,

--.,,,.w

1 A.

I do not agree with that characterization.

The inspectors had a set 2

of procedures to inspect by. We saw the procedures as setting the 3

line that established what was acceptable and what was unacceptable 4

from a ' quality standpoint. We identified problems that did not meet 5

the Duke procedures and guidelines, but were told that there was 6

no problem because the Duke proceditres had been set above the 7

acceptable codes for quality.

This had not been communicated to 8

the welding inspectors.

9 Q.

DID THE EXPRESSION OF YOUR CONCERNS INDICATE YOUR 10 BELIEF THAT THERE WAS A BREAKDOWN IN THE QA PROGRAM 11 OR INDICATE THAT THE QA PROGRAM WAS NO LONGER 12 WORKING? EXPLAIN.

13 A.

Yes, in certain areas.

I think there was a breakdown in 14 communications, but the QA Program was working.

These concerns 15 arose because we as inspectors were not told that in some areas the 16 Construction and QA Procedures were written above ASME and 17 other welding codes and there was a communications breakdown in 18 the QA Department.

i 19 Q.

DID YOUR CONCERNS REFLECT A BELIEF ON YOUR PART THAT 20 THE CATAWBA PROJECT IS NOT BEING CONSTRUCTED SAFELY?

21 A.

No.

22 Q.

IN YOUR VIEW, HAS THE QA PROGRAM BEEN EFFECTIVE WHILE 23 YOU HAVE WORKED AS AN INSPECTOR AT CATAWBA?

24 A.

Yes.

25 Q.

ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY DEFICIENCIES IN CONSTRUCTION OR IN 26 '

THE QA PROGRAM WHICH WOULD CAUSE YOU TO QUESTION f

27 WHETHER CATAWBA IS SAFELY BUILT?

28 A.

No.

~

1 Q.

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU :WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO YOUR 2

TESTIMONY?

3 A.

In my opinion this plant is probably the best built of any nuclear

~

4 plant Duke or anyone else is building.

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

.k k 13 John 2. McCoy

()

14 15

(

16 Sworn to d subscribed before me b

17 this M day of September,1983.

18

~44ui

'/@yw$

21 Notary Public 22 Commission Expires M/HfI '[/@T 23 t

l l

\\

l l l

Titt B ef 4EST* CodcERN THogr T HAdi i

RS FR/C As net BarWGr Su 990RT&D IN

'. ZMPLS M&NT! d6i TNG: q A PBoGt2RM is TMS fAc7 -f71MT nf* 77m&.5 R e. sot.u YIc& 5 4 W.h G w s R A t-GABy ARSA r H A/t BEid Ward /25h

DeWN IN OR.heR;F4R: CRAFT *T~0

/ W s7-sen d audGr DEAb bus.s. A Lar o P ressG. occnStoNs HME-8esa asAc-rLf. oftostTS of PfocSDuits i R6pstRSMadt'3, y&C 17th fR08t SMS S&!NG,

. - l SRsMG ff'f" tt 2 WERS. To Ec. IGac122:3, BeenuSE

' AY THIS.f0 INT

  • ftteuff D thiv'7~ pt&TTEA ONLtf 3&pD Lfgth$.

Som&. SinnPL&S 0f TNese. PRoatsus

.'.E%IS'7~ ed THE EHTIRE F W $ y'ST5tv1 /d T//E J THE NumBitz, CNE

. hattu A Rtf S utt.ht W 6,.at _

..3/D&......

4.... A Num SE/2 of TilSSE Wet h.s HAD 73 BE l

l

$RE-lNSPtcTR2) BC: Chit.$6 0f Ad NCT. CONCERdid4 1

(

.iVISWIWCr. )?oRY.s'. NUNTil. fH/s TIMG. WL q.c, l(WShtCTORs, tN.Till.s ARGA} 9 DLb WOT* RAv's ANf A55ttK/NG THkT"77fi.WSLhtWdy

1. MAdo' R.. PAG ELLM i.fRDCGhuRas AW.h Gus1suyas 0F T//E RV.D.S'.s h W ARE Fo I.t.c A/ A3._...... l OM OM&. AfRYi.cuLAtz. wet h Ret *RtR. fME

\\ :l,.MISMnTCH.WAS..> If *. QW PAGV/dtt.S DCCAsifcds

.... 2tHGKS. f8.5.501^!T Mr.sau&WP1FNT WAS No f /W

'.0 ACC6A.badcs uttTt] 746 f.N..b s. THS W&c3&R.s

  1. $tz Ft77ELs We aL.h. WoAx. WITH THE 990 bun

']k(in1it IT naf f3E. REQttRENGMT3 of TMS RIM.

k.307~ oN THis. OCA.ssicd BecNas& 77/E WGidvstG1 j

-) CARFY W&s. Isstash R. SHUT 30 MM fa.D0 THt S AiG TREt{ WEREN'.7 Goldf 76 3 MEST'THE DGAb-LI Als; WL WsRE Tbt. D THAT l'f!SaudWMGWr'

a i

\\

C.

i W&S of No ccMcGred on/ Wit b Repgras,

' ANYONE KNOWs 17thT THE AUANMGWr oF TNG. forn/7' /$ EsseMTint 'r3 AqAkt Jf A S a A U T y W s t. d >,

aLSo oN Att.- DF TH&Ss. Wec b Ra.49 irs DN THis FW G)fS76h M.24hf/TEttt&L.

~

Lt 2ANUds65.5) REQuiRGiM&dI5 n/ E R E W ettla b WITif /W f-9.8.17f-(S B LWdha/2. /46bs. /7"

^ AU46$7" /MPssstBLE. Tb M&l<S TH&s5. RePNt2S

.'S& Crush 77t&-.SYS7~an $71f.c CoNTgtWAb

' W&T*GR_(WHIce PREVsWTEb A coinPt.sra. PaME ON THis $ C. SYSTEt+1), RLSO THE. d2tWh/NG7 DesY + TRASH WAs srit.t PRessWY.

/N sffecY WHed We. cHacxS.b 7T+esE R2.961/L Fe(2 W5Lb/WCr 4/ t WS-Wads kokini foa. W&S 70 SES. /F THGf.H&.D SAtudl) & pot.A.

.:yN rae. uae rb. weth - up.

". = 2

(

~

wa naa ausa saaan 2 a saa.

34tt sy' RouTiME. /Nspec. noms. WH6N WE

.:mne msrs.uas. wa. aaa. aansi<-y ac.snab i8w2 coe.aecrab. ysr WesW Ppocahuass nab spac.s. as vrotn.rab rue. aut.ss ana

BeNY 7b.M&Tt/+..

I

$. A1'

'.g..

... ~

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20133C552&oldid=4242314"