ML20138Q038
Text
.-.
g.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Inspector and Auditor o.i..,u.n,cn.is., February 24, 1084 Report of Interview George F. Maxwell, Senior Resident Inspector, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Shearon-Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Wake County, North Carolina, was interviewed concerning his knowledge of NRC's handling of various allegations raised by welding inspectors employed by the DPC Power Company (DPC) at the Catawba Nuclear Station (NS), Rock Hill, South Carolina.
During the interview, Maxwell provided the following information in elaboration of the testimony he provided to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel concerning Catawba NS:
On February 11, 1980, Maxwell was transferred to the Catawba NS to be the j
Resident Inspector (RI), and was the Catawba NS Resident Inspector until July 18, 1980, when he was transferred to the Shearon-Harris Nuclear Power Plant. On June 17 and 18, 1980, while he was conducting a routine RI inspec-i; tion, Maxwell noticed two welding inspectors using black personal notebooks to j
record their observations while they conducted routine, in-progress surveil-lances of structural welding activities covered by the American Welding Society (AWS) standard. These welding inspectors were not complying with DPC's Q-1 procedure which required welding inspectors record deficiencies noted during surveillances of AWS welding activities on an M-19F form or another appropriate Quality Assurance form. Maxwell questioned the welding inspectors about their practice of noting observations in personal notebooks and learned that the welding inspectors were, in fact, keeping a record of things they observed during AWS surveillances in their notebooks.
Some of the information being recorded in the notebooks was the name of the welder and the particular rejects observed by the welding inspector.
The welding inspectors maintained a personal record on welders until sufficient deficiencies were observed to result in the preparation of a nonconformance report (NCR). Maxwell did not ask the welding inspectors if he could review the contents of the notebooks nor did he recall asking the 1
welding inspectors why they were not following the DPC Q-1 proceduraT requirement for documenting deficier.cies. Maxwell disagreed with the practice of documenting deficiencies on personal notebooks; therefore, he telephoned i
Mr. Nick Economos of NRC Region II Headquarters for guidance. Economos advised there was no black and white law that Region II could enforce against this policy. Maxwell then asked Economos to have Region II look into the practice because Maxwell believed that DPC management needed to know what the welding inspectors were finding during their surveillances.
Plans were then
~
made for Peter K. Van Doorn, a Region II inspector, to travel to Catawba during the first part of July 1980 to look into welding activities at the site. Van Doorn was selected for this review because of his expertise in the welding area. When Van Doorn came to Catawba during the first part of
( M -. January31. 1984
.i Catawba Nuclear Station in,.
F n. = 83-52
,,, - eorce A. Mullev Jr.
o...........
February 24. 1984 THis DOCUMENT IS PROPE R f y OF NRC. la OUTSIDE THE RECEIVING AGENCY WITHOUT PE RMISSION OF THE OFFICE OF INSPE 8511140335 851017 PDR FOIA "OSU GILINSK85-437 PDR
- - ~ ~ - - - - - - -
~-
s 2
July 1980, he reviewed the records maintained by the welding inspector supervisors.
Van Doorn discovered that for several months, weldirg inspectors had not been documenting welding surveillance inspections on the appropriate j
forms.
Instead, the welding inspectors were documenting their surveillances in personal notebooks.
From the supervisor's records, Van Doorn determined that the surveillances were, in fact, being done; however, they were not being properly documented.
As a result of this inspection, DPC was assessed a low-level category violation for surveillances not being properly documented.
~
The violation was documented in Inspection Report 80-15, dated July 1, 1980, as item 3.
Sometime during June-July 1980, Maxwell discussed the problem of welding inspectors not properly documenting surveillance findings with Larry R. Davison, DPC, Level III Quality Assurance Manager.
Davison was in charge of all welding inspectors. Maxwell informed Davison that welding inspectors (unnamed) were not properly documenting surveillances of structural welding and expressed his concern that DPC management would not be able to properly track welding deficiencies identified during surveillances.
Davison i
told Maxwell that he would look into the problem. On July 18, 1980, when Maxwell departed Catawba for Shearon-Harris, DPC had not yet responded to the violation in Inspection Report 80-15.
During October 6 through October 10, 1980, Maxwell returned to-Catawba to conduct a routine resident inspection (Inspection Report 80-31). Maxwell was directed to conduct this inspection because as of that date no resident inspector had been assigned to Catawba.
During the inspection, Maxwell performed a follow-up inspection of previously identified items, inspected the installation of electrical supports and cables, and inspected eouipment storage. Maxwell's follow up inspection required that he contact both electrical and welding inspectors. On October 7, 1980, while Maxwell was walking through the site to check on the progress of various activities, he came across some welding inspectors and' welders who were working in the same The welding inspectors were talking very loudly and claiming they were area.
dissatisfied with Catawba and that the project was all messed up.
One of the welding inspectors claimed he was carrying a black bcok for "CYA" purposes.
Maxwell asked why the inspectors thought the job was all messed up and one of the welding inspectors stated all the discrepancies were written in his black book. When Maxwell asked the inspectors about the black book he was told the inspector was documenting his observations in the book.
Since this practice seemed to be a repeat of the documentation violation discovered in June 1980, Maxwell was concerned that the book contained specific nonconformances identi-fied by the inspectors which had not been written on the appropriate DPC quality assurance forms. Maxwell did not ask to look at the black book of the 4
welding inspectors. Since Maxwell considered the use of a personal notebook by the welding inspector as a recurrence of the documentation problem identi-fied in June 1980, he concluded that DPC had not corrected the earlier viola-tion. Maxwell told the welding inspe. tors that he would get back to them to discuss their problems.
On the morning of October 8,1980, Maxwell called Charles Murphy, Branch Chief, Construction Inspection Personnel, and Jack Bryant, Project Section Chief, Region II, f1RC, and informed them of his observations of October 7, 1980, in regards to the welding inspectors. Maxwell asked that investigators from the Region II,fiRC Office of Investigations (01) talk to the welding inspectors and conduct an inquiry into their concerns. Maxwell believed there were two issues:
- 1) use of a personal notebook to record deficiencies, and
L'
~
3 m
,?'
- 2) the statement that Catawba project was all messed up. Maxwell thought an 01 investigation was appropriate due to the general nature of the welding inspector comments and because any resulting inquiry would probably be lengthy. Maxwell thought that 01 could initiate the inquiry, then, if neces-sary, other regional technical secti6ns could be called to assist 01.
- Murphy replied to Maxwell's request by stating that Maxwell did not have enough infomation to determine if the welding inspectors could identify any specific safety related problems. Murphy instructed Maxwell to talk to the welding inspectors and ask them for specific information.
' On October 9,1980, in response to a telephone call from Maxwell, the welding inspectors elected to come to the NRC resident inspector office to discuss their statements with Maxwell.
The welding inspectors also provided Maxwell with three, general, non-safety related concerns, namely 1) non-safety foms i
were not signed by quality assurance; 2) weld wire stubs were not controlled s
in a non-safety related building; and 3) disposition of an NCR concerning a non-safety item in' a non-safety building., They also expressed one concern of possible safe,ty significance:
the disposition to "use as is" of nonconformance,re. ports. The inspectors thought those Nonconfoming Items (NCI) which were dispositioned to "use as is" should be looked into to deter-mine if the technical staff at Catawba had provided the correct disposition.
The inspectors provided no specific NCI numbers to Maxwell; however, in general the NCis did relate to-safety-related systems. Maxwell asked the
)
welding inspectors if they were using a notebook to record observed defifien-Lies. The welding. inspectors denied hav.ing black books and told Maxwell they
]
were just kidding when they made the comment about a black book. Maxwell took this reply to mean the welding inspectors had changed their minds about te31ing Maxwell about the information they were documenting in their personal i
"otebooks.
The welding > inspectors told Maxwell they did not want to discuss themconcerns with 01 investigators or to become involved with investigators.
The ' welding inspectors did not want to be identified in regard to their s
concerns because they were afraid their jobs might be jeopardized.
Even though Maxwell informed the inspectors that the law prevented the inspectors 4
from losing their jobs for.cou;eratirg with NRC, the inspectors did not want N
1 to talk to 01 investigators.
During'the interview, the welding inspectors never' indicated to Maxwsil ? hat they were being intimidated or harassed during the perfomance o# inspections.
On October 14, 1980, Maxwell prepared a i
letter to J.C. Bryant, Section Chief, Region II, which documented the inter-view. The letter was sent to Bryant for His and Region use.
There was one general concern that Maxwell'tho ght'should be followed up on.
That was the
. disposition of "use-as-i.s" NCRs},' -
Between October 9-10, 1980, Maxwell discussed the concerns of the welding
?
inspectors with numerous other inspectors on site. He questioned them concerning documentation, processing, and final disposition of NCRs. Maxwell did not discover any information to indicate inspectors were using non-approved methods to document nonconforming conditions. Maxwell's inquiry did reveal that several mechanical and welding inspectors did not completely understand the processing of NCRs. Additionally, Maxwell reviewed 24 NCIs which he selected from the NCI' log book to determine if there were repetitive nonconformances in various inspection disciplines.
The 24 NCIs were selected based on intervie4 and indications of repetitiveness in the NCI log book, i.e., if the nonc4nformance conditions, occurred morc than twice. Maxwell then
\\
d
_ _ _ _ _ _. _ _, ~
4 examined the disposition of the NCIs to determine why the condition repeated itsel f.
Some of the NCIs reviewed were safety related while others were not.
As a result of the review, Maxwell located one welding nonconforming condition that required further review. The information developed during Maxwell's inquiry was relayed to a Region II inspector, Bob McFarland, for follow up during an up-coming inspection.
Between October 20-22, 1980, during a follow-up inspection of Inspection Finding 70-05-01, titled " Engineers Disposition tof NCI's," McFarland looked into the specific NCR that Maxwell had
+
questioned during his inquiry.
On October 10, 1980, prior to the exit conference between Maxwell and DPC management, Maxwell had a meeting with Larry Davison who was, at that time, the Senior Quality Control Engineer at Catawba.
During the conference with Davison, Maxwell discussed the areas he had inspected during the past week and asked for any input that Davison might be able to provide. During the meeting, Maxwell discussed previous open items he looked into and his observations during the inspections'. Maxwell made general comments to Davison that "some of his people" were still using improper methods for documenting deficiencies and that.he needed to refresh'"some of his people" on the proper use of nonconformance forms, i.e., the Q-1 form.
Maxwell did not further identify any of these people to Davison and never told Davison that he was talking about welding inspectors. Maxwell did not make an issue of the possible documentation problem because he had nothing concrete with which to substantiate violatiobs of procedures. Maxwell'just relaxed his impressions to Davison. Additionally, Maxwell had not seen Davison's' response to Van Doorn's inspection finding, 80-15-03, from his July 1980 inspection.
Therefore, Maxwell was not aware of any commitments made'by DPC as a result of the finding. Consequently, Maxwell was not prepared for a confrontation with Davison over the matter of proper documentation, of deficiencies. Maxwell emphasized he never identified to Davison any of the inspectors he had talked to Maxwell did not even limit his complaints to welding; inspectors because he had talked to welding inspectors, electrical inspectors'and non-destructive examination (NDE) personnel during his inspection. Maxwell told Davison that his people need refresher training on proper documentation of deficiencies, and NRC had previously identified this problem as an inspection item and would continue to review documentation and processing of NCRs in future inspections.
Maxwell opined that because the previous inspection finding concerning documentation of deficiencies involved welding inspectors, Davison may have assumed that they were the individuals who Maxwell was directing his complaints at.
In response to questions, Maxwell emphasized that when welding inspectors came to his office on October 9, 1980, it was in response to his telephone request.
These welding inspectors never indicated to Maxwell that they had ever been harassed or intimidated and, in fact, from what Maxwell had observed the inspectors were very outspoken. The inspectors provided no specific informa-tion relating to safety concerns at Catawba. When Maxwell suggested the welding inspectors talk to 01 investigators, the welding inspectors refused.
They stated they did not want to talk to investigators and did not want to get involved. Maxwell got the impression that the welding inspectors did not want to get any pressure from DPC management.
Even when Maxwell told the welding inspectors they would not be identified and nothing could happen to them, they would not provide any specific information and would not talk to 4
s-,-
--t, n,,-s----
'"*'W
'"~~V
~'~
I-5 investigators. Other than in this context, the issue of confidentiality was never discussed. Maxwell also asserted he never used the term " black book" when discussing this situation with Larry Davison. Maxwell told Davison that some of his people were not using the proper forms to document deficiencies and consequently were not making management aware of problems and that there was confusion concerning the requirements for processing and dispositioning of nonconformance reports. Maxwell informed Davison that this item would be followed up on because it had been previously identified as an unresolved item.
(
)
s t
4