ML20133K677

Transcript of Investigative Interview of CR Baldwin on 840412 Re Allegations That Arose During ASLB Hearings

ML20133K677
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	04/12/1984
From:	Baldwin C DUKE POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20133K608	List: ML20133K606 ML20133K659 ML20133K677 ML20133K694
References
FOIA-84-722 NUDOCS 8508120321
Download: ML20133K677 (22)

Text

/ .

1 (" I TED STATEF GE A'4ERICJ.

!;UCLEAR REGULATORY CO?c:ISSION 2 . I l

3 j ----------------------------------X 4 In the Matter of:  :

5 Investigative Interview of  :

6 CHARLES R. BALDWIN  :

7 ----------------------------------x 8

9 10 Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street 11 Charlotte, North Carolina 12 Thursday, April 12, 1984 13 14 The Investigative Interview of CHARLES R. BALDWIN 15 commenced at 2:02 p.m., the witness having previously been  :

I 16 sworn by E. L. Williamson, U. S. Nuclear Regulato?y l t

I 17 - Commission. l I

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8508120321 850702 7/

PDR FDIA - V BELL 84-722 PDR l'

01 A m

e' .

1 APPLARIC ES:

2 On Behalf of the NRC:

3 E. L. Williamson Investigator 4 Office of Investigations Region II 5 101 Marietta Street, N.W.

Suite 2900 6 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 7 James Y. Vorse Director 8 Office of Investigations Region II 9 101 Marietta Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 10 11 On Behalf of the Witness:

12 Albert V. Carr, Jr., Esq.

Assistant General Counsel 13 Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street 14 Charlotte, North Carolina 15 J. Michael McGarry, Esq.

l Bishop, Libe rman , Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 16 1200 17th Street, N.W.

j Washington, D. C. 20036 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 s

3 .

1 l

i PROCEED 1:1G (2:02 p.m.)

2 , -MR. WILLIAMSON: For the record, it is now i-3 2:02 p.m., and this is an interview of Charles R. Baldwin, 4 who is employed by Duke Power Company. The location of this 5 interview is Duke Power Company, 822 Church Street, 6 Charlotte, North Carolina. Present at this interview are 7 E. L. Williamson, J. Y. Vorse, A. V. Carr, Jr., and J.

8 Michael McGarry.

9 As agreed, this interview is being transcribed to by court reporter Garrett J. Walsh, Jr. The subject matter 11 of this interview concerns Catawba Nuclear Station. Mr 12 Baldwin, I want you to understand that you ar6still under 13 oath, and we have additional questions to ask you about the 14 allegations that arose during the ASLB hearings last Fall, 15 wherein a former welding inspector alleged that during a 16 QC welding inspector class, that he and other members of the 17 class were provided with answers to tests prior to being 18 subjected to taking the tests.

19 Whereupon, 20 CllARLES R. BALDWIN, 21 was called as a witness, and having been previously duly 22 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

23 DIRECT EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. WILLIAMSON:

25 O First of all, I would like to know what, as you

a .

4 I recall your role in the training of the welding inspectors 2 at Catawa was during this particular time frame. I think 3 we are talking as far back as 1977.

4 A I did review my participation in this, after 6 the allegation came up as a result of the hearings. In 6 this particular training program, I was responsible for the 7 coordination and the scheduling, and also active as an 8 instructor for portions of this training program.

9 I revised the tests, made sure they were in 10 accordance with the current procedures. I graded the tests, 11 which were also reviewed by -- I wasn't certified as the 12 examiner, but that was reviewed, or the grades were reviewed 13 by the examiner. Ray Hollins was the examiner at that time.

14 0 Who was primarily responsible for the training I

15 l of the welding inspectors? As I understand, there were 16 four instructors --

17 A There were four instructors, yes. Ray Hollins 18 taught what we call the general portion of that, which dealt i

I 19 with weld defects, basic metallurgy-type instructions. After

j. 33 that it was the procedures and the practical portions of it,

! 21 and it was Ray Hollins, Beau Ross, Larry Davison and myself 22 that did the training on this. This was several weeks or l

23 several days of training.

l 24 O Do you recall how long the class lasted?

1 25 A The classes, as I recall, we taught half-days.

i

i .

1 They were taught in the cornings or u. the ccenings, and 2 the applicants were given the rest of the day to go out in I

3 j the field with the other inspectors and actually observe and 4 implement, or see the procedures being, implemented that they 5 had been trained on during their training program.

I 6 O Lengthwise, the class lasted how many weeks?

7 A Probably, as I recall, around four or five weeks.

8 Q Do you recall who was in that particular class, 9 '

student wise. The welding inspectors in the class?

10 A Yes. There were eight people in that class. We 11 had four people in the class that were to be assigned to the 12  ; welding inspection crew. That was Harry Langley, Lamar 13 Sherrif -- I don't recall the other two guys names at this 14 tine.

15 I think Truitt Murray --

1 16  ; O Ronnie Kirby?

17 A Ronnie Kirby.

l i

18 0 And Charlie Crisp.

l 19 i A Charlie Crisp, yes. There were four other guys t

1 20

' that were in the mechanical inspection area that were being i

21 trained to -- our program allowed people in other areas 22 to inspect fillet welds. And they were -- at that' time we 23 were considering allowing the mechanical people to inspect 24 the fillet welds on five inch supports and that type of thing 25 that they were involved in, and the electrical inspectors

J .

i

1 inspected the welds on electrical hangers. But we never did 2 implement that.

1 3 That is when those four people were in the class, 4 trying to become certified as fillet weld inspectors.

5 Q Through other interviews, I understand that the 6 welding inspectors, in particular, were given daily quizzes 7 on subject matter covered either that day, or the previous 8 day.

9 Were you involved in administering these daily 10 quizzes, or was this left up to the primary instructor for 11 that block of instruction?

12 A I was involved in giving the quizzes. Usually it 4

4 13 happened I gave the quizzes on the classes I had taught.

14 Sometimes, maybe the instructor that had the class the 15 following day would give the quiz for the instructor on the 1 16 previous day.

i.

! 17 Q Were these quizzes returned to the students, or 18 were they retained by the training staff?

19 A I don 't recall specifically how that happened. I i

f N think what happened was that the tests were graded, and af ter 21 the tests were graded, they would be returned to the-individual 22 just for review, and then were taken up again. I do know they 23 weren't given back to be kept. Only for review. Usually j 24 on the following day after the test. They were taken up

25 during the -- shortly after or during the class af ter the i

t

7 e

i 1

I review.

2 '

O What was the major testing procedure for the 3 class? You had a class on general subjects, specific 4 subjects, and I guess practical areas. Were the inspectors 5 subjected to testing at the end of each one of these 6 particular phases?

7 A Well, the general portion that was taught by 4

8 Ray Hollins was, like I said, was the basic metallurgy 9 I portion of the training program. Ray did have about three l

10 quizzes, with four or five questions, as I recall on those 11 that he gave to help him evaluate the job that he was doing.

I 12 j Were the people or the students comprehending what he was l

13 teaching? That wasn't used for grade. That was only an 14 aid for him.

15 Then, af ter his class, which usually lasted for 16 about a week -- I think 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> -- they were given a general ,

17 examination. That was used for a grade. After that, we 18 . trained on the procedures, with daily tests given on that.

i .I 19 Those daily tests were given, and they counted -- I forgot

! 20 what the weighted value of those were -- toward the final i

21 grade. And then there was an overall procedural test that 22 was given af ter that training program, and that had a certain

, 23 weighted value.

24 Then there was a practical test that was given.

l

j. Mi Usually we used ten or twelve specimans for the welding

l 1 I .in spe ct or . These specirens had welds on ther at different h

2 j stages. Maybe a fit-up inspection. Maybe a root pass i

3. inspection, a final weld condition. Those types of things.

l 4 Inspectors were given those things, and they had to go througt 5 there and determine if that was acceptable for the inspection 6 that they were p'erforming, and then do all the steps; verify 7 'the materials when it was appropriate, verify that the welder 8 was qualified, verify that the dimensions were met, and so 9 forth and so on.

10 Q. Did you, at any time, provide any assistance in 11' terms of providing questions and answers to anyone in the 12 class. Questions and answers for final examination to anyone 13 in the class?

14 A No, sir.

- 15 0 Were you aware of anyone that might have provided 16 the answers to test questions. ' Final examinations to anyone 17 in the class?

18 A No, sir.

19 Q Have you discussed this alleged cheating incident 2 with anyone within Duke Power?

21 A Only after it came up, yes.

22 DIRECT EXAMINATION 23 BY MR. VORSE:

24 Q What do you think prompted Mr. Langley to make 25 that allegation? I know that is highly speculative, but s

• a I what.do you think might have happened to cause him to think i

2 that that happened?

3 A I really -- I know that Mr. Langley was terminated 4 because of gambling on the job, and I feel that he might have 5 had -- saw that as a means to fight back at Duke Power 6 Company. I don't know why he thought of that, because he 7 wasn't in the welding inspection program that long compared 8 to what some of the other people -- I don't know.

9 I really can't answer that.

10 DIRECT EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. WILLIAMSON:

12 Q Do you feel there is any substance to the allegatio n 13 made by Mr. Langley?

14 A No, sir.

15 Q Mr. Baldwin, have I or any other NRC representative 16 here threatened you in any manner, or offered you any reward 17 in return for this statement?

18 A No, sir, i

19 Q Have you given this statement freely and-I N voluntarily?

p 21 A Yes, sir.

i l 22 Q Is there.any additional information you would 23 like to add for the record regarding this statement?

24 A No, sir.

I M MR. WILLIAMSON: This interview is concluded at 2:10 p.m. ,

L -

I on April 12, 1984. ,

i l 2 '

(Whereupon, the interview concluded at 2:10 p.m.,

3 this same day.)

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 i Cr;~m CATE OF PROCEPDII:C5 ,

i 2 This is to certify that the attached croceedinas.before the 3

NRC Commission In the matter of: Investigative Interview of 4 Charles R. Baldwin 5 Date of Proceeding: April 12, 1984 6 Place of Proceeding: Duke Power Company, Charlotte, N.C.

7 were held as herein appears, and that. this is the original transcript for the file of the Commission.

8 9

10 GARRETT J. WALSH, JR.

Official Reporter - Typed 11 12 13 gf ,

y p 14 Official Peforter - Signature

! 15 I 16 17 i

, 18 19 ,

20 f'

! 21 i~

22 23 l- 24 t

. 25 i

i

+

w- r,-*w* ' * -

-*+--w* *me-w---s--- --r,e +e-am

o l

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

l 3 ----------------------------------X 4 In the Matter of:  :

5 Investigative Interview of  :  ;

6 CHARLES R. BALDWIN  : i l

7 ----------------------------------X j 8 l 1

9 , ,

10 Luke Power Company j 422 South Church Street 11  ! Charlotte, North Carolina 12 Thursday, April 12, 1984 l 13  !

I i

14 The Investigative Interview of CHARLES R. BALDWIN 15 commenced at 2:02 p.m., the witness having previously been l 16 sworn by E. L. Williamson, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory l 17 Commission, j 18 ,

l 19 20 21 22 a

23 24 b

25 l'.

\

E, M o : a.. .y.6F-1 7

.- o -.

o 2

1 APPEARANCES :

-2 On Behalf of the NRC:

3. E. L. Williamson Investigator 4 Office of Investigations Region II 5 101 Marietta Street, N.W.

Suite 2900 6 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 7 Jame s Y . Vorse Director 8 Office of Investigations Region II g 101 Marietta Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 10 11 On Behalf of the Witness:

12 Albert V. Carr, Jr., Esq.

Assistant General Counsel 13 Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street 14 Charlotte, North Carolina 15 J. Michael McGarry, Esq.

Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 16 1200 17th Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

I 3

I 1 ! PROCEEDING (2:02 p.m.)

2 MR. WILLIAMSON: For the record, it is now 3 2:02 p.m., and this is an interview of Charles R. Baldwin, 4 who is employed by Duke Power Company. The location of this 5 interview is Duke Power Company, 822 Church Street, 6 Charlotte, North Carolina. Present at this interview are 7 E. L. Williamson, J. Y. Vorse, A. V. Carr, Jr., and J.

8 l Michael McGarry.

9 i As agreed, this interview is being transcribed 10 by court reporter Garrett J. Walsh, Jr. The subject matter 11 of this interview concerns Catawba Nuclear Station. Mr i

12 Baldwin, I want you to understand that you arsstill under t

13 oath, and we have additional questions to ask you about the 14 allegations that arose during the ASLB hearings last Fall, 15  ! wherein a former welding inspector alleged that during a 16  ! QC welding inspector class, that he and other members of the 17 l

class were provided with answers to tests prior to being i

18 l subjected to taking the tests.

I 19 Whereupon, 20 CHARLES R. BALDWIN, 21 was called as a witness, and having been previously duly 22 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

23 DIRECT EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. WILLIAMSON:

25 0 First of all, I would like to know what , as you w

4 1 recall your role in the training of the welding inspectors 2 at Catawa was during this particular time frame. I think 3 we are talking as far back as 1977.

4 A I did review my participation in this, af ter 5 the allegation came up as a result of the hearings. In 6 this particular training program, I was responsible for the 7 coordination and the scheduling, and also active as an 8 l instructor for portions of this training program.

9 '

I revised the tests, made sure they were in l

10 accordance with the current procedures. I graded the tests, l

11 <

which were also reviewed by -- I wasn't certified as ,the i

12 f examiner, but that was reviewed, or the grades were reviewed 13 j by the examiner. Ray liollins was the examiner at that time.

i 14 0 Who was primarily responsible for the training 15 of the welding inspectors? As I understand, there were 16 l four instructors --

17 A There were four instructors, yes. Ray Hollins 18 ! taught what we call the general portion of that, which dealt

! i 19 with weld defects, basic metallurgy-type instructions.

Afterl 20 l that it was the procedures and the practical portions of it, l 21 and it was Ray Hollins, Beau Ross, Larry Davison and myself 22 that did the training on this. This was several weeks or i

23 j several days of training. -

i 24 O Do you recall how long the class lasted? I M A The classes, as I recall, we taught half-days.  ;

1 i l

5 1 They were taught in the mornings or in the evenings, and 2 the applicants were given the rest of the day to go out in 3 the field with the other inspectors and actually observe and 4 implement, or see the procedures being implemented that they 5 had been trained on during their training program.

6 Q Lengthwise, the class lasted how many weeks?

7 A Probably, as I recall, around four or five weeks.

8 Q Do you recall who was in that particular class, 9 student wise. The welding inspectors in the class?

10 A Yes. There were eight people in that class. We f i

11 had four people in the class that were to be assigned to the l I

12 welding inspection crew. That was Harry Langley, Lamar i i .

13 Sherrif -- I don't recall the other two guys names at this l

l 14 time.

16 I think Truitt Murray -- .

I t

16 Q Ronnie Kirby?

17 A Ronnie Kirby.

18 0 And Charlie Crisp.

19 A Charlie Crisp, yes. There were four other guys l 20 that were in the mechanical inspection area that were being 21 trained to -- our program allowed people in other areas 22 to inspect fillet welds. And they were -- at that time we 23 were considering allowing the mechanical people to inspect 24 the fillet welds on five inch supports and that type of thing 26 that they were involved in, and the electrical inspectors

6 1 inspected the welds on electrical hangers. But we never did 2 implement that.

3 That is when those four people were in the class, 4

trying to become certified as fillet weld inspectors.

6 O Through other interviews, I understand that the 6

welding inspectors, in particular, were given daily quizzes 7

on subject matter covered either that day, or the previous 8  !

day.

9 Were you involved in administering these daily 10 quizzes, or was this lef t up to the primary instructor for 11 that block of instruction?

12 A I was involved in giving the quizzes. Usually it i

13 happened I gave the quizzes on the classes I had taught. l I

l I 14 h Sometimes, maybe the instructor that had the class the I.

U I 15 [

following day would give the quiz for the instructor on the '

16 i previous day.

17

, O Were these quizzes returned to the students, or ,

i 18 were they retained by the training staff?

19 A l I don't recall specifically how that happened. I ,

l 20 l think what happened was that the tests were graded, and after i

21 the tests were graded, they would be returned to the individua'l 22 just for review, and then were taken up again. I do know they M  ! we ren ' t given back to be kept. Only for review.

i Usually i

24 on the following day after the test. They were taken up f

M during the -- shortly af ter or during the class af ter the

1 7

1 review.

2 O What was the major testing procedure for the 3 class? You had a class on general subjects, specific 4 subjects, and I guess practical areas. Were the inspectors l

5 subjected to testing at the end of each one of these 6 particular phases?

7 A Well, the gene ral portion that was taught by 8 Ray Hollins was, like I said, was the basic metallurgy

! i 9 ! portion of the training program. Ray did have about three  :

f 10 quizzes, with four or five questions, as I recall on those i 11 that he gave to help him evaluate the job that he was doing.

i 12 j Were the people or the students comprehending what he was .

13 teaching? That wasn't used for grade. That was only an l i

14 ! aid for him.

15 Then, after his class, which usually lasted for i

16 about a week -- I think 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> -- they were given a general l 17 examination. That was used for a grade. After that, we i

! l 18 trained on the procedures, with daily tests given on that. l i

19 ; Those daily tests were given, and they counted -- I forgot ,

2 l what the weighted value of those were -- toward the final

i 21 l grade. And then there was an overall procedural test that i

22 l was given after that training program, and that had a certainl t

I l 23 ' weighted value.

24 Then there was a practical test that was given.

25 Usually we used ten or twelve specimans for the welding h

8 1 inspector. These specimens had welds on them at different 2 stages. Maybe a fit-up ins  : tion. Maybe a root pass 3 inspection, a final weld condition. Those typea of things.

4 Inspectors were given those things, and they had to go through 5 there and determine if that was acceptable for the inspection 6 that they were performing, and then do all the steps; verify 7 the materials when it was appropriate, verify that the welder 8 was qualified, verify that the dimensions were met, and so 9 forth and so on.

10 0 Did you, at any time, provide any assistance in 11 terms of providing questions and answers to anyone in the 12 class. Questions and answers for final examination to anyone 13 in the class?

14 A No, sir.

15 0 Were you aware of anyone that might have provided 16 the answers to test questions. ' Final examinations to anyone 17 in the class?

18 A No, sir.

19 0 Have you discussed this alleged cheating incident 20 with anyone within Duke Power?

21 A Only af ter it came up, yes.

22 DIRECT EXAMINATION 23 BY MR. VORSE:

24 0 What do you think prompted Mr. Langley to make 25 that allegation? I know that is highly speculative, but L

. 9 1 what do you think might have happened to cause him to think 2 that that happened?

3 A I really -- I know that Mr. Langley was terminated 4 because of gambling on the job, and I feel that he might have 5 had -- saw that as a means to fight back at Duke Power 6 Company. I don't know why he thought of that, because he 7 wasn't in the welding inspection program that long compared 8 ,

to what some of the other people -- I don't know.

^

9 I really can't answer tha t.  !

i

> +

10 j DIRECT EXAMINATION  !

11 BY MR. WILLIAMSON:

' i 12 O Do you feel there is any substance to the allegation l

13 made by Mr. Langley? I 14 , A No, sir, i

l 15 O Mr. Baldwin, have I or any other NRC representative l I

16  ; here threatened you in any manner, or offered you any reward 17 in return for this statement? i l

l 18 l

A No, sir. j i

19 O Have you given this statement freely and l 20 voluntarily?

21 A Yes, sir.

Z2 O Is there any additional information you would 23 like to add for the record regarding this statement?

24 A No, sir.

M MR. WILLIAMSON: This interview is concluded at 2:10 p.m.,

• 10 1 on April 12, 1984.

2 (Whereupon, the interview concluded at 2:10 p'.m.,

3 this same day.)

4 5

6 7

8 i

10 l

l 11 i

12 l

13 l'

14 f

15 i i

16 .

i 17 l 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 CERTIFICATE OF PROCEEDINGS 2 This is to certify that the attached oroceedinos before the 3 NRC Commission 4

In the matter of: Investigative Interview of l Charles R. Baldwin 5 l Date of Proceeding: April 12, 1984 6 Place of Proceeding: Duke Power Company, Charlotte, N.C.

7 were held as herein appears, and that this is the oricinal 8

transcript for the file of the Commission.

i 9 .

10 GARRETT J. WALSH, JR.

Of ficial Reporter - Typed 11 t

12 14 sbar D f ad jf ' #

Official PeWorter - Sionatur'e 15 l 16  ;

17 i 18 19 -

20 21 22 l

23 24 i M i i

i

.