ML20138Q076
Text
____
/
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,(
Office of Inspector and Auditor
- o. i. o. u.a c n....
September 1, 1983 Report of Interview Gary E. " Beau" Ross, Technica'. Welding Inspectors Supervisor, Duke Power Company (DPC), upon interview at the Office of the Senior Resident Inspector (SRI), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC), at the Catawba Nuclear Power Station (CNPS) provided the following information:
He has been employed at DPC for 11 years and became a supervisor of inspectors on August 31, 1976. His current supervisor, Fred Bulgin, who recently com-menced employment at CNPS having been transferred there from McGuire Nuclear Power Station; Bulgin replaced his fomer supervisor, Art Allen.
His first contact with NRC was at least three years earlier when he spoke with the then SRI George Maxwell when they discussed a problem Ross had in the area of electrical drawings which prompted Ross to write a Non-Conforming Item (NCI). This problem primarily concerned the traceability of materials which was merely a deviation from procedure and not a violation of procedures per se, which could lead to additional potential safety problems.
Regarding the issue of possible recrimination by DPC for any employee who might contact the NRC, he recalled a meeting wherein W. H. Owen essentially stated that DPC could potentially take action against an employee who con-tacted the NRC.
A fellow DPC employee, Vernon Godfrey, had taped the meeting and the conversations by Owen, however, he could offer no further information concerning this incident and was not personally. familiar with any instances wherein retribution may have occurred although the comments made by Owen were considered by Ross and other DPC employees as a strong warning.
The DPC Task Force " admitted" 57 instances of problem areas regarding CNPS which he characterized as being illustrative of the DPC position concerning a responsive and conscientious program of quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) welding.
Regarding a specific instance in this regard, he recalled an inspection issue incident regarding another DPC welding employee, John Bryant.
During this incident, circa 1981, Bryant refused to sign off on a weld that was reportedly done approximately two years previously; the problem with Bryant's approval of the weld was that it was in a hard to reach area and that he (Bryant) could not see the weld.
Upon being notified of the incident by Bryant, Ross contacted his supervisor, Charles Baldwin, who ordered that Bryant sign off on the weld.
Bryant reluctantly did so and listed a disclaimer on his approving inspection.
Consequently, Bryant's disclaimer went through appropriate channels, however, the weld was approved.
He (Ross) characterized that this instance as failure to support QA/QC welding inspectors.
8511140460 851017 PDR FDIA GILINSKB5-437 PDR August 24, 1983
., Rock Hill, S.C i ey,,,,on o.
F,,,= 83-52 W
,,f Pat ick McKenna o.,,o,ci.e.a SeDtember 1. 1983
,Mid DOCUM NT IS PROPE RTY OF N RC. IF LO ANED TO ANOTHE R AGENCY IT AND ITS CONTENTS ARE NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE THE RECEIVING AGENCY WITHOUT PE RMISSION OF THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR AND AUDITOR.
j
\\
2 s
a Another area which he briefly wished to comment on pertained to an Annual Performance Evaluation which he received from Art Allen, his supervisor, in April 1983. He received an unsatisfactory rating which translated into a 7 percent raise wherein if he had gotten a higher rating he would have received a 12 percent raise.
He felt that the commentary in his evaluation by Allen regarding his apparent failure in the area of " going along with management" focused on his support of subordinate inspectors who did not approve some welds.
Accordingly, since he brought these welds to the attention of DPC management he was provided with the unsatisfactory rating.
He explained that during a recourse procedure concerning the unsatisfactory rating he was advised that miscommunication was considered to be an issue in the rating although he was not otherwise provided with any substantive support for the rating by Allen.
In this regard, he felt he was being discriminated /
harassed by DPC contrary to provisions of 10 CFR 50.7 Concluding, he characterized DPC QA/QC problems as having taken a clearly secondary role in the opinion of management and have, on occasion, been circumvented strictly to adhere to the constructions schedule.
In this regard, he stated that during his assignment at DPC he had continually strived for excellence in welding and a superior QA/QC program.
However, upon repeatedly being " beaten down" by the efforts of DPC management and most often in the person of Charles Baldwin, his supervisor, he had become resigned to the situation that the QA/QC program at CNPS will be done the way DPC wishes it be done and not necessarily the way it should be done.
He advised he had no further commentary to make to the Office of Inspector and
~
Auditor although recommending consideration to interview of other DPC welding inspector personnel.
i
_~-
3 December 20, 1982 Synopsis of Comments Concerning Welding Inspector Concerns:
Interviewees consisted of 9 supervisors and 19 inspectors.
Supervisors were asked questions concerning adequacy of the task force effort fic concerns (as a,pplicable). support of inspectors, falsification, and speci-Inspectors were asked questions concerning adequacy of the task force effort, support of inspectors, knowledge of any tech-nically inadequate installation at Catawba, ability to talk to the NRC without recrimination, falsification, and specific con-cerns (as applicable).
Supervisor Comments:
Task force effort was adequate and support (or perceived support) has improved (all).
Effort incomplete in that supervision (especially Baldwin) was not allowed to defend their position, little feedback to supervision as to whether they made inappropriate judgements or had communicated poorly (2).
Still need improvements in imulementation of R2 program and resolution feedback (3 first line supervisors).
No overt falsification occurred but misjudgements may have been made by second and third line supervision (2).
Need better communications with QA; QA personnel than some QC supervisors (1)get better answers from Still have problems with certain craft crews; e.g. quality of ' work, attitude, and craft taking items to a different in-spector to get item accepted (1).
There is pressure not to use the recourse procedure (2).
Some items are argued about for 3 days that would take 30 seconds to fix (1).
Different inspector crews are interpreting procedures differently.
)
Inspector Comments:
Task force effort was adequate (13).
Task force effort was inadequate (4).
Support for inspectors has improved and is now generally adequate (all except one N/A, yes with comments provided con-cerning needed improvements).
No technically inadequate installations.
No recrimination would occur if I talk to NRC (10).
Some recrimination would result from talking to NRC (9-mostly indirect recrimination).
No overt falsification identified (all).
Signed holdpoints for items I did not inspect or did not
\\
~~
- \\
agree with (5).
derstood or appreciated - 8). Task force feedback was inc un-Specific concerns not adequately addressed
{
need meetings with all inspectors (4).Different inspe 7).
n.
such as with QA, than before (6). Feel pressure not Reco.urse takes too long (2).
RT and Cavender used to override inspectors; should be to justify technical acceptance not to override insp Still need improvement in implementation of R2 program ector call (5 resolution feedback (6).
Concerned whether R2A (vs. NCI) is adequate to handle blems (4).
problems are still encountered with s T/S (3)Still some construction leaning, e.g.pecific craft crews (3) inadequate answer froa Singular Comments:
Need QA T/S group..
A simple UT wall thickness concerning underwall conditions. gage would alleviate many questics Need direct contact with person resolv doesn't get fully answered. question goes through more than the original question Craft fitting up j(oints that they know are mislocated value credit, weighted j
Personnel comments. Feel downgraded and have lower m b
0 O
e l
I
.-,.,,n.,
~.'
~
Dacember 20, 1982
&.GT&fG 3
MEMO TO FILE
Subject:
Catawba Welding inspector Concern Attached are notes from Kim VanDoorn, Resident NRC Inspector-Catawba Nuclear Station.
From his interviews with welding inspectors and super-vision in regards to the concerns submitted by a portion of these welding inspectors Kim's summary remarks are that all of the inspectors and supervisors interviewed believed the installations at Catawba are technically adequate. He also found that no supervisor had intended to overtly falsi-fy any record or to cause anyone to falsify any record.
Inspectors interviewed concurred in this assessment.
There was a feeling that judgements involved mzy not have been entirely proper in some cases but that no falsification cccurred and no inspector felt that they were asked to falsify any document.
Kim will be recommending that no further interviewing is necessary in regards to this matter.
He will be following up on corrective action completion.
i The following specifics were discussed in regards to his synopsis:
There is still a need to comunicate better the workings of the Task Force and the Management Corrective Action, both with super-vision and with inspectors. The pressure in regards to the recourse procedure may be pressure to answer or satisfy the inspector rather than pressure not to use the recourse procedure.
In regards to the inspector comments, those who felt that the Task Force effort was inadequate may not understand that programmatic action was taken in regards to their specific concern.
This again, points out the need to communicate the completion of our management action.
The inspectors perception of indirect recrimination as a result of talking to the NRC is undoubtedly the feeling that they might be looked down on for talking with the NRC.
All indicated that they would go to the NRC.
Several comments Indicated that the inspectors do not like going through the chain of command for answers and like the situation that existed previously where they could access the QA Technical Support Group more; di rectly.
O w
n l
GWG er Corporate QA Manager i
GWG/ph W H Bradle/y cc:
W 0 Henry L R Davison MMXc%mnL2A
1 3
recember 20, 1982 Synopsis of Comments Concerning Welding Inspector Concerns:
Interviewees consisted of 9 supervisors and 19 inspectors.
4 Supervisors were asked' questions concerning adequacy of the i
task force effort, support of inspectors, falsification, and speci-fic-concerns (as applicable).
+
j Inspectors were asked questions concerning adequacy of the j
task force effort, support of inspectors, knowledge of any tech-i nically inadequate installation at Catawba, ability to talk to i
the NRC without recrimination, falsification, and specific con-cerns (as applicable).
l Supervisor Comments:
. Task force effort was adequate and support (or perceived support) has improved (all).
Effort incomplete in that supervision (especially Baldwin) was not allowed to defend their position, little feedback to supervision as to whether they made inappropriate judgements or had communicated poorly (2).
Still need improvements in implementation of R2 program i
and resolution feedback (3 first line supervisors).
No overt falsification occurred but misjudgements may have been.made by second and third line supervision (2).
Need better communications with QA;
{
QA personnel than some QC supervisors (1)get better answers from j
Still have problems with certain craft crews; e.g. quality 4
of work, attitude, and craf t taking items to a different in-i spector to get item accepted (1).
There is pressure not to use the recourse procedure (2).
l Some items are argued about for 3 days that would take 30 i
seconds to fix (1).
Different inspector crews are interpreting procedures l
differently.*1 j
Inspector Comments:
Task force effort was adequate (13).
Task force effort was inadequate (4).
Support for inspectors has improved and is now generally adequate (all except one N/A, yes with comments provided con-cerning needed improvements).
No technically inadequate installations.
No recrimination would occur if I talk to NRC (10).
Some recrimination would result from talking to NRC (9-mostly indirect recrimination).
No overt falsification identified (all).
i Signed holdpoints for items I did not inspect or did not Van Doorn Testimony - Attachment 17
. ^
agree with (5).
Task force feedback was incomplete (total results not un-derstood or appreciated - 8).
Specific concerns not adequately addressed (7).
Different inspector crews interpreting procedures differently; need meetings with all inspectors (4).
Feel pressure not to use recourse; less open communication, such as with QA, than before (8).
Recourse takes too long (2).
RT and Cavender used to override inspectors; should be used to justify technical acceptance not to override inspector call (3).
Still need improvement in implementation of R2 program and resolution feedback (6).
Concerned whether R2A (vs. NCI) is adequate to handle pro-blems (4).
Problems are still encountered with specific craft crews (3).
Still some construction leaning, e.g. inadequate answer from T/S (3)
Singular Comments:
Need QA T/S group.
A simple UT wall thickness gage would alleviate many questions concerning underwall conditions.
Need direct contact with person resolving concerns; if the question goes through more than one person, the original question doesn't get fully answered.
Craft (PHM's) is abusing the weighted valge system, e.g.
fitting up joints that they know are mislocated to get weighted value credit.
Feel downgraded and have lower motivation.
Personnel comments.
l W
9 i
,.._.m.
.~,-._,.__..,_ -- -___,.
~
Eecember 20, 1982 Synopsis of Comments Concerning Welding Inspector Concerns:
Interviewees consisted of 9 supervisors and 19 inspectcrs.
Supervisors were asked questions concerning adequacy of the task force effort, support of inspectors, falsification, and speci-fic concerns (as applicable).
Inspectors were asked questions concerning adequacy of the task force effort, support of inspectors, knowledge of any tech-4 nically inadequate installation at Catawba, ability to talk to the NRC withcut recrimination, falsification, and specific con-cerns (as applicasie).
Supervisor Cotaents:
Task force effort was adequate and support (or perceived support) has improved (all).
Effort incomplete in that supervision-(especially Ealdwin) was not allowed t'o defend their position, little feedback to supervision as to whether they made inappropriate judgements or had communicated poorly (2).
Still need improvements in implementation of R2 program and resolution feedback (3 first line supervisors).
i No overt falsification occurred but misjudgements may have been made by second and third line supervision (2).
Need better communications with QA; QA personnel than some QC supervisors (1)get better answers from j
j Still have problems with certain craft crews; e.g. quality of work, attitude, and craf t taking items to a different in-spector to get item accepted (1).
There is pressure not to use the recourse procedure (2).
Some items are argued about for 3 days that wculd take 30 seconds to fix (1).
Different inspector crews are interpreting procedures differently.
1 Inspector Comments:
Task force effort was adequate (13).
Task force effort was inadequate (4).
Support for inspectors has improved and is now generally adequate (all except one N/A, yes with comments provided con-cerning needed improvements).
No technically inadequate installations.
No recrimination would occur if I talk tc NRC (10).
Some recrimination would result from talking to NRC (9-i mostly indirect recrimination).
No overt falsification identified (all).
Signed holdpoints for items I did not inspect or did not i
x agree with (5).
- ' ' ~
Task force feedback wa..
derstood.or appreciated - 8).s: incomplete (total results not un-
\\
Specific concerns not adequately addressed (7)
~
Different inspector crews interpreting proc $dures diffe
}
need meetings with all inspectors (4),
i rently Feel pressure not to use recourse; less open communicat i
auch as with QA, i
than before 8.
on, Recourse takes too long ((2)).
RT and Cavender used to override inspectors; should be u to justify technical acceptance not to override insp Still need improvement in implementation of R7' program a ector~ call (3) resoluticn feedback (6).
Concerned whether R2A (vs. UCI) is adequate to handle blems (4j'.
Problems are still encountered with s T/S (3) \\Still some construction leaning, e.g.pecific craft c'rews (3).
inadequate answer from 4
1
~!.
Singu'lar Comments:
"I n
i Need QA T/S group.
A simple UT wall thickness s
-j concerningunderwallconditions.gagewouldal$eviatemanyques'tionn s
Need direct contact with person resolv e
doesn't get fully answered. question goes through more than on the original question Craft fitting up j(oints that they:g the weighted valge system, e.g.
PHM's) is abusin know are mislocated to get weighted value credit.
Feel downgraded and have lower motivation.
Personnel comments.
V 4
e
.