ML20133K659
| ML20133K659 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1983 |
| From: | Messenger G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | Gilinsky, Palladino, Roberts NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133K608 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-722 NUDOCS 8508120315 | |
| Download: ML20133K659 (23) | |
Text
.
L'r . , v a nu y e' t'vTi ti ! T AT!!
P* , NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION
{ ~.,/,f ~g j .-
l
- Asectos. t:fqq55K ,
S /
.....J' Octob g y gl g3gg -
i )
...u Min., -
- iET)t F.1[l'
/ e . (/f*
- J l / 6Q'- $/A MEMORAND'MJ FOR
- Chairtnan Palladino Conrissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts Conr.issioner Asselstine Comrissio er Bernthal tr/
FROM: Georg H nger, ting Di tor Office of Inspector and Auditor
SUBJECT:
CATAWBA NUCLEAR POWER STATION; REVIEW 0F NRC HANDLING 0F ALLEGATIONS This memorandum has been prepared to provide the status within the Office of Inspector and Auditor (0IA) of the subject.
In our April 29, 1983, rnemorandum, we advised that this office would review the subject matter as related by an April 21, 1983, letter from the Government Accountability Project (GAP) of the Institute for Policy Studies.
On May 17 and June 3, 1983, 01A personnel conferred with Ms. Billie Pirner.
Garde, Director, Citizens Clinic for Accountable Gcvernment and Ms. Jennifer Phillips, Staff Associate, both of GAP, regarding the April 21 letter. At the meeting held on June 3 with Ms. Garde and Ms. Phillips, they explained that they are reviewing the matter which was presented to them by the Palmetto Alliance (local South Carolina intervenor group). However, at that time they were unable to provith any additional amplifying inforr.ation regarding their ellegations other than as stated in their initial letter. Further, the;.
advised they would provide any additional inforntion to the NRC uoor completion of their preliminary review.
Relateoly, during May-August 1983, 01A conducted an investigation regarding the GAP allegations et NRC Region 11 and at the Catawba facility pending receipt of the GAP letter delineating their additional concerns.
CONTACT: Patrick McKenna, Jr.
DIA, 492-4453 8508120315 050702 L PDR FOIA BELL 84-722 PDR ti,t;p. y17(v: blu-K T ild APDE
A :,
.,,l Co.-issioners Ir. her September 14, 1983, letter to the NRC Corr-issioners, Ms. Garde writes
".... GAP has now concluded a prelitrinary review of the Catawba plant..."; the letter also describes additional allegations which surfaced during Hearings held during July 1983 which may expand the scope of the allegations stated in the original GAP letter. The second GAP letter has been referred to the NRC staff for treatment as a petition under 10 CFR 2.206.
This office is reviewing the September 14, 1983, letter and enclosures and will pursue any allegations regarding NRC employee impropriety warranting investigation. In addition, 01A has coordinated with the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) staff regarding response to GAP /10 CFR 2.206, and any '
possible' instances of NRC employee impropriety (ies) which are identified will be pursued and addressed in the OIA report.
Concluding, DIA staff conferred with Ms. Garde on October 14, 1983. The discussion with Ms. Garde focused on her September 14, 1983, letter as it pertained to possible NRC employee impropriety. Ms. Garde related that she is compiling several affidavits from various Catawba Nuclear Power Station workers which reportedly idertify numerous techr.ical/ hardware problens at the site although no additional allegations of NRC employee rnisconduct were icentified by her.
The OIA investigation will continue concurrently with the IE 10 CFR 2.206 review. This will allow OIA to maintain coordination with IE regarding any possible NRC employee mal / misfeasance identified during IE's review and prepare a complete and final report of investigation. We anticipate our report i will be completed at approximately the same time as the IE review.
cc: W. Dircks, EDO H. Denton, NRR B. Hayes,01t/
G. Cunningham, ELD R. DeYoung, IE l J. O'Reilly, Reg. Il l
si A;EU.E NT PLACE : /s, e7 .. . ,
y .-// (T ,.4' ,,
DATE/ TIME: J6~ . ,u y /9 /fpe/
. /
I, MfIr [MJp , do hereby make the following voluntary statement to L//////, ew / 77 [ere who Nidentified kl?fk'to me as e Investigators with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I do hereby make this voluntary statement without any threats having been made against me or any promises extended to me.
i )
A5/:s,ssor/dudo_/>rsecN
/~ Fri 'M<> L W $r &., b 6&,$</ ' d,uouiV"7d r'L., 4 , ,
IL,, L,a sinjr e.4.,:
$ ~m .
in//,;fi -,6 sin.w~+'2 ra en/ r
<ro wa A ..J d', I ~ ., /fu, 6 D ~~4 ,a., s ou' A ,/ e m is m%,;& , _
- } /-n,L&r Gx dncsoe incu,//L/Am ',n&,L cha/cn.
's n,,/ ,~& / Lau,:#R ; -rl re'// c 1 m i r s:/
D f - f r - % ,L:n s % we #,~
o7L- e/ch,- r -7:a, -14
% %z.e 4 r,Mi 4 ers/! 14 , awe : Hu,.i b -,As A 1; +1 A i
$ sw/ ALo;< ,l'>/ '~~7~s,, sda -LWLdA 4 c 44A s/Au%,
3 k+4 a.,, ,,/a:A j ~ >1 c h ,,,~ z ; z L / + t/ n ~ -1 & A,~
- //)J & n./-/4 srs i ;/s~o , a.-/- iscn/ 76~ A.rr -E n!.7%o &?fu
& -tl x,/A'l reb s/s, n.<n> 7/l Ya J/Jh '~K~ _r7,T7l~ #Lf
- rl u i r d r //. 7 M , - /l /r e It'4 e/< <&,oAA, s& tLr K-
,y'n r /x,EdL,oJYAs-, '.< sin / Z~of n;7~/<,: # A ..
s r f 4 1 , M r A s- n T A , % ,, - 72 ,, & " 2 K , e ,n s o,- .,
'cn //x.a o / % ,-il , J / w d< 7~ d i~ -/M 7<ts een "2,-Jsfem 7% tcwsel n./ n %f'4 wi e/Aw. Wds f:
/d, -L's s,%6 /-A 'f~, ~
/%Jr so of r_nl<) so//o Sin >
2L e -r% u 'a '. c ,s c:ajf r,< . C, n ',,, L&n -r /J
.+ , s su,1. nL-'~iai n,L <<->rd'-k '
2?? 24u, Al/r L ;AJ'LMo~, f-ff X.c nadsi
/~,x -rz r n77/ % in/, 6 6~ ' ,,/; .,- / 4,x, il-fl /A,, /tI A '-/ d,L: 7L n , 4,1/,J T L , i /1, 4,., -risJ-t <~ d & -r4 incyA2~nL s is,/A,x L a:75% ~ s wn' In. < n,7n, Ac/ ~' f4, d,ys'67%O wa '-%7/sdf,-f~~d7l, 7'l m,,&/cf-X %%M
-/4 / _1r,& /s KA.- /n/ Lo/wi /Arar an< fne sod
<s,; HAT, n/L u d'/ 4,L/ L/6c,ds,., isrtih f c,4,
- A n_x ,./ / /A n ;< css'l A'/r7~,d' ~/d n e$d*Ws;5J w b, Ars
\'\' 77, n-%A n. , /6n/ m -
bWA!W$f e,- Cas,,j'sfc ;,
7.mta
- - u .. -
STATEMENT CONTINUATION ud/rY)iYksbr be nre//si) a 41r E Gros rieor <_ tis (
' W//iner Ih No/ bo ove for.ie U /i>1 obsAse //, 1 s/ro bas / Ybi
, d%ek' neTAst r lressWW b4b- Amn ervh/ s4seddn / e ~/7/b/
~
LYL a,, c xr/ &fAsaar, Z GdLrod,w _
4fTMThrx vt' //A < inw;2C~, r/4./ b, o L sn- e n w /,n,
/p4Who W brT//>ee s~/ 9we/Ycd< Y fue / -r rE/d/ e r . Ox/r e
/>resoi> $H sx,i/ c5/ n,/-r YA sY desi /
- s'l uWren!!d, l$
or T/otu/esiJlnrY Es .$ f ourhei Y W,/n bn ,
! / / /
/
/
/
/
k2 /
/
b / -
4 O- g>b, /
/
/
/
/
.^
I have read the foregoing statement consisting of 2_ hanc%ri tten/W pages. I have made and initialed any necessary corrections and have signed my name in ink in the margin of each page. I swear that the foregoing statemen(4)< i l
true and correct. Signed on /-/ 9-f 4 at 970 f r _.
SIGNATURE:
NAME
[?It/tb /h. b#4 '
Subscribed and sworn to before me this /f day of o<y /T[.
l
% at hS$utA > $(~ .
INVESTIGATOR: b d'/b
-i WITNESS:
MAME/ TITLE r%s 2__rd 2_
p
- ESULTS nr E E;'.;EW k
- 4 NIL E1
. CN FEE M PY 7, 19Ft AS PREPACED BY E. L. WILLIAMSGN On Februa ry 7, 19Et,, Fnil EDWA:7. former Quality Contrcl (OC) Welding Inspector at Duke Power Company's (DPC) Catawba Nuclear Station, Clover, South Carolina, was interviewed by Investigators E. L. Williamson and J. Y. Vorse at the Holiday Inn, Rock Hill, South Carolina and he provided the following information in substance:
EDWARDS stated that he had worked for DPC for approximately three and a half years, May 1977 through February 1981. He said he was hired as a welder, and also served as a welding instructor during his initial tenure.
He stated that he became a welding inspector after approximately six months employment and served in that position until he left DPC. He explained that prior to working for DPC he worked with Daniels Construction Company for approximately three years as a welder and worked at various locations including V.C. Summer Nuclear Plant and Barnwell Nuclear Waste Site. He stated he is currently employec by J. A. Jones Applied Research Company, Charlotte, North Caroline as a Senior Automatic Velding Technician. He said he has been employed by J. A. Jones since leaving DPC.
EDWARDS stated that he was aware of the ongoing investigations at Catawba and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Beard (ASLB) hearings and indicated he had no objection to talking to the NRC and being as helpful as he could be.
He said that during his tenure at DPC he never felt harassed, intimidated or threatened by anyone. He explained that at a construction site people will typically exchange words or have differences of opinion. He said that an individual has to take several things into consideration, when he thinks he feels harassed or threatened, including the other person's feelings and what kind of day he might have had. He said there were a couple of incidents that he could recall when remarks made to him could have been talen as harassment of threats, but he dismissed them as comments made out of anger or excitement. He related that while working in the Unit I spant fuel pool he pointed out some potential problems with bimetalic joints and possible cracking problems as a result of improper design of the spent fuel pool. He said he explained to the NRC Resident Inspector Kim VAND00PN, who was in the area, that he thought the embedded angle iron was a potential problem and that poor engineering was, in his opinion, evident. He said that the leak chase test and all applicable PT was acceptable and that the QA Technical Support Group was aware of his concerns and everyone seemed to be happy with the structures "as is." He said that during his inspection, Billy SMITH, welding General Foreren, told him that he wished he (EDWAFDS) would quit being a " son of a bitch" and get this place built (spent fuel pool). EDWARDS said he did not feel threatened or intimidated by SMITH's remarks. He said that was what someone would expect from a construction supervisor. He added that SMITH's remarks did not deter him from doing his job.
EDWARDS related another incident wherein a welding foreman, Barney COBB, casually mentioned to his welding crew in his (EDWAPDS') presence, that if he got in their way, they should just push him off the scaffolding.
EDWARDS said he did not know if COBB was serious, but he did not feel threatened by COBB's remarks. He said he later asked his supervisor to Yb u a .+
/
- & hir f rc- *% spent ivol ' oni arc- h,i it w35 tecause ne- 'r't that unsafe wodiria conditicr.s existu, in that tht. scaffoicire was subst6ncarc and not because of any harasstrert, intimication or thrtets.
EDWM DS stated tFat if there was pressure en the welcing inspectors it was to get the plar.t built. he said that construction / production people were constantly pushing inspectors to move along. He added however, that this is also a way of life on a construction site, that was the "name of the game" to get the plant built. He said he never felt that quality or safety were sacrificed in favor of production. He said he was not aware of any breakdown in the OA program. He felt that all the welding inspectors did their jobs.
EDWAPDS explained that in late 1980, Larry DAVISON, Project GA Manager, discouraged the welding inspectors from writing "too many" NCIs. He said that they, the welding inspectors, were told not to write so many NCIs. He said that DAVIS 0N indicated that they should try to resolve problems ir other ways, such as takirg on the spot corrective actions. He said he personally felt that a lot of " senseless" NCIs were written by inspectors.
Fe said many were written because of misinterpretation of the procedures and codes which resulted in "hard feelings" between the craft and some of the welding inspectors. In turn he said that some of the welding inspectors over-inspected and tried to be hard and critical of the craft.
He said that at one time or another, all welding inspectors have had NCIs turned down. He said this is where interpretation comes into play and that supervision is there to resolve such issues. He said an inspector may think he is right when, in fact, he is wrong. He said he wrote NCI's, and he was not qualified to make an engineering analysis, so he was usually happy with the resolution. He said he never had any NCI's rejected, or experienced attempts by supervision to suppress or override an NCI other than when an interpretation of a procedure was in question. Then, the issue would be discussed and routually agreed upon that an NCI was or was not necessary.
EDWARDS said that if there was a problem with communication it probably started with DAVISCN. He said DAVIS 0N had a hard time communicating down to the people belew him. He said that DAVIS 0N was an engineer and the welding inspectors were just " hired hands." He said he thought DAVIS 0N accuiesced to construction and that he favcred production because he made the comment that "everyone is here to get the plant built." EDWARDS said he could not argue with that and reiterated that to the best of his knowledge the plant was safely constructed.
EDWARDS said that he thought some of the problems at Catawba were typical of all construction jobs. He said it was a common practice, that as a plant started winding down the company would find ways to get the employees to leave. He said in the case of DPC they starting adding various require-ments to make the inspectors' jobs harder and lower their morale. He said for example, they introduced the occurrence procedure, wherein if an employee got 50 many occurrences he would get a violation and in turn could be fired. He said the intent was to force people to quit and no unemploy-rent benefits are expended by the corrpany. He said be felt this was happening at Catawba so he left when the opportunity arose. He said the
j e '.
cay 'tSue had beer; point on fer t long tims. e r,d wa s .iu s t ctri of the catalyst for the problem that subsequently surfaced.
ENoDS commented en the alkgations raised by forrrer errployee Harry LANGLEY that welding inspectors were provided copies of the final examination prior to taking the test. He said he felt these allegations were unfounded. He said he was in the class after LANGLEY's and he was not provided any test answers nor does he know anyone who was provided with answers. He said that if cheating was going on he would have known about it through the " rumor machine." He said LANGLEY was fired for gambling and was probably disgruntled.
EDWARDS also commented on the DPC procedure for recertifying welders. He said the requalification program was a joke, adding that all welders were to be requalified every 90 days. He said this could be done with several welders at a time " striking an arc" or by observing the welders in the field welding. He said he could recertify a welder by merely seeing him strike an arc. He said welding skills were not required but this was in accordance with procedure and was all that was required. He said the welding foreman had printouts of all the due dates for his welders and they were all recertified at least every 90 days.
EDWARDS concluded by stating that he would be happy to talk to the NRC at any time and would assist in any way he could. He said he was not aware of any construction defects and not aware of anything that would adversely affect the safe operation of Catawba.
END OF RESULTS OF INTERVIEW WITH PHIL EDWAPDS ON FEBRVARY 7, 1984,
-E.
hd$mM L. Williamson, Investigator
STATEMENT PLACE: Cntenio, NC- #477wtay .C (
DATE/ TIME: )-9/ 99 1, Eddie Wallace, do hereby make the following voluntary statement to E. L. Williamson and J. Y. Vorse who have identified themselves to me as Investigators with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I do hereby make this voluntary statement without any threats having been made against me or any promises extended to me.
I am a former Duke Power welding inspector and I worked at the Catawba Project g from approximately April 1977 to January 1980. I worked one year as a welder and the remainder of the time as a QC welding inspector. Before working for Duke I had been welding for skonstruction and Gaston C.ounty Die, Inc. I y h,90
\ left Duke because I like to work on my own and in addition, I was going to be put on the 2nd shift which was not agreeable to me. I have been asked by the
\
investigators if I was ever harassed or intimidated on the job and I will relate several instances where it could be construed that I was. The first occasion was when a pipe fitter failed to properly fit-up a pipe joint, several times on the same project, so I rejected it and as I was placing the QlB hold tag on the pipe the pipe fitter whose name i a n not recall, said something to the effect that if he ever saw me off the job in a bar, after a couple of drinks he would whip my butt. He had earlier seemed upset, possibly for personal off the job reasons, and I did not consider his words as threatening. His remarks did not affect my decision to reject the fit-up. About 20 minutes later he apologized to me for his remarks. I did not report the incident to higher supervision. On another occasion I had written an NCI for some incident I can not recall, and on cc:
3 ~ ~
PAGE / OF p\ M
my way to Beau ROSS's (my supervisor) office the pipe fitter's foreman, who was in charge of the fitter I had NCI'd asked me why I had written the NCI. I recall we went in ROSS's office and in front of ROSS the foreman whose name was Wade HALL said I was being too picky and that he may have to " whip his butt" (referring to me). I must say however, that Wade HALL apologized to me about 30 minutes later. The last sort of related incident happened in late 1979. I was accused of harassing a craft crew and I got involved in a discussion about this with Larry DAVISON, Project QA Manager ROSS, Charles BALDWIN, OA Technical Supervisor, Ken WEBBER (pipe fitter superintendent), a General Foreman, one pipe fitter and two helpers. I had been inspecting this particular crew harder than the others because they had accused us (inspectors) of being late for inspections for such things as sitting and drinking coffee and thus holding up production. Also, one of the fitters was consistently doing poor work and about
& 50% of his work was rejectable. I got tired of this and started writing NCIs on him. DAVISON, my supervisor, told me to " slack off" and try to work with the craft. By that I interpreted him to mean that I was automatically NCling anything and not treating that crew like other crews. I told DAVIS 0N that I m would not slack off on this crew . He said that I would. This shouting match went back and forth about three times. I did as DAVISON said. I will say that I never had a problem with NCIs. ROSS was an outstanding foreman and he backed his inspectors 100%. DAVISON was objective and tried to see all sides of an issue. If there were grey areas about the disposition of an NCI, DAVIS 0N would take several days to resolve the issue. I was never dissatisfied with the resolutions and all NCIs that I was sure about were always properly disposi-tioned. I believe that the Catawba Project is a top quality job. I would feel very safe living near the site. I never got the feeling that the management was production oriented, nor was there any construction influence over the welding inspectors. Sometimes, for example, if I found something wrong and there was a grey area , the decision on what to do could go either way depending on PAGE O OF U
interpretation of procedure, the decision would sometimes go in favor of construction but other times it would go in favor of the QC welding inspectors.
There really was no influence one way or another. I am not aware of any cheat-ing on welding inspector examinations or falsification of any records. I have no concerns that I feel should be discussed. I believe the Catawba Project is top quality all the way. The job I held was mentally the hardest and the best work I ever did.
7 I have read the foregoing statement consisting of 2, typed pages. I have made and initialed any necessary corrections and have signed my name in ink in the margin of each page. I swear that the foregoing statement is true and correct. Signed on ',h' at ,/30 .
SIGNATURE: /
uy-
) , c ~' cL NAME Subscribed and sworn to before me this M/ day of [ ., .. 7 ,
1983 at /74 s <ei $b .
I I
INVESTIGATOR: ) 1_. l' f~
/* l b
/
WITNESS: _
Nid% _,
NAME/ TITLE PAGE '4 0F )
RESULTS OF INTERVIEW WITH LAMAR SHERIFF ON MARCH 2, 1984 AS PREPARED BY E. L. WILLIAMSON On March 2, 1984, Lamar "Pete" SHERIFF, Quality Control (QC) Welding Inspector at Duke Power Company's (DPC) Oconee Nuclear Station, Seneca, SC was interviewed by Investigators E. L. Williamson and D. D. Murphy at the site and he provided the following information in substance.
SHERIFF stated he has worked for DPC for 14 years in a variety of positions. He said he began with Duke in March 1968 at Oconee as a welder and worked there until 1975. He said he began work at DPC Catawba Nuclear
~
Station in 1977 as a welder and became a welding inspector in 1978, a position he occupied until 1981 when he left for his present position at Oconee. He said he is presently a welding and NDE inspector at Oconee. He said that prior to working for DPC he worked for Laturno-Westinghouse, Inc., and this was where he got his initial welding training.
SHERIFF was questioned about his classroom training for being a welding inspector and he said that in 1977, the exact date he could not recall, he was in a welding inspectors' class at Catawba. He said that to the best of his memory the class was two weeks long and covered a variety of topics including procedures and metallurgy. He said that one half day was spent in the classroom and the other half day was in the field working with and observing other welding inspectors. He said that the other welding inspectors in the class were Charlie CRISP, Harry LANGLEY and Ronny KIRBY.
He said there were some other people in the class but they were mechanical inspectors and he was not sure what they were doing in the class. He said the instructors of the class were Charles BALDWIN, Beau ROSS, Pay HOLLINGS and Larry DAVISON.
SHERIFF said he was aware of the allegation made by Harry LANGLEY, a former welding inspector, that the welding inspectors were provided copies of test questions ano answers prior to takirg the test. He said this was not true, he added that he had to study from two to three hours each night and he barely passed the ccurse. He said he had to study as did the other members in his class that took the test. He reiterated that he did not receive any assistance on the test nor was he aware of anyone that did.
SHERIFF said the final exam was an open book test on procedures and there was a practical exam, consisting of reading an isometric drawing and inspecting a fit-up. He said he had to review heat numbers, welder qualifications, inspect several weld coupons, as well as a root pass and do a final visual inspection on a coupon. He added if he had any help it came only from other inspectors who had taken the course who would tell him what kind of questions they had and what he might expect on the final.
SHERIFF said he left Catawba in the spring of 1981 to go to Oconee. He related that he spent a lot of his time at Catawba in the pipe fabrication shop, working on material traceability problems with Tom BUMGARDNER, a welding inspector. He said while at Catawba he wrote a number of NCIs and never had any problems getting them accepted by his supervision. He said he was never discouraged from writing NCIs and reporting problems to his supervision. He said he was satisfied with the resolutions offered by QA p5
~~ +
? .
Technical support for his NCIs. He said that there were occasions when heat numbers on material and the numbers recorded on the release piping material log could not be reconciled and the material in question would be discarded or scrapped.
SHERIFF concluded by stating that he was not aware of any construction defects at the Catawba site and he felt the plant was safely built. He said that some of the inspectors were a little " nit picky," going strictly by the book and not allowing for "comon sense" when conducting their inspections. He said he thought that management did whatever was necessary to ensure the plant was built safely and on schedule.
SHERIFF expressed a reluctance to sign a sworn statement and asked that the information he provided be documented in a Results of Interview.
END OF RESULTS OF INTERVIEW WITH LAMAR SHERIFF ON MARCH 2, 1984.
d!umn E. L. Williamson, Investigator
RESULTS OF INTERVIEW WITH LAMAR SHER]FF ON MARCH 2, 1984 AS PREPARED BY E. L. WILLIAW.50N On March 2, 1954, Lamar "Pete" SHEPIFF, Quality Control (QC) Welding Inspector at Duke Power Company's (DPC) Ocenee Nuclear Station, Seneca, SC was intervie ed by Investigators E. L. Williamson and D. D. Murphy at the site and he provided the following information in substance.
SHERIFF stated he has worked for DPC for 14 years in a variety of positions. He said he began with Duke in March 1968 at Oconee as a welder and worked there until 1975. He said he began work at DPC Catawba Nuclear Station in 1977 as a welder and became a welding inspector in 1978, a position he occupied until 19E1 when he lef t for his present position at Oconee. He said he is presently a welding and NDE inspector at Oconee. He said that prior to wceking for DPC he worked for Laturno-Westinghouse, Inc., and this was where he got his initial welding training.
SHERIFF was Questioned about his classroom training for being a welding irspecter and he said that in 1977, the enact date he could not recall, he was in a weldirg inspectors' class at Catawba. he said that to the best o' his menor, the class was twc weeks long and cove ed a variety c' tccics including procedures and metallurgy. He said that one half day was spent in the classroor and the other half day was in the field workino with and observing other welding inspectors. He said that the other weldinc inspectors in the class were Charlie CRISP, Harry LAh3 LEY and Ponny KIREY.
He said there were sore other people in the class but tney were mechanical inspectors and he was not sure what they were doing in the class. He said the instructors c' the Class were Cha*les EALDW!h, 6ea. POSS, Ray FOLLIN35 and Larry DAV150%.
SHERIFF said hE was aware of the allegatior. Face by Harry LAN3'.E), a fcmer welding inspector, that the welding inspectors were provided copies of test questions and answers prior to taking the test. He said this was not true.
He added that he had to study fror two to three hours each night and he barely passed the course. He said he had to study as did the other merbers in his class that took the test. He reiterated that he did not receise any assistance on the test nor was he aware of anyone that did.
SHERIFF said the final eram was an open book test on procedures ard there was a practical e>ar, consisting of reading an isometric dra.ing and inspecting a fit-up. He said he had to review heat nur.bers , wel der qualifications, inspect several weld coupons, as well as a root pass and do a final visual inspection on a coupon. He added if he had any help it care only fror other inspectors who had taken the course who would tell him what kind of questions they had and what he might expect on the final.
SHERIFF said he left Catawba in the spring of 19El to go to Oconee. He related that he spent a lot of his tire at Catawba ir. the pipe fabrication shop, working on material traceability problers with Tor EUv3?RNP , a welding inspector. He said while at Catawba he wrote a number of N:Is and never had any problers getting ther accepted by his supervision. Le saic he was never discouraged from writing NC!s and reporting proble s to his supervision. He said he was satisfied with the resolutiers o'fered by 0A T \
A ./ J
, ), {p ' 6k u .
2 Technical support for his NCis. He said that there were occasions when heat numbers on material and the numbers recorded on the release piping material log could not be reconciled and the material in question would be discarded er scrapped.
SHERIFF concluded by stating that he was not aware of any construction defects at the Catawba site and he felt the plant was safely built. He said that some of the inspectors were a little " nit picky," going strictly by the book and not alloi.ing for "corror. sense" when conducting their inspections. He said he thought that management did whatever was necessary to ensure the plant was built safely and on schedule.
SHERIFF expressed a reluctance to sign a sworn statement and asked that the information he provided be documented in a Results of Interview.
EN? 0F RESULTS OF INTERVIEW WITH LAv.AR SHE;1FF Oh P.?OCH 2, 19E4 f 6fGM -
E. L. E1 ilia scr, Invest 1;atcr
-~
. . . . . . . .. .J .
s.14' t
STATEMENT PLACE: T2 c_k M l\\ 5 c.
DATE/ TIME: A - t o- e [ 1 .
4 oh, I, Gary E. ROSS, do hereby make the following voluntary statement to E. L. Williamson and J. Y. Vorse who have identified themselves to me as Investigators with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission. I do hereby make this voluntary statement without any threats having been made against me or any promises extended to me.
I am currently employed as a Supervisory Technician / Welding Inspection at Duke Power Company (DPC) Catawba Nuclear Station, Clover, South Carolina. I have been employed by DPC for 13 years, beginning in March 1971. I initially hired on as a welder, a job I held for two years before becoming a welding inspector.
I served as a welding inspector for one year and movec into we.ldina inspection 3ee us 5 e b. Curt &~
supervision. I began working for DPC at Jce Cess 44y, a fcsal fuci plant and then moved to the McGuire Nuclear Station which was my first job at a nuclear plant with DPC. I worked at McGuire for approximately three years and moved to Catawba Nuclear Station in August 1976. Prior to woriir.g for DPC 1 was employed by Daniels Construction Company as a welder for one year. I learned to weld in a welding apprenticeship program working for the Newport News Shipbuilding Company. I was in this prog-am for four years. I also attended Clemson University for one year.
I have been asked to cocraent on allegations made by Harry LANGLEY, fomer welding inspector that students were provided with answers to QC examinations, I can only say that I did not provide anyone with assistance nor an I aware of anyone who might have given assistance to any of the students. As I recall the QC welding inspector class lasted five or six weeks. They spent half the day in class and half the day in the field with a trained inspector. The class had LANGLEY, Charles CRISP, Pete SHERIFF and Ronny KIRBY and a few mechanical inspectors who attended some of the classes. The class was divided into three parts, general, specific and practical. The students were given daily quizzes which were returned each day to be used as study guides. These quizzes were (
used to test what was being taught and what was being learned. There was a 9 -I E, 3.7 4 -u ,
final exam given at the end of each phase. The final general subject phase was a closed book exam, the final specific subject phase was a closed book exam but the final practical was an open book exam. I have heard these allegations but to the best of my knowledge there was not any cheating in the class. I certainly did not provide students with answers inside their test nor am I aware of anyone who might have given the students assistance. I do not feel that there is any substance to the allegations ) [ . i I have read the foregoing statement consisting of 2 typed pages. I have made and initialed any necessary corrections. I swear that the foregoing statement is true and correct. Signed on @ p 2 \ tu,MMat T. 4 % R M, .
SIGhATURE: )d o_. f b d2 Subscribed nd sworn to before me this /d day of [f,.f/f ,
1984 at (/k)l $( .
INVESTIGATOR:
v
& ((u%
WITNESS:
NAME/ TITLE
STATEMENT PLACE: T2c.c_ k H ,'t\ $ C.
DATE/ TIME: A - t co- eA 2.s A o?A I, Gary E. ROSS, do hereby make the following voluntary statement to E. L. Williamson and J. Y. Vorse who have identified themselves to me as Investigators with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission. I do hereby make this voluntary statement without any threats having been made against me or any promises extended to me.
I am currently employed as a Supervisory Technician / Welding Inspection at Duke Power Company (DPC) Catawba Nuclear Station, Clover, South Carolina. I have been employed by DPC for 13 years, beginning in March 1971. I initially hired on as a welder, a job I held for two years before becoming a welding inspector.
I served as a welding inspector for one year and moved into we.1 ding inspection Jem w hfRwy M supervision. I began working for DPC at Joe Cs5sWy, a fossil fuel plant and then moved to the McGuire Nuclear Station which was my first job at a nuclear plant with DPC. I worked at McGuire for approximately three years and moved to Catawba Nuclear Station in August 1976. Prior to working for DPC I was employed by Daniels Construction Company as a welder for one year. I learned to weld in a welding apprenticeship program working for the Newport News Shipbuilding Cnmpany. I was in this program for four years. I also attended Clemson University for one year.
I have been askea to comment on allegations made by Harry LANGLEY, former welding inspector that students were provided with answers to QC examinations, I can only say that I did not provide anyone with assistance nor am I aware of anyone who might have given assistance to any of the students. As I recall the QC welding inspector class lasted five or six weeks. They spent half the day in class and half the day in the field with a trained inspector. The class had LANGLEY, Charles CRISP, Pete SHERIFF and Ronny KIRBY and a few mechanical inspectors who attended some of the classes. The class was divided into three parts, general, specific and practical. The students were given daily quizzes which were returned each day to be used as study guides. These auizzes were used to test what was being taught and what was being learned. There was a O
b i PAGE \ OF ~2 PAGES C: .ou- =
l l
final exam given at thc end of eacn phase. The final general subject phase was a closed book exam, the final specific subject phase was a closed book exan but the final practical was an open book exam. I have heard these allegations but to the best of my knowledge there was not any cheating in the class. I certainly did not provide students with answers inside their test nor am I aware of anyone who might have given the students assistance. I do not feel that there is any substance to the allegations. ) [ . k i I have read the foregoing statement consisting of 2 typed pages. I have made and initialed any necessary corrections. I swear that the foregoing statement is true and correct. Signed on @ w ? \ td RMat T. 4 % R b, .
SIGNATURE: ba% fkd 9 ave i
Subscribe ndsworntebeforerethis/d day of //g.[ /f ,
1984 at _ (/ll _(( .
INVESTIGATOR: ,/./y t (( [ u m WITNESS:
NAME/ TITLE PAGE 2_ 0F 2 PAGES
d' I
, STATEMENT PLACE: bfe )$s is 6xt.sa .,
DATE/ TIME: /.7 #pe /9 I. An '
M//4'} _ d , do hereby make the following voluntary statement to M t. /#/bdorf who has identified himself to me as an Investigator with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission. I do hereby make this voluntary statement without any threats having been made against me or any promises extended to me.
I #ns t%</'n /Ar / H d k s / k b b J h a ir x h ,g,e,vc- h4.')
1r s d?x w a' & lr /74 L & l m e ,. .2 - An< 4 G,edes
<P' .s<-> L / w n: a- ~ ,, ar A~, x s <,-x ,/f d s
.j/Juh,/a A,s</r.-<.<s'taud' /a a K < -<<.;< / a <.s
/2crev / 4 A s. s. <._
bt'l f-'*fr$f ff fd'I'/<bU=, f* * ** *D W. E'/t' /'Wf!'//#f
/st/he 'nese 2N e/ '
thSec dbr< 4< "4(/< 4 .< . Sis,ni
'3' /s.e as-</' .-- um.+ , s<? ids-, s/&4.~4 erk
//sw/ 4' w . vela &r&n As." % <n Aew&~
e A<
s / k <)
4,fr.n2 %<n;<. /s o,e A me} A a Jk 7 a:s a 1/hdnl' s/ /<AI & J. .e ;7 ld&-s ' s A J .sc'se< 4
/),$ /A w a/ .&ur. .-<.'. rc y
\
A~ xA ,/ -d <+- / u m A,nAs
\N k 1
'e+d'&<nw,.6 J.e,-
~
~
s 4% ./d 46//sWAdA
\ \ %s7,/ -. M ~. ' // 7 x a 7 &<4 (J < 1 < s/' &AA
'& %, m s/ '% /a,A <b/ x/ sA4e 74 e 4-a
.k'es:c, den /a d64 AAA/-n ,1~/ Gre: Arr. 74 eAnP a A<:/ 1,ac h, som'/6 :4 22 a6 % d-,se. J k s <;/ ,.<< l.9. %6 a<6 ed A%' < Ac a / 2' s <// .sid
,.o r s t w L , . <. s~/ w s < / c< w w "r / N # ' b f h M C ~ 9 J 1
59tRW BA# 70A4 <4-, Ar.r/<</ A ds/ e 44, k .c
.,a nd
'//o sxnn sAi .sess,r/,.-<4/ o~-e 4.-}- -emAd /u-J/'
~1 hs/ sr.e NNv .<ssdn.2es . Ar.I
$s r.~, n. ? 6 ffr'r'd
/1< c// k/1 /s W f s9 c'Absef' n!{$d ,f-sA'#~' m Ns4 o f 5 .r /r s e d o. & ?'d .r&<he/r M,e/
3s ve l, trf,4' cis/rr+,
./fde/ //a'xs </.tebr/ U J* Y sx;ed /N &#bbd W.<.e 1-A ws / n r.s 4 5 > & wn .i<< % </n / .u .i h<af '
ca.4, km 74.G' /K. u.u ' A'%/ u" s/ 2 n/' s /'A' 02M
- %l G(1z - r a x e a-su a / /s. . &c
.. v
- STATEMENT CONTINUATION h.r,.aec A'e'/ <G /ser,1%-br- N / J b b k /s e,e s /;V m deef A ,.
s>,.ar sst ?b budf /WYmsdexr sx) 0<dx N &enswe f;*y /// A # r.f A d5's'fr/. 7 0/s,' jar /A4/ I A//r"/, c hspi,/l<f ma,' >$ 4m. -a dos , pf A we w< n ;~ Am g/ Ja os/t A#rw /ri. ANr/fs:6 s e ,- /x- lP/MJ 8 f M W /,r/ 7b f; css *h /4 A%% bas). E & 7dp/&e,/ /// h.or.Nx &fas rs W7:</ S n. -ws, e / Asru/t Ac m < sed A ka % n/<s 2 /;f r D ? $ W - b.$$$ $N#$b U' N.rd'V /d.on Ow Wh ? W 9Wr/Iss.1 % 7'd dr/ 9tr/r aje A ,-m Y$$Y Y ,$ %$$ $ is 1 D$ Yb? Y ,?,,4,.= <f
,r M! :$J- -'~? A N Js w A/e f'ms / fx e-sn /
\
+ &&// ber lb'r"7 skr.eirse, D<" .5/ e A A -W Sm Soa r'm fnsio, h/' M//- As.c1 bl N /1 ///'* A9c/ d' At'/ b& . 4'. y /*rree/oe
//l~8.GM 4~x.edd "
/6 dec rs/ A , 7/a// ,44/!,4Ek/ NA, da-dr, l /
N' X /
^
\ .
, /
N 1 /
N
~
A/
7<
/
/' N
/' N r' N ~
I have read the foregoing statement consisting of 2- handwri tten/4.ype<!
pages. I have made and initialed any necessary corrections and have signed my name in ink in the margin of each page. I swear that the foregoing statement is true and correct. Si ned on //DP L /1 /f64 a t /o: / 2 A m .
SIGNATURE: ._ -
E u /-
/ /
Subscribed and sworn to before me this /3 day of 4p,c ~/
198$at b he /bux 6nym Nor& /e s'. c .
INVESTIGATOR:, M r / /4 4 / d .r ,
.# /
v 5 ;r E"E',-
FLA:E: .- ) / - ).
.. ,s DATE/ TIME: /.7 4er J V '
M//IU , .f/L
, do hereby make the following voluntary statement to g l /(4/44-wa who has identified himself to me as an Investigator with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I do hereby make this voluntary statement without any threats having been made against me or any promises extended to me.
.1~ /?m thers&/47 /w6.//Ar /]4' kresx kre,ce#"c < hd')
Ar / /Mmww iY d -/s.NASNv LShs;wi . / Ae $ ,i N.sedNd 6P' uw 5% ns x <.r ~ u ser A k n n s / 's /
/L</ss///e- As <,we<//c Weda K r- e E 6'es<.s /i&ree. s////*nt'/Ns-a<s:
of / vi kfk f**'t'f f e r*s ? o lf k k'I /fb.t '.. btc'M r r5r t'ff /ferf
//n /*.
////N',6 ////e -&$N- x/ /d>Nec t'%s A < "&<< A-,< r Jik A ~a ts , A -rr c/ <"e4 w k Cen,<<
' 7 ~ / A .<< Jere/ /- raw.es
///w/ 'b' /.**"<~bc/r fehr k.~, b? B<<u /4.- //cMAn Ana /Swee f 417r', u 6 ~ <. Ar o- J .<r.JSa A< .de 7as .
p 1 fred &f s/ /<d 7 /u b.es .I ldd-n/ s A.C /dl,vc - +
F J.?i f 8 4 ,e. n / s -n : - m e L i r. .
1 s, n w s <-> s ~ n< m . a s c%. t'.-C d'< .4e.,
- 9r'J'ASE4,.
( lG,,f s+ , /' /;:<.eAe 4 Au .<~ '
tb.4< s/' t& n<<Aa ~- ' x .7 x A 7 / <-//
R' Q 2 /<s/u m zyn,M s/ 4<.x n ., % < A s., %f <;A&c .X4.-v A n, N X'ere., Ace./s~- c'%4- A/d: . sn/ 6,m- A.rs. % e/skl
> % - : / 4 , ,, 4 M
/<.s i r}<&4c7 /+ 6 YAn 6'saa - ,/ s< J /;/ />r5-7. '>'s G a e A A<i
/es< 4e a / 7 m, // /4 s v /s 4/. , . <. s~/ A <;s e w/ ee e n.v $ f M ! W s.k%m.,cr C%p#
A M"M h ? B n A A ,4. , A /4 / /s o4c
.# 7& sAct /nn.-/ Aces,w -e4/ o ~.e e ~.6
/2<. rv 4~
- e Y &&<s' /ce7/ .a Anw/ /c c, R., ass,d,<x du ds' .I 8s,e-n. 26 freed
/ex/ 76y /c// / ri4s/ d :-# &s~.-nAc
/ / E 4 ' < p s ,.- e , ,
97' i lei 7'r' .<e :tk4 - 76 .r 4 < A-e-/5 /< r e, f4-en-
-st d< / /t w </wd</ A/ sd rud A nchA4! % ~-
j 4.-<f co<4i m /
Arn/ c/ed5 >% a& r -ie, An- </n,/ s1 '
uc, 'w Ai%/ w, x/ 2 n/' s /'/c 9/83*'
-3 7A4 /4, .
\X\0' I 4,v 6 / / 6 ,e s K s 4 s w ; A -, / % ,,; ,t ,m -,s .
l1 L l}
- s .
~
5 7 EE ',T C C',T :',1:T : ',
4
<:' e v:n. : . a >, /. - /%l 3 f',4 4 ,'.n . , g, .>; j ,,, ,. s ,-
/* s:v,c ,7.%) ,. , e . . p ,, ,
A s i:. v j W dw]' 6NN?~ , e f,c,,v, /x c,.v/,:x
/?As Y ,//M A t'<'str r J O /w' JA, - 741 / .,T i.s,y r .x b?ni,4 ' .
$I y u* W)t # d' W / 41 A (,W/q A '$ 8'Y $ / WAW**#E/Af 0A ' ?
W Au, Me A#rw$, bin AKEu 'Aun < /& /Pra:'s a / ,+'mws,e/ %
A cris N . s A%% bass. 7 /V /sme / /z's ,+nr bic &,6, +d' io.,s/ Mw N ' r ss :y G
/6' /r/ l svn s/n b / Asres A /W' w<
Aw / wet 9/5 %.2%".dALLOClYNTAdA '.N' n .7/ sn L s ? $ , / C s, , ,. 6 , &d.'?~?l,e Wh?? hres/u, W N ?^$.$$?Nh$Y-$ /$5/ SWY$W?lh-r s.ca,.&f m '.7' 6 n, ,c, e
3 -/; .&: ! M. b -%~; w A N Jn-e d'/s e% / o f s'cce /
/nrs//>{yr b'w //be.,-tr/e./ , ew "s e A w< -s A r.sw nea t'm Ay,, pw v
s '
en b.<'s da l Z&r //f'-a- /c 9<s&t' . cc'/
h /r . c. /- -wwea fx hw/S~.$dA(, t'n .e4zS /6 de w s A 7(asic sWNALu,/ 2,dal',/
\Ss det,,
/
NK X / =
\ N . /
N ,y /
/{ /
K
/ N
/ N
/ N r/~
2- handwri tten/ typed I have read the foregoing statement consisting of pages. I have made and initialed any necessary corrections and have signed my name in ink in the margin of each page. I swear that the foregoing statement is
/W l /7 /O- 4 at ic . .' s A m .
true and correct. Signed on
,i0 / i SIGNATURE:
W/ a
'NAME j/ /
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
/3 day of / Rec '/ ,
198Yat /% k< fcus d' nun (%c4 /e _ A' C .
INVESTIGATOR:,N-f def/Ney1. .
WITNESS: j t'< (s
'~ NAM [/T'ITLE
~ Pace of -
RESULTS OF INTERVIEW WITH PETER K. VAND00RN ON MAY 4, 1984 AS PREPARED BY JAMES Y. VORSE On May 4, 1984, Peter K. VAND00RN, NRC Resident Inspector at the Catawba Nuclear Station was interviewed by Investigator James Y. Vorse at 101 Marietta Street, Atlanta, GA. VAND00RN stated that he has been the Resident inspector at the Catawbe site from February 1981 to the present.
Prior to that, he was an NRC Region 11 metallurgical engineer from 1977 to 1981. During the period April 1967 to August 1977, he was a welding engineer at the Naval Ship Yard, Mare Islend, CA.
VAND00RN explained that he is very familiar with the welding inspector concerns, both technical and r.cn-technical. He stated that a thorough, one hundred percent review of the technical concerns was done by Duke Power Corrpany with NRC evaluation. VAND00RN stated that it was determined that there were procedural violations, most of which had been properly documented at the time they occurred. There were a few procedure problems that could have been more properly documented, but even so, there were no technical discrepancies. VAND00RN stated there was also a breakdown in communications between Charles BALDWIN, OA Technical Supervisor and Beau ROSS, QC Welding Supervisor. VAND00RN explained that BALDWIN perceived ROSS as " nit picking" and ROSS perceived BALDWIN as deficient in procedures enforcement and knowledge. Regarding non-technical issues, VAND00RN explained that he spoke to all of the welding inspectors about harassment in regard to technical problems end whether or not it resulted in backing off f rom their original decision. None of those who claimed they were harassed cited instances where their decision was changed as a result of the harassment. VAND00Rh stated that as a result of the harassment concerns, a recourse procedure was implemented by Duke.
VAND00RN stated that he looked at the harassment issue in the bottom line sense; that is, what affect did it have? In no cases did he determine the perceived harassment resulted in an inspector altering his decision.
VAFD00RN stated that he believed all of the corrective action taken by Duke was adequate and there was no technical significance. VAND00RN stated he thought management should have taken somewhat stronger action in the Phillip REEP, QC welding inspector, harassment issue; however, REEP seemed satisfied with the final outcome. VAND00RN stated that he provided extensive written prepared testimony and oral testimony to the ASLB regarding all of the welding inspectors' concerns.
END OF RESULTS OF INTERVIEW WITP FETER K. VAND00RN ON MAY 4,1984 M$M famesf.Vorse, Investigator yd w
c 0 r s- -