ML20138H240

Testimony of P Fredrickson & R Prevatte for NRC Re Contention WB-3 on Allegation Concerning Reinsp of Work Performed by Persons Suspected of Drug Abuse.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20138H240
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	10/24/1985
From:	Fredrickson P, Prevatte R NRC, NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
References
CON-#485-941 OL, NUDOCS 8510280510
Download: ML20138H240 (14)

Text

-

(f ill WTED COgRESPONDENCt.

eb '

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION \

Ocr e.s  !

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD cpa,~ -7n /

jL '=r In the Matter of Y' Y ~Ii% Y'/

)

~

CAROLINAPOWERANDLIGHTCOMPANYAND\ Docket Nos. 50-400 OL NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL ) 50-401 OL PO!!EP AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

TESTIMONY OF PAUL FPEDRICKSON AND RICHARD PREVATTE FOR THE NRC STAFF REGARDING CONTENTION WB-3'S ALLEGATION CONCERNING REINSPECTION OF WORK PERFORMFD BY PERSONS SUSPECTED OF DRUG ARUSE Q.1. Please state your names, job titles, and business address for the record.

A.I. My name is Paul Fredrickson. My job title is Section Chief, Division of Reactor Projects. My business address is 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900, Atlanta, Georgia 30323.

My name is Richard Prevatte. My job title is Senior Resident Inspector for Construction at the Shearon Harris power plant site.

My business address is U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Route 1, i Box 3158, New Hill, N.C. 27562.

.l Q.2. Please state your professional qualifications for the record. l A.2. The professional qualifications of Mr. Prevatte were previously made a part of this proceeding (see transcript page 8653). The l

0 T

h7 (

I

. I 1

\

l professional qualifications of Mr. Fredrickson are attached to this testimony.

Q.3. What is the pe pose of this testimony?

A.3. The purpose of this testimony is to address the Conservation Counsel of North Carolina's Contention WB-3 insofar as it addresses reinspection. That contention reads:

Drug use at the Harris Plant is widespread. Employees under the influence of drugs are less able to follow i proper procedures and tech specs for the installation of electrical systems, pipefitting, and other safety-related work. Applicant's management has failed to control drug use during construction and further, has failed to reinspect all safety-related work done by known drug abusers.

Specifically, we are addressing that portion of the contention which concerns the Applicants' determination of whether or not to reinspect the work of known or suspected drug abusers.

Q.4. Mr. Fredrickson, please explain your involvement with the Shearon Harris site.

A.4. As Section Chief, I am Mr. Prevatte's immediate supervisor and I have responsibility for the Shearon Harris site within my section.

I review all inspection reports concerning Shearon Harris including Mr. Prevatte's reports, construction appraisal team (CAT) reports, and SALP reports. In addition, in preparation for this hearing, I reviewed the enforcement history for Shearon Harris covering the period prior to my assuming my current position.

Q.5. Mr. Prevatte, please explain your involvement with the Shearon Harris site.

A.5. My involvement with the Harris site is explained in previous testimony and in my professional qualifications which are already a part of this record.

Q.6. Are you familiar with the Applicants' letter of September 19, 1985 (MATRIX) from S. P.. Zimmerman, Applicants, to Harold Denton, NRC, which contains a Matrix concerning employees allegedly involved with drug activities?

A.6. Yes. We are.

Q.7. Have you reviewed that document?

A.7. Yes. We have.

1 Q.8. Would each of you describe the extent of your review.

A.8. Prevatte -- I have read and studied the document. I have discussed the contents of the document with members of the Applicants' staff.

I have reviewed the results of reinspections of the work performed by the QA/QC and CI inspectors. I have reviewed procedure CQA-7 which is used for the reinspection of inspectors' work.- I selected 10 craft personnel from those listed in the MATRIX and reviewed Applicants' documentation associated with their determination not to reinspect the work in question. I have also discussed the basis of Applicants' decisions on reinspection with Applicants' site management.

4-Fredrickson -- I have read and studied the MATRIX. I have discussed with Mr. Prevatte the results of his onsite reviews and the results of his discussions with Applicants' personnel concerning the document.

Q.9. Mr. Prevatte, have Applicants reinspected the work of all employees suspected of being involved in drug related activities?

A.9. No.

Q.10.Have Applicants reinspected the work of any employees suspected of being involved in drug related activities? If so, please describe the individuals involved and what reinspection occurred.

A.10.Yes. The MATRIX, pages 32, 33 and 34, identifies 15 persons who had inspection functions. For each of these 15 persons the applicants invoked QA procedure C0A-7. That procedure is used to determine the amount of reinspection required to determine the acceptable quality of the work and, therefore, if the inspector's suspected drug involvement reduced his inspection effectiveness. This could have resulted in 100% reinspection or the use of a statistical standard developed by the Department of Defense (Military Standard, MIL-STD-10$D)

(hereinafter MIL-STD) to determine the sample size which is appro-priate for the reinspection. Any deficiencies identified in those reinspections would have been documented on a nonconformance recort (NCR). This procedure was implemented on June 20, 1984.

Prior to implementation of the current procedure, COA-7, the Applicant used procedure AP-IX-08 " Evaluation Inspector or Vendor Weld Visual Inspection Performance on Welded Structural Fabrica-tions." This procedure was implemented in December, 1982 and is similar to CQA-7. In addition, a review of the Applicant's non-conformance logs by me indicates that reinspections have been conducted at Harris on other occasions prior to December 1982 when management or supervision had reason to doubt the effectiveness of inspector performance. We have no knowledge as to whether any of these incidents were related to drug use. The application of procedure CQA-7 resulted in some reinspection of 100% of the involved inspector's work, but in most cases the applicant chose a statistical sample of less than 100% based on the MIL-STD. I have verified that the Applicants did apply CQA-7 and MIL-STO to the areas of work inspected by each of the inspectors identified in the MATRIX. I am satisfied that the reinspections were performed and that the results are as stated on pages 32, 33 and 34 of the MATRIX. The reinspections verify that the work of the inspectors suspected of involvement with drugs was acceptable.

Q.II.What have Applicants done with respect to individuals suspected of drug involvement who were not inspection personnel.

A.11.If the incident involved a craft worker the Applicant evaluated the work activities in which the individual had been involved. If the work activity was safety related the Applicants made a decision as to whether or not to reinspect any of that work placing heavy l -. .

emphasis upon the degree of independent inspection that was involved in those work activities and the circumstances of the work. In the cases referenced in the September 19, 1985 MATRIX, Applicants deter-mined that reinspection of the craft workers activities was not required.

Q.12.Have Applicants, in your view, adequately addressed the work of individuals suspected of drug related activities?

A.12.Fredrickson and Prevatte -- Yes.

Q.13.What is the basis for that conclusion?

A.13.Prevatte -- My conclusion is based upon the foregoing discussion and, in addition, I have reviewed the information and work history data compiled by the Applicants on the 8 workers arrested as a result of the undercover operation. I additionally selected 10 individuals from the September 19, 1985 MATRIX and requested that the details of the Applicants' review of their work be made available to me. These 10 individuals consisted of the following: a painter; iron worker; pipefitter; field engineer; carpenter; electrician; utility worker; instrument fitter; rebar iron worker; sheetmetal worker; and truck driver. I reviewed the information provided by the Applican'ts which included a listing of each individual's work locations, the types of work done during their employment period, and in some cases the specific components or items worked on. This information also con-tained the employment history and evaluatior.s still available onsite j for the selected individuals. Based upon my review of this information j l

l

and my personal knowledge of the applicable work procedures, the type of work performed by these individuals, and the inspection require-ments for these types of work, I concur with Applicants' decision that reinspection is not required for the work performed by these 18 individuals. I consider this across-the-board sample and my knowl-edge of the work and applicable inspection requirements for the other effected workers is adequate to establish that reinspection is not required for the other craft personnel cited in the September 19, 1985 MATRIX.

I believe that the Applicant has a strong QA program. Since 1980 their SALP ratings have been a grade of (2) in this area. This indicates that their performance has consistently been satisfactory or better. The 1984 SALP (copy follcws transcript page 3660) shows an improving trend in this area and states that continued management attention in this area could result in a category (1) rating on subsequent evaluations. The present trend in this area is still improving.

In addition to the normal resident and regional inspection efforts during the past 1-1/2 years, Harris has received a construction appraisal team (CAT) and an integrated design inspection team (IDI) from I&E headquarters. I actively participated in both of the above inspections. The CAT report indicates that evidence existed to show that Harris had good construction management and a capable inspection force.

l

t l

I have personally conducted numerous inspections in all disciplines at the Harris site. I have on many occasions observed and docu-mented in inspection reports, my evaluations of the effectiveness of inspection personnel in the performance of their duties. Although deficiencies have been identified and documented in inspection reports, none of these have been of a major significance that would indicate a breakdown of the QA/QC effort or give me reason to question the ability of the inspection program to identify and require corrective action for any existing deficiencies. I believe the inspection program at Harris is one of Applicants' strengths and that program has the ability to identify safety related hardware deficiencies regardless of the cause of the deficiency.

Fredrickson -- My conclusion, which agrees with Mr. Prevatte's, is based on a review of inspection reports, my previous QA experience and my direct inspections at Shearon Harris. These three areas provided me with reasonable assurance that the Shearon Harris QA/QC program is adequate to identify, determine the cause of, and correct ccnditions adverse to quality resulting from inadequate work, what-ever the cause of that inadequate work. My review of the Applicants' submittals shows that the QA/QC program covers all the individuals in the MATRIX who perfonned safety-related work. Since I conclude that the performance of the QA/QC program is acceptable, Applicants' reliance on that program with respect to individuals suspected of drug use is also acceptable. I conclude that Applicants' decision not to reinspect the work of craft workers suspected of drug use is acceptable.

l l . _ _ . , .

_g.

In addition, the information I have on the QA/QC program and the reinspection conducted by the Applicants of the work of inspection personnel suspected of drug use provides me with sufficient infor-mation to determine that the work of QC and CI inspectors suspected of involvement with drugs has been adequately addressed by the Applicants.

Finally, I have been informed by Mr. Prevatte of the results of his review of ten individuals identified in the MATRIX to verify the correctness of MATRIX information and the application of the QA/QC program to those individuals. The results of that review, as detailed above by Mr. Prevatte, and the results of Mr. Prevatte's reviewing the work of the eight persons arrested as a result of the undercover operation provide further confidence to my conclusion that the QA/QC program at Harris adequately addresses possible defective work by alleged drug abusers.

Q.14.Mr. Fredrickson, can you elaborate on the basis for your confidence in the Shearon Harris QA/QC program?

A.14.Yes. Implementation of the Harris QA/QC program has been routinely inspected by both the resident and region based inspectors. These reports, which address not only the craft work being reviewed but also the associated quality control inspection activities have not identified any significant problems in these areas. My review of the NRC inspection reports reveals that there has been no escalated enforcement action taken at the Shearon Harris site relating to l

l

9 QA/QC work. SALP reports spanning July 1980 to April 1984 also document that construction and inspection activities have been performed satisfactorily in the past. In addition to regional inspections, a construction appraisal team (CAT) inspection was conducted in late 1984. This inspection reconfirmed that the plant's construction and inspection programs were proceeding in an appropriate and safe manner.

In addition to inspections related directly to construction and inspection related activities, Regional QA inspections have period-ically verified the implementation and adequacy of the Applicants' QA audit program. That is the program by which Applicants check on the performance of their own QA/QC and CI inspections. These inspections have noted that the QA audit program is functioning satisfactorily in its review of construction and inspection activities at the site. These inspections also reveal that the site QA surveillance organization is functioning satisfactorily, performing numerous surveillances of ongoing craft and inspection activities.

I have also been directly involved in a regional construction assessment team (RCAT) inspection in August, 1983. All indications were that inspection activities were adequate to provide confidence that the plant was being constructed in a safe manner. All of my reviews and direct inspection at Harris have been compared against my experience for three years as a QA inspector for Region II during

1 which time I evaluated QA programs and their implementation for nuclear plants. The ccmposite of my QA experience, personal involvement at Harris, and reviews of inspection information convinces me that the QA/QC program at Shearon Harris is and has been adequate to identify, determlim the cause of, and correct conditions adverse to quality.

Q.15.Mr. Fredrickson and Mr. Prevatte, do the above conclusions apply to the CONAM employees against whom allegations of drug use were made?

A.15.Yes. As agreed to by the parties, the CONAM employees were treated as additional individuals to be included in the MATRIX. The equiva-lent information to that in the September 19, 1985 MATRIX was made available to us and the conclusions stated above apply equally to the CONAM employees. In addition, Applicants have committed to redo a portion of the previous examinations performed by CONAM employees at Shearon Harris and evaluate the results against the previously J

obtained data. This gives additional assurance that the work performed by CONAM employees was adequate.

It is the Staff's conclusion, shared by us, that the Applicants have properly addressed wcrk performed by personnel suspected of being involved with illegal drugs.

1 l

t . _ _ . . _ _

ENCLOSURE STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL OUALIFICATIONS I. Paul E. Fredrickson, Section Chief, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 101 Marietta Street,' Suite 2900, Atlanta, Georgia 30323 II. Education A. B.5., Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1968 B. M.E., Nuclear Engineering, University of Virginia, 1976 C. Numerous U. S. Army technical and management courses D. Numerous technical courses associated with commercial and U. S. Navy j nuclear plants III. Experience A. October 1984 to present: As an NRC Region II section chief, supervise, the implementation of the routine and reactive NRC inspection programs for the Carolina Power and Light Company power reactors and all the research and test reactors ir, the NRC Region II area, including all phases of construction, testing and operations B. October 1982 to October 1984: As a project engineer in Region II, assisted in the management of the construction and operations inspection program for the three Tennessee Valley Authority pressurized water reactor sites C. March 1980 to October 1982: As a quality assurance inspector in Region II, reviewed licensee nuclear plant GA programs and conducted implementation inspections of nuclear plant QA programs D. September 1976 to March 1980: As a shift test engineer at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, developed procedures and provided technical directions over the testing and overhaul of nuclear plants on nuclear-powered submarines 1

4 L

j UNITFD STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATOR 7 COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY AND )

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL POWER AGENCY ) 50-401 OL

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

I hereby certify that copies of " TESTIMONY OF PAUL FREDRICKSON AND RICHARD PREVATTE FOR THE NRC STAFF REGARDING CONTENTION WB-3'S ALLEGATION CONCERNING REINSPECTION OF WORK PERFORMED BY PERSONS SUSPECTED OF DRUG ABUSE" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system (*), thi3 24th day of October, 1985:

James L. Kelley, Chairman

• Richard D. Wilson, M.D.

Administrative Judge 729 Hunter Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Apex, NC 27502 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Glenn 0. Bright

• Travis Payne, Esq.

Administrative Judge 723 W. Johnson Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 12643 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh, NC 27605 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. James H. Carpenter

• Dr. Linda Little Administrative Judge Governor's Maste Management Building Atomic Safecy and Licensing Board 513 Albermarle Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 325 North Salisbury Street Washington, DC 20555 Raleigh, NC 27611 Daniel F. Read John Runkle, Esq. Executive Coordinator CHANGE Conservation Counsel of North Carolina P.O. Box 2151 307 Granville Rd.

Raleigh, NC 27602 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 S'.even Rochlis Spence W. Perry, Esq.

Regional Counsel Associate General Counsel FEMA Office of General Counsel 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E. FEMA Atlanta, GA 30309 500 C Street, SW -Rm 840 Washington, DC 20472 i

.' l Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Bradley W. Jones, Esq.

Board Panel

• Regional Counsel, USNRC, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta St., N.W. Suite 2900 Washington, DC 20555 Atlanta, GA 30323 Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.

Public Staff - NCUC John H. O'Neill, Jr., Esq.

P.O. Box 991 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Raleigh, NC 27602 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washingten, DC 20036 Wells Eddleman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

• 806 Parker Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Durham, NC 27701 Washington, DC 20555 Richard E. Jones, Esq. Dr. Harry Foreman, Alternate Associate General Counsel Administrative Judge Carolina Power & Light Company P.O. Box 395 Mayo P.O. Box 1551 University of Minnesota Raleigh, NC 27602 Minneapolis, MN 55455 H.A. Cole, Jr., Esq.

Special Deputy Attorney General Antitrust Division Office of Attorney General 200 New Bern Avenue Raleigh, NC 27601 Charles A. Efarth Counsel for NRC Staff

~

e

?

, . . _ _ __ . - . _ _ - . .