ML20090L014

Applicant Exhibit A-56,consisting of Testimony of VC Godfrey Re Weld Allegations

ML20090L014
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	11/28/1983
From:	Godfrey V DUKE POWER CO.
To:
References
A-056, A-56, NUDOCS 8405240535
Download: ML20090L014 (6)

Text

'

&y S*j<.

poc#

e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA e p$S e)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h6 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO ~

~

s

In the Matter of )

-)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413 (Catawba Nuclear Station,

-) 50-414

) .

Units 1 and 2) )

TESTIMONY OF VERNON C. GODFREY, JR.

1 Q. STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR WORK ADDRESS.

2 A. Vernon C. Godfrey, Jr. , Duke Power Training Center.

3 Q. WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT JOB WITH DUKE POWER COMPANY?

4 A. I now work in Mechanical Maintenance in the Nuclear Production 5 Department.

6 Q. SUMMARIZE YOUR EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS, INCLUDING 7 OTHER NON-DUKE JOBS, EDUCATION, CERTIFICATIONS, AND 8 COMPANY SPONSORED COURSES AND TRAINING.

j 9 A. I went to Fort Mill High School in Fort Mill, SC. I worked as a 10 loomfixer, weaver, slubber tender, card tender, and drawing 11 tender, for Springs -Mills Company, Inc.

12 I am certified as a Level II QC/QA Welding Inspector. Also, I 13 am certified as a welder with 200-300 process specifications. I went 14 to Duke sponsored welding, inspecting and mechanical maintenance i 15 training courses. I have worked for Duke for approximately 8 16 years. I was a welding _ inspector for about 3 years. I am -

17 presently attending the mechanical maintenance course.

18 Q. WHAT OTHER JOB POSITIONS HAVE YOU HELD WITH DUKE POWER 19 COMPANY? I I \

l 0

1 ffh a

e

1 A. I have worked in construction in the utility area and as a welder, 2 and as a QC Inspector.

3 Q. g ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH WHAT IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS 4 THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS WHICH WERE EXPRESSED IN 5 LATE 1981/EARLY 1982?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. DID YOU EXPRESS ANY CONCERNS AS A WELDING INSPECTOR TO 8 ANY OF THE TASK FORCES OR TO DUKE POWER MANAGEMENT?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. TO WHOM DID YOU EXPRESS YOUR CONCERNS?

11 A. I talked with Task Force I, the Technical Task Force, the 12 Non-Technical Task Force, and Gail Addis of the Duke personnel 13 office.

14 Q. WERE YOUR CONCERNS WRITTEN?

15 A. Yes.

l 16 Q. DESCRIBE EACH DOCUMENT WHICH CONTAINS YOUR EXPRESSION I 17 OF CONCERNS, AND INDICATE WHO IT WAS SUBMITTED TO.

18 A. My concerns are set forth in Attachment A to my testimony, which 19 is an eight page handwritten statement. I submitted this to my 20 supervisor who submitted it to the' Task Force.

21 Q. DID YOU FEEL FREE TO EXPRESS ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS?

22 A. I did not feel that I could express my concerns to the ~ NRC.

j 23 During one of the first meetings with L. R. Davison and J. R.

i; P 24 Wells concerning the pay reclassification and recourse, someone i i 1

O i Il l

w m nm__ _ __ ___.

i 1 asked if these issues could be taken to the NRC. We were told by 2 either Mr. Davison or Mr. Wells, I do not remember which, that it 3 ,

would be to our best interest not to take these issues to the NRC.

4 Although this occurred during the pay recourse meetings, I felt 5 that this applied to the specific concerns that were later turned in 6 to the Task Force. Several weeks later we received a memo stating 7 that we could talk to the NRC without any fear of retaliation.

4 8 Q. DID YOU EXPRESS ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. ARE ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS INCLUDED IN THE DOCUMENT 11 ' ATTACHED TO YOUR TESTIMONY?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE AND EXPLAIN WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO 14 COMMUNICATE BY YOUR CONCERNS.

15 A. The intent of some of the QA Procedures was not being met. We 16 were trained to follow the QA Procedures to the letter. There were 17 times when we were told not to follow certain procedures, but we 18 were not given an adequate explanation for not following the

19 procedures. These deviations from procedure were not frequent, 20 but the deviations were not explained to us. I did not feel 21 comfortable. signing-off on an item where there was a deviation from

! 22 procedures that was not fully explaine'd to me. This is what I was 23 trying to communicate to management.

i O

l ,_ . . . . . -. . . -. - . - . . .

' ~~

l r 1 Q. WERE YOUR CONCERNS INVESTIGATED BY THE TASK FORCES?

('

2 A. Yes, to my knowledge.

3 Q. DID YOU ATTEND ANY MEETINGS WITH TASK FORCE AND/OR QA l e i 4 MANAGEMENT MEMBERS WHERE THE TASK FORCE FINDINGS, l 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WERE DISCUSSED?

6 A. Yes, but I can't provide you with the names of people or dates.

7 Q. WERE THERE ANY CHANGES MADE IN THE QA PROGRAM AFTER 8 THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS AND THE TASK FORCE 9 INVESTIGATION OF THESE CONCERNS?

10 A. I wasn't an Inspector long after this so, I can not answer this 11 question. I transferred back to the Construction Department.

12 Q. THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS HAVE BEEN 13 CHARACTERIZED AS CONCERNS ABOUT THE QUALITY AND 14 SAFETY OF CONSTRUCTION AT CATAWBA. DO YOU AGREE OR 15 DISAGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION?

16 A. To my knowledge the concerns that have been brought up would 17 not effect the safe operation of this plant.

18 Q. DID THE EXPRESSION OF YOUR CONCERNS INDICATE YOUR 19 BELIEF THAT THERE WAS A BREAKDOWN IN THE QA PROGRAM 20 OR INDICATE THAT THE QA PROGRAM WAS NO LONGER 21 WORKING?

22 A. I feel that at one time there were definite problems in the QA 23 program, but the QA Program was working in terms of identifying 24 construction deficiencies.

O

1 Q. DID YOUR CONCERNS REFLECT A BELIEF ON YOUR PART THAT l

2 THE CATAWBA PROJECT IS NOT BEING CONSTRUCTED SAFELY?

3 A. No, the job is safe.

\

4 Q. IN YOUR VIEW, HAS THE QA PROGRAM BEEN EFFECTIVE WHILE 5 YOU HAVE WORKED AS AN INSPECTOR AT CATAWBA?

6 A. The inspectors have been effective, but I feel that some parts of 7 the QA Program were not. Specifically, adequate explanations were 8 not provided when we were told to deviate from procedures.

9 Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY DEFICIENCIES IN CONSTRUCTION OR IN 10 THE QA PROGRAM WHICH WOULD CAUSE YOU TO QUESTION 11 WHETHER CATAWBA IS SAFELY BUILT?

12 A. No.

13 Q. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO YOUR l 14 TESTIMONY?

15 A. I would like some follow-up to NCI #9085. In my concern of NCI 16 #9085, I stated that the long piece of pipe had three (3) different l

, 17 heat numbers on it. One at each end and one in the center.

1' 18 The class of the system was Class E. The class of the pipe 19 used was Class B. Granted that heat traceability numbers are not 20 required in a Class E system, there was a possibility that some of 21 the pipe could be cut out and used elsewhere, due to the revision 22 of that system.

23 If this piece of pipe that had the wrong heat number was used 24 in a Class B, high pressure system, and it had a defect causing an 0

I accident, how would or could it be found; who made the pipe; when 2 they made it; what it was made of in order to justify or even try to i 3 , , explain the accident.

4 5

6 7 I hereby certify that I have read and understand this document, and 8 believe it to be my true, accurate and complete testimony.

9 1 l JM&a . f7 W -

12 Vernon C. Go'dfrp, Jd.' /

13 l 14 15 Sworn to d subscribed before me 16 this.f# day of September,1983.

20 1%#Emm

( Notary Public 21 22 Commission Expires h/hJr/ I, /ffh 1

(

O

/ ,

/ / ' /

/ i /

s. k']N.']/l  ; /'//

l /,j, j

, j(y'I .f , / '/

//

/

Q>> /

Q/ /

(} '

~

y y~ n;

.ye;'

b ' i / , c/

j'Y

.i '

/

y  !

/

.Q/

, q (y Y,

y N q e

e