ML20138Q043
Text
s
'e U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON Office of Inspector and Auditor cate of tranieristion Fohrnarv 1A 14Da Report of Interview Larry R. Davison, Project Quality Assurance Manager, for the Duke Power Company (DPC) at Catawba Nuclear Station, Rock Hill, South Carolina, was interviewed.concerning the Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) program at Catawba and an October 1980 meeting he had with George F. Maxwell, the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Senior Resident Inspector at Catawba.
During the interview, Davison provided the following information.
Davison assumed the position of Project QA Manager at Catawba in February 1981.
Prior to that date, Davison was the Senior QC Engineer.
Davison explained that as Senior QC Engineer, he received administrative support from the Project Engineer at Catawba; however, he was under the functional control of the Senior QA Engineer at Catawba.
Davison received all J
his operational direction and guidance concerning implementation of the QA/QC program from the Senior QA Engineer.
To ensure independence of the QA program from any construction influence, the Senior QA Engineer reported directly to the QA Manager for Construction who was located off site in Charlotte, North Carolina. The QA Manager for Construction reported to the Corporate QA Manager who worked directly for the Senior Vice President for Construction and Design. The Corporate QA Manager was on an equal level with the Vice President for Construction who also reported to the Senior Vice President for Construction and Design. Davison stated that the independent functional line of control for QA ensured that Catawba QC personnel were able to independently evaluate the implementation of the QA program at Catawba.
If Davison had any problems with construction personnel, he was able to report directly to his functional supervisor the Senior QA Engineer.
During the first of 1981, DPC restructured the QA organization at Catawba.
Davison was appointed Project QA Manager, and now both the Senior QA Engineer and QC Inspection Supervisor report directly to him for both administrative and functional purposes. Davison reports to the QA Manager for Construction.
On October 10, 1980, George Maxwell came to Davison's office to discuss an NRC inspection that Maxwell had just completed at Catawba.
During the meeting, Maxwell reviewed some items from previous inspections that were still open.
In this context, Maxwell made some general coninents to the effect that some of the QC inspectors were still improperly documenting their observations in personnel notebooks.
Davison was not certain about how the term " black book" was coined; however, he noted that the notebooks provided QC inspectors by DPC were, in fact, black in color. Maxwell also told Davison that some inspectors had brought problems to him that DPC management should be aware of and resolve. These problems were not within the jurisdiction of NRC; therefore, 8511140341 e51017 PDR FOIA GILINSK85-437 PDR i p,,,
non on February 2. 1984 Catawba Nucipar Statinn F.i. = ALU at
-M M
,' Georae A. Mulley O.,,,,,,,,.o.Eeh ena rv 16. l oad THIS DOCUMENT IS PROPE RTY OF NRC. IF LOANED TO ANOTHER AGENCY tT AND ITS CONTENTS ARE NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE THE RECEtVING AGENCY WITHOUT PE RMISSION OF THE OF FICE OF INSPECTOR AND AUDITOR, 0 0-82
i,.
2 l
Maxwell could do nothing but make DPC aware of them. During the meeting, Maxwell mentioned no names.
He just stated "some inspectors" had approached him while he walked through the site.
Davison inferred from Maxwell's comments that the information being documented in personal notebooks by the inspectors was observations, not deficiencies.
Davison believed the inspectors were documenting actual deficiencies they observed on the appropriate forms. Additionally, although Maxwell did not mention any names or identify what group of inspectors had approached him, Davison assumed the inspectors were welding inspectors because Maxwell had indicated by his use of the word "still" that the problem was a recurrence of the one documented in the July 1980 NRC inspection. That violation involved welding inspectors.
Additionally, Maxwell was most likely to encounter welding inspectors while he was walking through the plant on an inspection.
After the discussion with Maxwell, Davison wanted to remind the welding inspectors that although inspectors had the right to go to NRC at any time, DPC had established recourse procedures to solve problems.
Before going to NRC, non-NRC problems as well as NRC problems should be first communicated to DPC to allow DPC management the opportunity to resolve either the technical or non-technical concern. Davison decided to have a meeting with the welding inspectors to discuss the DPC recourse procedure. Davison first discussed the matter with.the welding inspectors supervisors, Charles Baldwin, a Technical Supervisor, and Dean Russ, a Supervisor Technician. During this meeting, Davison informed Baldwin and Ross about what he was going to tell the welding inspectors about the DPC recourse procedure. Baldwin and Ross told Davison that they would also make welding inspectors aware of the proper procedures to be.followed when reporting problems.
During Davison's subsequent meeting with welding inspectors, none of the inspectors indicated they thought the DPC policy was unfair or bad.
i l
_.