ML20138H435
| ML20138H435 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1985 |
| From: | Banks H, Brombach T, Forehand G, Parsons R CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138H418 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8510290041 | |
| Download: ML20138H435 (27) | |
Text
a- -
x, ,
2 .Y \
e ,# '
l t;Etra En umwwoMi#'"Gi s;; C ' u : \
- a. ' ~~
.= ,
October 25, 1985 )
7N'/TTP\yg UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-400 OL and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN )
MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant) )
APPLICANTS' TESTIMONY OF HAROLD R. BANKS, ROLAND M. PARSONS, GEORGE L. FOREHAND AND THOMAS W. BROMBACH ON EVALUATION AND REINSPECTION OF WORK PERFORMED BY EMPLOYEES IMPLICATED IN POSSIBLE DRUG ACTIVITY (CCNC CONTENTION WB-3) 8510290041 851025 PDR ADOCK0500gO
Ql. Mr. Banks, by whom are your employed and what is your position?
A1. (HRB) I am employed by Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) as Manager, Corporate Quality Assurance Department. A statement of my professional qualifications and experience is found in Applicants' Testimony of Harold R. Banks and Roland M.
Parsons on the Construction Quality Assurance Program (CCNC Contention WB-3), filed contemporaneously with this testimony.
Q2. Mr. Parsons, by whom are you employed and what is your position?
A2. (RMP) I am employed by CP&L as a Project General Man-ager, Harris Nuclear Project Department. A statement of my professional qualifications and experience is also found in Applicants' Testimony of Harold R. Banks and Roland M. Parsons on the Construction Quality Assurance Program (CCNC Contention WB-3), filed contemporaneously with this testimony.
Q3. Mr. Forehand, by whom are your employed and what is your position.
A3. (GLF) I am employed by CP&L as Director of Quality Assurance / Quality Control -- Harris Plant.
Q4. Please summarize your professional qualifications and experience.
A4. (GLF) I have been employed by CP&L in Quality Assur-ance positions at the Harris Plant Site since 1973. In 1981 I was promoted to Director of Quality Assurance / Quality Control
-- Harris Plant. Prior to joining CP&L, I served in the United States Navy -- retiring as a Master Chief Engineman. Beginning
e in 1959, I served in the U.S. Navy's nuclear submarine program including tours of duty at the Naval Reactors Test Station in Idaho Falls, Idaho, as an instructor and in charge of mainte-nance of mechanical equipment at the S1W prototype plant. I also served as an instructor at the Basic Nuclear Power School in Bainbridge, Maryland. A complete statement of my profes-sional qualifications is appended as Attachment 1 to this testimony.
QS. Mr. Brombach, by whom are you employed and what is your position?
AS. (TWB) I am employed by CP&L at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant as a Project Specialist / Inservice Inspec-tion. In this capacity I am responsible for Non-Destructive Examination ("NDE") of Class 1, 2 and 3 components, piping and their supports to ensure applicable requirements of ASME Code Section XI and 10 C.F.R. S 50.55a are met.
Q6. Please state your professional qualifications and ex-perience related to your present position.
A6. (TWB) I have been actively engaged in NDE and inservice inspection programs at nuclear power plants since 1976. I have received extensive NDE training, including ul-trasonic testing, visual inspection and eddy current testing / examination. While employed by Virginia Electric and Power Company from 1976 until 1982, I was certified as an NDE examiner. From 1978 to the present I have been employed in su-pervisory positions, overseeing NDE and inservice inspection activities. Beginning with my early training and experience in the United States Navy, I have sixteen years of hands-on expe-rience in power plant operations, maintenance and testing. A complete statement of my professional qualifications and expe-rience is appended as Attachment 2 to this testimony.
Q7. What is the purpose of this testimony?
A7. (HRB, RMP, GLF) The purpose of this testimony is to describe CP&L's procedures for evaluating the work performed by craft personnel and quality inspectors at the Harris Plant who have been implicated in any way in the possible use of con-trolled substances. Our testimony sponsors Applicants' Exhibit
__, a summary report describing the individuals who have been identified as having, or as suspected of, some level of in-volvement with controlled substances -- either on site or off site -- and the evaluation of the quality of their work.
Exhibit __ establishes, for such individuals, the basis for ac-tual or suspected drug involvement, employment duration, job classification, whether safety-related work was performed by the individual, and the basis for confirmation of the quality of each individual's work. In this testimony we describe our evaluations of work performed by craft workers implicated in drug activity and reinspections of work performed by quality inspectors similarly implicated. This testimony and Exhibit provide the results of our evaluations and reinspections and the reasons that we are confident that safety-related work performed by these individuals meets regulatory and design 1
requirements. '
(TWB) During the hearings that were held on this conten-tion during the week of September 30, 1985, by stipulation with intervenors, Applicants agreed to treat five employees of Conam Inspection of Richmond, California, in the same manner as Harris Plant employees possibly implicated in drug activity for purposes of reevaluating their work. Applicants explicitly stated, however, that this stipulation did not imply that the Conam employees were in fact drug users. The purpose of'my i testimony-is to describe the evaluation and reinspection of work performed by the five Conam employees and the basis for Applicants' conclusion that the work was performed satisfacto-rily.
Q8. During hearings held during the week of September 30, 1985, Mr. William J. Hindman, Jr. testified regarding the ex-tent of drug' activity among Harris Plant employees. Does Applicants' Exhibit __ provide information that updates Mr. Hindman's testimony.
A8. (RMP) Yes. Chart II-l in Applicants' Exhibit identifies 218 individuals who, as of October 15, 1985, have been identified as having, or as suspected of, some level of involvement with controlled substances -- either on site or off site. These 218 individuals include the 201 individuals previ-ously identified by Mr. Hindman's testimony, four additional contract inspection personnel, and thirteen additional craft personnel. Chart II-1 also includes the contractor personnel, who worked for Conam Inspection of Richmond, California, identified by Mr. Brombach. While these last five individuals did not provide construction services, Applicants agreed to reinspect a portion of their work in a settlement arrangement with intervenors.
Chart II-2 in Applicants' Exhibit provides a break-down by job classification for the 218 employees identified.
Chart II-3 in Applicants' Exhibit provides the reasons for personnel action regarding these employees by job classifica-tion. This information updates the testimony of Mr. Hindman.
Q9. Do Applicants have a program to evaluate the perfor-mance of employees whose qualification or ability has been questioned?
A9. (RMP) Yes. Throughout the life of the project, Harris site management has performed evaluations of the perfor-mance of individuals whose qualifications or ability have been questioned. The questions relating to a person's qualifica-tions have come from several directions, including allegations that previously inspected work was not acceptable and also from drug allegations. The evaluations have been essentially limit-ed to previous work of quality inspectors. Craftsmen were not normally subjected to an evaluation because their work is con-trolled by the QA Program and inspected as described in Appli-cants' Testimony of Harold R. Banks and Roland M. Parsons on the Construction Quality Assurance Program (CCNC Contention WB-3) and Section III of Applicants' Exhibit . As a practi- l l
cal matter, it is not possible to determine with certainty all i .
l l
work or even all systems or components on which work was per-formed by an individual craft worker.
During the_early phase of the-Harris Plant Project, we reinspected an inspector's work if an allegation was substanti-ated. As a result of increased allegations in late 1982, most of them directed toward welding inspectors, a procedure was developed to establish a formal evaluation process. The proce-dure, AP-IX-08, entitled " Evaluation of Inspector or Vendor Weld Visual Inspection Performance on Welded Structural Fabri-cations," was approved for use in December 1982. It provided a formal method for judging an inspector's or vendor's perfor-mance.
Because of increasing numbers of allegations industry-wide and because of our encouragement to site employees to bring forth concerns through the Quality Check program, an additional site procedure, Harris Plant Procedure CQA-7, entitled "Evalua-tion of Program Effectiveness," was developed and implemented in June 1984 (Applicants' Exhibit ). This procedure estab-lished a formal process for evaluating past work when concerns were expressed. It established sampling techniques, which are based upon Military Standard 105-D. As described in my other piece of testimony with Mr. Banks, Harris Plant Procedure CQA-7 is the basis of the QA attribute surveillance program as well.
In practice, the decision whether or not to evaluate the -
performance of individuals pursuant to CQA-7 is based on con-sideration of the safety significance of the work in question, l
\
)
whether the work involved had in-process inspection and/or final-inspection, and the number of people involved in the work ;
.(individual vs. more than one). In general, the Eest is wheth-er or not the results of the work in question were used in any way to support a final determination of plant quality. To date,.this has led to application of the procedure for the most part to inspection personnel only. However, the procedure has also been used to perform a technical evaluation of the work by independent reviewers of design work who were removed from the job for suspected drug activity.
- Q10. Was there an evaluation of the work of craft person-nel implicated in possible drug activity?
A10. (RMP) Yes. A management evaluation of all craft personnel implicated in possible drug activity was performed by a group of four key site individuals: the Manager QA/QC --
Harris Plant, the Manager -- Harris Plant Administration, a representative of the contractor (for non-CP&L employees) and myself. During these evaluations, the individual's job de-scription and a supervisor's description of the employee's work assignments were considered. We evaluated the employee's work to satisfy ourselves that the work was subjected to one or more inspections and that we did not rely solely upon the employee's l performance for assuming the quality of the work. The inspec-tion activities for craft work are summarized in Section III of L
Applicants' Exhibit __. Our bases for determining that employees' work was subjected to inspections is summarized in l Chart II-1 of Applicants' Exhibit __.
1 Qll. Have quality inspectors been implicated in possible drug activities?
All. (GLF) As indicated in Chart II-1 of Applicants' Exhibit __, 218 Harris employees have been. identified as having suspected or confirmed involvement with drugs. The quality
' inspection' organizations have not been immune from this phenom-
.enon, and the 218 figure includes 27 quality inspection person-nel, as noted on Chart II-2 of Applicants' Exhibit .
.Q12. Do you consider it significant that 27 quality per-sonnel have been identified as implicated in drug activity?
A12. (GLF) In that over 1,000 quality inspection person-nel have been employed at the Harris Plant Project since 1981, I do not consider 27 inspectors identified as confirmed or sus-pected of involvement with drugs to be significant. Rather, the identification of these employees indicates that our strin-gent program for pursuing any allegations of drug activity among quality personnel is working. Significantly, we have never been able to relate any deficiency in an inspector's per-formance to ute of drugs. In addition, as discussed by Mr.
Banks and Mr. Parsons in their separate piece of testimony, in-spectors' work is subject to yet further checks under the Qual-ity Assurance Program, including: supervisory audits, QA sur-veillances of inspection activities, QA audits, system walkdowns, start-up testing and audits / evaluations / inspections by outside agencies. The results of the reinspections under-taken to date support my conclusion that the quality inspection
personnel are performing effectively. We have not identified any deficiency with safety. significance during reinspections of-the work of these 27 inspectors.
Q13. What actions have Applicants taken to ensure the
-quality of the inspection activities performed by these 27 individuals?
A13. (GLF)_ Section VI of Applicants' Exhibit de-
' scribes the results of evaluations and reinspections for the 27 quality inspection personnel -- NDE inspectors and QA/QC/CI in-spectors -- implicated in possible drug activity. I will sim-ply summarize here the basis for confirming the quality of the work performed by these inspection personnel.
Within the QC organization, three NDE (non-destructive ex-amination) inspectors have been terminated because of positive drug screen test results, and two have been terminated for refusing to take-the test. Reinspection of the Liquid Penetrant and Magnetic Particle examinations performed by these NDE inspectors has been completed in accordance with Harris Plant Procedure CQA-7. Of the 284 items reinspected, only four-minor deficiencies -- all corrected by minor buffing -- were found. 'The results of these reinspections confirm the profi-ciency and reliablity of the NDE inspectors' work. The Radio-
-graphic Examination (RT) work done by four of these inspectors has not been reinspected, for the following reasons. Certified as Level II-Limited (Shooter Only) in RT, these four inspectors participated as a member of a two-man team in making radiographic set-ups and film exposures, but not in performing interpretations of RT film for final acceptance or rejection of the items radiographed. RT film is subject to two independent reviews / interpretations by other Level II personnel qualified for film interpretation.
Seven CI inspectors -- six certified in cable pulls and/or cable terminations, and one CI inspector certified in drilled-in expansion anchors -- have been terminated and/or re-moved from the job for positive drug screen test results (two),
refusal to take the test (four) and suspected drug activity based on information from a reliable source (one). A sample of the work of these inspectors has been reinspected pursuant to CQA-7, and the results -- an overall acceptance rate for the seven inspectors of 99.3% -- were acceptable under the proce-dure.
Fourteen QC inspectors and one inspector-in-training have been terminated because of a positive drug screen test or re-fusal to take the drug screen test. Since the inspector-in-training was never certified, no reinspection was required.
The work of eight of these QC inspectors was reinspected pur-suant to Harris Plant Procedure CQA-7. The reinspections con-firm the inspectors' proficiency and reliability, in that the overall acceptance rate was 99.7%.
Of the remaining six QC inspectors, one field-tested con-crete and performed sieve analysis, grout testing and cadweld inspections; this inspector was terminated for positive drug screen test results. There are no safety concerns with the l employee's assignments in field testing concrete, grout testing or sieve analysis, since final acceptance of concrete and grout is based on meeting the required design strength as determined by later testing. A statistical sample of the cadwelds in con-crete reinforcing steel bars subjected to cadweld inspections are cut out and subjected to tensile testing. The high success rate of rebar and cadweld splices subjected to tensile tests (only 8 out of 2,764 splices tested failed to meet minimum ten-sile requirements) and the large margin by which those test re-sults exceed design requirements independently confirm the quality of cadweld splicing and cadweld inspections. Conse-quently, no reinspection has been performed for this inspector.
Another QC employee was a field concrete tester who also performed rebar and cadweld tensile testing, sieve analysis and grout testing; this inspector was removed from the job for sus-pected drug use based on information provided by a reliable source. For the reasons discussed above, there are no safety concerns with this employee's work in concrete and grout testing or sieve analysis. While this employee actually per-formed tensile testing, the results of this employee's tests are consistent with the results of tensile tests performed by others, as determined by a comparison of a statistical distri-L bution of his test data with that of the remaining inspectors.
l
( Because of the uniformly high success rates of such tests per-formed by all such testers and in light of the satisfactory 30 l
l . -. . - - - . _. - ._ --
supervisory audits of this inspector's work, we concluded that there was no reason to doubt the validity of this inspector's test results.
Recently, three additional inspection personnel have been identified as having suspected or confirmed involvement with drugs. Evaluation of their work is still in process.
The final quality inspector in this group was assigned to perform final system walkdowns with representatives from the system turnover group, construction engineering, and start-up personnel. This assignment did not require the individual to review documentation or inspect systems to determine quality or acceptability. In addition, the inspector was not solely re-sponsible for any aspect of his assignment, and the turnover documentation packages were reviewed by a supervisor. For these reasons, no reinspection or re-verification of this in-spector's work was required.
Q14. In addition to craft workers and quality inspectors,Section II of Applicants' Exhibit indicates that ten engi-neering support individuals were implicated in possible drug activity. How did you confirm the quality of any safety-related work performed by these individuals?
A14. (RMP) Engineering support personnel perform original calculations and revise calculations in accepting ongoing and final as-built conditions for construction activities. Other engineering support personnel verify these evaluations and re-view and check calculations and revisions. Of the ten l identified individuals, five were reviewers who check calcula-i tions, and their work was evaluated in accordance with Harris Plant Procedure CQA-7. Their work was found acceptable with no discrepancies. The other five were evaluated as performing
-acceptable work because their work, in turn, was evaluated by independent reviewers who provided quality verification. None of these independent reviewers were implicated in drug activi-ty. Thus the work of all ten engineering support personnel has been determined to be reliable.
Q15. Of all reinspections of work performed by individuals implicated in drug activity, what has been the acceptance rate of the work of such individuals?
A15. (GLF) 99.6%.
Q16. What implications do you draw from this high rate of performance of such individuals?
A16. (HRB, RMP, GLF) The reinspection data do not show a lower rate of acceptance of work inspected by inspectors impli-cated in possible drug activity than the overall acceptance rate of inspected safety-related construction work. This is not surprising since there has been no confirmed incident of a significant quality deficiency attributable to craft personnel, quality inspectors, NDE personnel or engineering support per-sonnel identified or suspected of drug involvement.
The QA Program is designed to detect and ensure the reso-l l lution of errors in construction work. While some inspectors have been implicated in possible drug activity, that does not i
l l
1
\
mean that any <f them were performing their inspection function while under the! influence of drugs. We have terminated the em-
- n ploynentofceri:aininspectorswhorefusedtosubmittoadrug d
screen or who showed positive indications of drug use in a drug screen,eventhhughperformancehadbeenverygoodduringtheir employment histc ry with CP&L.
W h i l e C P & L ,')l along with the rest of society, must deal with 4
a serious drug use problem, there is no indication of a problem of on site drug tbuse affecting on-the-job performance by CP&L quality inspecto s. The results of reinspections and our eval-uations confirm . hat the QA program works and has not been com-promised by drug lactivity.
Q17. How ca;l'. you be confident that there are no signifi-cant deficiencies in the work of craft personnel or inspectors who may have used drugs and who were not identified and evalu-ated?
A17. (HRB, RMP, GLF) For craft personnel, we have deter-mined that safety-related work is subject to multiple layers of inspection and review. This assures the quality of construc-tion work at the Harris Plant.
For inspectors, we have determined that their work is sub-ject to supervisory audits, surveillances and independent au-dits. The data from reinspections of inspectors who have been implicated in possible drug activity do not show a lower rate of inspector proficiency than data from reinspections overall.
The overall inspector proficiency rate for the Harris Plant
I i
Project is 99.5%. We have not discovered a deficiency with safety significance during reinspections of the work of inspec-l tors implicated in drug activity or during the comprehensive QA attribute surveillance program. All of this gives us confi-dence that the quality of the Harris Plant is not being ad-versely affected by any unidentified drug use.
Q18. Mr. Brombach, by stipulation with intervenors, Appli-cants agreed to treat five employees of Conam Inspection of Richmond, California in the same manner as employees poten-tially implicated in drug activity for purposes of reevaluating their work. Did Conam provide contractor services to CP&L at the Harris Plant?
A18. (TWB) Yes. Conam is a division of Nuclear Energy Services, Inc. ("NES"). CP&L contracted with NES to perform baseline preservice eddy current testing / examination of heat exchanger tubing, including the Harris Plant steam generator tubes. NES' Conam Inspection Division provided these eddy cur-rent testing services.
Q19. What is the purpose of eddy current examinations of the Harris Plant steam generators?
A19. (TWB) The purpose of eddy current examinat? ins of cteam generator tubing prior to operation is to establish a baseline condition of the tubing for comparison with the exami-nation results of the first inservice inspection after commenc-i ing commercial service cf the plant. This is consistent with -
1 NRC Regulatory Guide 1.83 (Revision 1)(1975) at Section C.3.a.
l
Q20. Are eddy current examinations required to assure the safe construction of the Harris Plant?
A20. (TWB) No. The steam generator tubing was inspected and subjected.to non-destructive examinations at the point of fabrication to detect any defects and flaws. After installa-tion at the Harris Plant, the steam generators were subjected to a hydrostatic test to ensure integrity sufficient to meet ASME Code standards. The eddy current examination performed on site is to establish baseline information for comparison with later inservice test results. In fact, the contract involved here is an Operations and not a Construction contract. Fur-ther, none of the employees of Conam are quality assurance in-cpectors as that term is used to describe CP&L's QA/QC/CI inspection personnel discussed by Mr. Forehand, nor are they vendor QA/QC inspectors.
Q21. Describe eddy current testing / examination techniques cnd analyses of eddy-current tapes.
l A21. (TWB) The method most commonly used to check for de-facts or flaws in heat exchanger tubing is eddy current exami-nation. This method is based upon measuring the changes of an olectromagnetic field induced into the tubing to be tested. A differential set of electric coils called a probe is drawn at a constant rate through the tubing to be tested. When these coils are energized, an electromagnetic current is induced in the tube in the areas adjacent to the probe. This induced
(
electromagnetic field generates addy currents. ,
I ,
p
9 Changes in tube wall thickness or permeability, or the presence of flaws will cause changes to the flux and density of the induced current, which in turn causes changes in the imped-ance of the coil. From the measurement of these impedance changes the size and orientation of defects can be calculated and determined. To assist and enhance this process the eddy current probe is attached through an interface system with a digital computer, which allows a permanent record to be made via magnetic tape of the calibration, sequence of testing, and the actual data inspection results. The eddy current test data acquired and stored is unique for each tube tested. The mag- [
notic tapes that are generated during an examination are re- l viewed using a similar computer system by a data analyst. In this manner the validity of the test results can be l re-established. If necessary the magnetic tapes can be re-viewed again by a third party at any time.
Q22. Who supervised the work of individuals from Conam while performing eddy current testing / examination activities at the Harris site?
A22. (TWB) While Conam was at the Harris site performing .
I cddy current testing they were directly supervised by me and I had a CP&L engineering technician work directly with them in the field on a daily basis.
Q23. Have you checked the work of individuals from Conam to ensure the accuracy of the eddy current testing / examinations cnd correctness of the analysis of eddy current tapes?
l i
i I
i I
I <
r
! A23. (TWB) During most of the analysis work performed by the principal analyst I worked directly with him while reading a significant amount of the test data results. If at any time !
an anomaly of significance was detected he brought it to my at-tention for review. The purpose of my involvement was to as-sure the accuracy of the eddy current examinations and the test results. During the data acquisition phase of actual examina-tion of the tubes, I made several trips to the field to overview the work of the examiners. Also, during data acquisi-l tion CP&L Quality Assurance personnel performed surveillance checks. Because of my personal supervision of the eddy current '
examinations and data analyses, I had no reason to question the integrity nor correctness of the test results. i l Q24. As a result of allegations by intervenors did you perform an evaluation of the work performed by Conam?
A24. (TWB) Yes. Nine of the magnetic tapes acquired by ;
Conam during the baseline examination of Harris Plant steam genetator tubes were taken to the Electric Power Research In-stitute ("EPRI") NDE Center in Charlotte, N.C., and EPRI was requested to perform an independent third party review, ;
l reanalysis and verification of the data acquired and analyzed l by Conam. l l Q25. Describe the independent review of Conam's analysis cnd the results.
A25. (TWB) The tubes selected for reanalysis by EPRI had i oither been tested by and/or analyzed by the five individuals 4
l -le-
- _ . _ ~ - __ _ - _ . - .-
who performed work at the Harris Plant and who were identified !
in an affidavit filed by intervenors as implicated in drug ac-tivity. Three reels of data were randomly selected from each of the three steam generators, representing five percent of the total number of steam generator tubes examined by Conam. In-cluded in the sample were tubes with no quantifiable indica-tions and others that had identified anomalies requiring evalu-ation.
EPRI used the same procedure, data analysis system and '
calibration system as those used by Conam personnel. Based on its review of the data on the tapes, EPRI concluded that the data acquisition had gone very sucothly and validated Conam's, use of procedures, selection and application of the defect sizing criteria and interpretation of the eddy current signals.
Thus, EPRI confirmed Conam's eddy current testing and examina-tion results.
Q26. Is the sample size of the number of tapes reanalyzed sufficient to assure a high confidence level of the validity of l
the original work?
A26. (TWB) Yes. The five percent sample of data is greater than the sampling requirements of HRC Regulatory l l
Guide 1.83, which requires a three percent sample of the total r ,
number of tubes to be inspected during inservice inspections.
l Q27. As a result of the stipulation with intervenorJ, ,
t Applicants agreed to perform an additional addy current testing of a sample of three percent of the steam generator tubes of l
l l
\
l.
l the three Harris steam generators. What were the results of the eddy current re-testing of the sample of steam generator tubes?
A27. (TWB) (Answer to be provided in supplemental testi-mony at the hearing. Test results are not yet available.]
Q29. What conclusions do you draw from your evaluations and reinspections of employees implicated in possible drug ac-tivity?
A28. (HRB, RMP, GLF) We believe that Applicants have an effective program to evaluate the quality of work performed by cmployees implicated in possible drug activity. Safety-related ,
craft work was evaluated and found to be subject to inspec-tions. A sample of the work inspected by quality inspectors implicated in possible drug activity was reinspected. The sam-pie size was determined in accordance with Military Standard 105-D. The results of the reinspections show the inspector proficiency was 99.6% -- virtually the same as the overall in-cpector proficiency. No safety-related deficiency has been found in any reinspection. This provides additional confidence that the Harris Plant Construction QA Program is working effec-tively to assure the quality of the construction activities at the Harris Plant. It demonstrates that use of drugs has not cdversely affected the quality of Harris Plant construction.
l i
P Uc/
g.
b'y AS 44 I Oy b'y Iop O/j ], %'p f Of' I /p /k-t 4 D/ g sI't .,
'U p '4 f />' >g.
}
(/j0 qS
,, tj,"ii.,;'is,,,/,, ~ f
- op'#g P 944,4 y,8 , i,
/ N. t,
)
< ey N tj ',' to,,' / e N,,
o,*f) s (, 'o y,,
, ' J.; ,
b . b.o < ,
l ogm%lr,g Op c,Orj t't ,
f
,. 4Yp $
l }* l j
$gP f' tp I I,4 if
'If
'>y f,
Oq y l%
Nfy
if f f, '
f / , , f r.
i ?*?p 'I t I ' > ;,
b ff 'Et , , ,_ l , ,y f) ' I ' q ,'
Ofg 'l / fly tS' t, '!?), , 't. g
'\! ( , ' 't; t,,,
n b,o 6, , # !_ l a
- j i f, f /,
l
/ / , In 1 ,
f ' )
't, //,
14 Aly I
\ ' t y ,I
.g,l..' f , ,I . r,'t i', , 1, If.
V ' 5..., 'Ig t'
' l ,
t
//,l '! (
'I;
' 'ry ,' l y , fly 17, t o,, I f 6 ,
l r,, '/
' 1 ;, ' t,,
"o
) ,,
j,,, I
'!/q , , .f, s, f j, ; * ,,
! ',, , cf j 'r,
~'tj t, f 1,
,,,/, ,/ , _ I, tii,
<y
) ;' ' E jJ.
l '), 'l
- i
') , ,l e .
! !,' ' /,' fi,. i ', ' . i ', 1
?;t j r . 7 U , ' lty, t l,
' 'tj yr l, ',4 7, ~ / , ,
il /
'7,**' *yL,
,I, * .g y I r+ '/y s. i t 'bl/
t,,i o,, '
/ , ,ti i l
j<,, \
tyo ~ j,' A I', ,
e, 'lj ,
- Q,
/ f, //
l}
1
't ly/ ty
~
8', 's ,
.}; , y i f,< /, l ' t y .,,Il .,fr t
}
?
t
/,
, >p
>y
'1,,
',f,,,
I,, ,
l 4)h j
- 17 , '/,, t f '/y,
' I ,, I '!
it , f ,
\ / 1, t,',
's t i, *t y,,
/, r ty
s., , ,
- 41, '
ll,, \
lf. 4, Is > r.
Is />, ', J. / > I <
', 'tj//
f f,to '
' t
//
.,f, 1,, 7
' I ', e lle e of /
?
t, I t ,! ! , - j ly I t,
't,, ,,
y ,I r , 'l j, '
! g '. t ly# /j, I 't /, /
I , ,/ <
"r // Y, ,
't
! !) ,
,Iy I
I .'i ,
li, s
J.,
, f f' '
- i, g.,
l , /
/ ,t i
~ _-
ATTACHMENT 1 George L. Forehand Director - QA/QC - Harris Plant I. Date of Birth December 30, 1930 II. Education and Training A. Obtained G.E.D. from U. S. Armed Forces Institution.
January 1960 B. Military Schools (1951 - 1961)
- 1. Engineering Laboratory Technician
- 2. Submarine Reactor Plant Prototype
- 3. Enlisted Basic Nuclear Power School
- 4. Submarine Engineering
- 5. Basic Submarine School
- 6. Engineman Class "C" School
- 7. Engineman, Class "A" School C. Attended Harford Junior College, Maryland, Computer Technology classes, January 1967 - March 1967 D. Attended University of Maryland, tiarch 1967 - June 1968, studied Methods of Teaching, Tests and Measurements. Shop Management, and Recent Industrial Devolopments courses III. Experience A. U. S. Navy
- 1. January 1951 - July 1970
- a. Haster Chief Enginoman
! B. Atlantic Engina Power, Inc.
- 1. November 1970 - June 1973 l a. Service Hanager
! C. Carolina Power & Light Company !
- 1. July 1973 employed as a Santor Quality Control Specialist - i Construction in the Quality Assurance Section of the Power !
Plant Engineering & Construction Department located at the Harris sito, New Hill, North Carolina s i
George L. Forehand Director - QA/QC - liarris Plant Page 2
- a. October 1973 transferred as a Senior QC Specialist to the Quality Assurance Section of the Power Plant Construction Department located at the !!arris site, New 11111, North Carolina
- b. August 1974 promoted as a Project QA Specialist -
Construction in the Quality Assurance Section of the Power Plant Construction Department located at the liarris site, New Hill, North Carolina
- c. November 1976 transferred as a Project QA Specialist in the Engineering & Construction QA Section of the Technical Services Department located at the liarris site, New Itill, North Carolina
- d. February 1978 promoted as a Principal QA Specialist ,
in the Engineering & Construction QA Section of the Technical Services Department located at the liarris site, New 11111, North Carolina
- e. January 1981 promoted as Director of Quality Assurance /
Quality Control - Ilarris Plant in the Engineering &
Construction QA Section of the Technical Services Department located at the liarris site, New 11111, North Carolina
- f. March 1981 transferred as Director of Quality Assurance /
I Quality Control - Ilarris Plant in the Engineering &
Construction QA/QC Section of the Corporate quality Assurance Department located at the llarris site, New 1I111, North Carolina l
February 1983 - SECTION TITLE CllANGE - Director of 8
Quality Assurance / Quality Control - Ilarris Plant in l the QA/QC llarris Plant Unit of the QA/QC llarris Plant Section of the Corporato Quality Assurance Department located at the liarris site, New 11111, North Carolina i
l L
ATTACHMENT 2 Resume THOMAS W. BROMBACII EDUCATION MILITARY
- Dasic Propulsion and Engineering School
- Machinist Mate "A" School
- Water Treatment School
- Power Plant Maintenance School
- Damage Control School Fire Fighting School
- Submarine School
- Nuclear Power School (25 weeks)
- Ilydraulic and Pneumatic School
- AC & R School
- Magnetic and Liquid Penetrant School
- 3M Records Manaaement School
- Dadiolooical Control School CIVILIAN * !!1gh School Graduate
- 5 Semesters of Collego
- Continuing Education Units Awarded fors
-Magnetic Particle Inspection
-Liquid Ponotrant Inspection
-Ultrasonic Wold Inspection
-ASME Section XI Short Coursos
- Formal 5 1/2 Year Journeyman Power Plant Mechanic Apprenticoship
- Company Sponsored Schools:
-Drosser Valvo School
-Radiation and Radiological Control School
-Grinnel Valve School
-Milton Roy Pump School
-Non-dostructivo Testing Schcols for MT, PT, VT and Eddy Current Tuho Inspection
-Multifrequency Eddy Curront Examination
-Pornonnel Manancmont
-Aberrant Hohavior PROFESSIONAT, MFMDTHSiliPS i American Soclory of Mochanical Encinners l
. \
l EMPLOYMENT S ptember 1982 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY to SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Procent Project Specialist / Inservice Inspection Scope of Responsibility Responsible for developing and maintaining the Harris Plcnt's inservice inspection ("ISI") program in accordance with, and as required by, ASME Code Section XI to assist in m Oting NRC, plant Technical Specification, operating license, cnd other related plant and regulatory requirements. The ISI program is developed based on the latest regulatory require-m:nts. The ISI program provides direction and support of incorvice inspection related tests such as hydrostatic testing, wold inspections, and eddy current testing.
Mijor Functions
- 1. Developing and maintaining an inservice inspection program for welds by working with Operations and Mainte-nance.
- 2. Coordinating inservice inspection activities and schedules.
- 3. Developing, updating, and maintaining ASME Code Sec-tion XI inspection programs.
- 4. Maintaining interface responsibilities among the Plant's organizations to ensure the ISI program is imple-mented effectively.
- 3. Analyzing and providing resolution to Plant problems resulting from ISI.
- 6. Preparing and monitoring budget items pertaining to ISI.
- 7. Staying updated on channes to, and latest require-monts of, the ASME Code.
- 8. Responsible for ensuring the proper maintenance of l Inservice inspection records, deficiencies and resolu-tions.
March 1976 -VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY to SURRY NUCLEAR POWER STATION August 1982 Engineering Supervisor of Non-destructive Testing and Evaluation Scope of Responsibility Performed unit and component testing in the field of non-destructive examination and provided evaluation of test re-sults to insure component and vessel integrity.
Maior Functions
- 1. Conduct inservice and preservice inspections to assure compliance with ASME Code Section XI and plant technical specifications.
- 2. Provide non-destructive testing services for the station, i.e.: PT, MT, RT, VT, UT and ET, in accordance with ASME Code Sections III, IV, IX and XI and other designated applicable codes as required.
- 3. Coordinate inspection services with the desig-nated ANSI to ssure full compliance with the ASME Code in effect.
- 4. Provide eddy current examination services to meet the requirements of USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.83 and ASME Code Section XI for steam genera-tors.
- 5. Provide eddy current examination services in ex-amination of condenser and other various heat exchanger tubing.
- 6. Prepare and submit inservice, preservice and eddy current reports.
- 7. Assist Engineering in identifying generic prob-lems and working toward solutions.
- 8. Support and implement additional training pro-j grams for NDT technicians to keep personnel abreast and trained in now field developments.
j 9. Establish and maintain appropriate records man-anement of all work conducted.
- 10. Prepare and submit budcots for procurement of equipment, supplies and arrange for contractor and vendor services.
1 l
a e
- 11. Provide schedules and commitment dates during plant outages for inspection services.
- 12. Review and implement non-destructive examination procedures.
- 13. Certified in accordance to ASNT-TC-1A as a LEVEL II in Visual, Liquid Penetrant, Magnetic Parti-cle and Eddy Current examinations and LEVEL I in Ultrasonic Testing.
Also prior to being promoted to a supervisory position, I was a journeyman mechanic providing round-the-clock maintenance and repair to all station equipment, i.e.: oumps, valves, hy-draulic and pneumatic systems, HVAC, steam turbines and auxil-lary systems on both the primary and secondary sides of the plent. A collateral duty was to travel to various fossil fuel plants within the VEPCO system and conduct maintenance and re-pair on high pressure power boilers, coal systems and other plcnt systems.
September 1975 NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRYDOCK, CO.
to Newport News, VA March 1976 Power Plant Operator, Utilities Department Assigned to the operation of the main power plant and all substations -- maintaining and operating 600 lb. boilers, air compressors and related equipment supplying power steam and compressed air to the shipyard.
Ssptember 1974 COLLEGE OF DUPAGE to Glen Ellyn, Illinois S ptember 1975 Assistant Chief of Plant Operations Responsible for the operation of the steam generating and air conditioning plant, in addition to which, performed all re-pairs as necessary to its plumbing, hydraulic, pneumatic and c1cetrical systems. Collaterally responsible for the mainte-nonce of the buildings and all service support systems.
April 1974 FACTORY MUTUAL ENGINEERING CO.
to Chicago, Illinois September 1974 Boiler & Machinery Inspector Conducted on-site physical inspections of steam generating powar plants and machinery for compliance with ASME, state and
[
local codes.
4 Jcnuary 1969 UNITED STATES NAVY to E-4 Machinist Mate Dsc:mber 1973
,