ML20045C979
| ML20045C979 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/10/1982 |
| From: | Norry P NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Palladino NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20037D485 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436 NUDOCS 9306250189 | |
| Download: ML20045C979 (5) | |
Text
.
~... - --
. _.. ~.....
-~
.... - ~. -...
CRETARIATMRD COPY
,,,, l* ),
NUCLEAR RE U ORY COMMISSIO
- g' Q
../. j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 1
-(
/
t gay 101982
)
4 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino 1
THRU:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations j
i FROM:
Patric'ia G. Norry,' Acting Director j
Office of Administration
SUBJECT:
INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE IN HAYWARD TYLER PUMP COMPANY INVESTIGATION i
The NRC received a Freedom of Information Act (F0IA) request dated February 26, 1982, from Mr. Warren Liebold for seven categories of documents concerning the Hayward Tyler Pump Company (Enclosure 1).
Mr..J. M. Felton, Director, Division of Rules and Records (DRR), responded to the request on April 12, 1982 (Enclosure 2). Among the documents made available was the December 11, 1981 letter from Congressman Markey enclosing five affidavits.
In his letter, Congressman Markey noted.that one of the. individuals, who was i
identified on the affidavit, wished to remain anonymous pursuant to 10 CFR Part 21. This was overlooked by DRR, and the nane of the individual.was inadvertently provided to Mr. Liebold.
In addition, following normal DRR procedures in which a company that is the subject of an FOIA request is i
provided with a copy of the request and NRC's response, and also as a result of a letter dated March 25, 1982, from Mr. Milton Eisenberg of'the law firm-representing Hayward Tyler (Enclosure 3) in which he alleged that _ copies s
of NRC documents had been made available to a reporter for the New York Times.
-t copies of the documents were also sent to the law firm.
On April 14, 1982, Mr. John Boese of the law firm :alled the error to our attention. Mr. Felton immediately requested retu
.of the documents from Mr. Liebold and Mr. Boese, and the documents subr lently have been returned and the appropriate deletions made. However, ti me of the~ confidential source had already been provided by the law fir Hayward Tyler. The parties have agreed not to contact the indivi o.
(
CONTACT:
J. M. Felton, DRR g
49-27211 Y
M
..:.' M il';in :. ;j
(
' C
- d T e ra y %- [e
,~M hu, CiCapb F0l4 _ f (cn$ffj ~ ~ ~ ~--
I g62 9 930308 OILINSM92-436 PDR
=
Chairman Palladino 2-Mr. Felton has informed the individual of the error and expressed our regrets (Enclosure 4). Congressman Markey's office will be notified.
/Zw b
/
Patricia G. Norry, Acting Dir ctor Office of Administration
Enclosures:
1.
W. Liebold Letter dtd 2/26/82-2.
J. Felton Letter dtd 4/12/82 3.
M. Eisenberg Letter dtd 3/25/82 4.
J. Felton Letter dtd 5/4/82 cc: Commissioner Gilinsky Connissioner Ahearne Commissioner Roberts SEC%.
0GC OCA ELD OPE e
0 m
Warren Liebold 44 Roslyn Avenue Sea Cliff, New York 11579 february 26, 1982 i
I f reedom of Inf ormation Officer FREEDOM OF INFORMATK)N Office of Administration ACT REQUEST j
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission h[f pg j
Washington, D.C.
20555 d
- bN l
Dear Sir / madams i
Pursuant to 5 USC 552, the freedom of Inf ormation Act as amended, l
I request receipt of the following documents concerning the Hayward Tyler Pump Company of Burlington, Vermont 1
Report of an NRC inspection held february 25-29, 1980.
- 2. Report of an NRC investigation of worker allegations of quality i
i assurance / quality control deficiencies at the plant which was l
l initiated in January 1982.
- 3. A f fidavits, interviews, testimony, etc. with/from allegers, l
1 company management and present employees concerning item 2.
t 4
All correspondence with the Hayward Tyler Pump Company concern-l ing item 2.
- 5. All NRC intra-or inter-office memos concerning item 2, including any written records of telephone conversations.
- 6. A list of all nuclear power plants, research reactors or fuel cycle facilities which currently employ Hayward Tyler pumps and the systems in which such pumps are used. If this information is not available. I request written, confirmation of this fact.
7 Any documents pertaining to NRC attempts to ascertain whether purchasers of Hayward Tyler pumps performed their own physical inspections (ie. radiographs) of the pumps upon receipt of the pumps or at any time prior to placing the Pumps in service.
I realize that part or all of items 3-7 may be contained in items 1 and 2. I agree to accept copying costs for these documents.
I f microfiche copies are available of any of the requested documents, they would be preferred. If any clarification of this request is needed, I can be reached during the day at (212) 532-9512.
Thanks very much for your time and effort.
mAhC~lbhfW__
\\ j e j~
r
.s h
STATEMENT
?
I 1
,80TE:
DICTATEDBUTNdTREAD)l TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
7 1
~
I l
I was employed by Hayward Tyler for approximately l[
fly position was
/Inthiscapacity,'Iwasresponsiblefor)
/ On many s
l joccasions, I was required to provide liaison between l
I think I should first explain the atmosphere of the rather smooth._
1
' plant.
In the beginning, things went l uorked long and hard hours but enj oyed them.
When we started i
i tbuilding nuclear pumps, the trouble began.
No one seemed.to-know what was going on or why, but we worked out the hurdles land shipped an occasional pump.
After about.two and a half y e a."s. we we r e n ' t standing up to our commitments _with the
.Ijaothe'r company, Stone-Platt.
Management was told they would
- *Imake th'ese commitments or be out on their ears.
To make a.
llong story short, Jhe whole place turned into a human time l bomb--a complete state of chaos.
lien were working an unbelievable amount of hours under unheard of pressure.
1 recall one time a motel was ' rented nereby so that the men l could get a f ew hours sleep and then return to work.
These
!pe o pl e, incidentally, lived within a short distance of.the
.I plant.
0 4*
u
l,
'nin95 were getting worse instead of better.
The deadline was getting close.
flanagement ran around like
~
u jle5CBPe lunatics, but hell or high water, pumps were being
] shipped.
Somewhere, we lost the feeling of becoming the s
I b e s t pump c o'mp a ny i n t h e wo rl d,
tien were tired and manners I
jj were few.
Everyone was at their wits end.
Still, management
[
..';! insisted on more ' overtime.
h-1 *found myself losing interest and in cons t'an.t conflict is ll with the of fice -- eit-her about the way things were being-l' j done or the way men were. being trea'ted.
Finally, 1 guess I 0.becamea road block -
l I didn't like leaving under these 3,
,'i c i r c ums t a n c e s, but was relieved when it was over.
,i A pair of shoes should not be built under these conditions, l, to say nothing about components that could endanger this
!@! wonderful country of ours.
Now you ask the question, G'entlemen, 11 hif$aywardTyler built defective pumps.
I will now give 1:
j you some first rate examples and let you decide; lI Pa'r t s we r e, r eina c h i n e d a f t e r inspection; employees were i
I asked to sign off route sheets that' did not. perform the I
!. operation;. men were complaining about a part not being up to e
hlstandardandwere v r. ry, s m o o t hl y c o n v i n c e d by m a n a g e m e n t t h'a i l
t the part was OV,; when a contract was called out for,a percentage ll Of pumps in that contract to be tested, the ones we were-not
]' so sur e of were na turally the ones ue did not test; there was 1
!.,' a problem with s ome' bea rings, 1 never knew t he whol e s tory,
,1
.._4,~..
..m.._,.
...m.-.,,,m,
f
'd e
lbut it was decided to buy another type because these heated up when they were used.
'h'e c o u l d n ' t g e t them in time, so g
the orig'inals were used; batch numbers on parts were constantly
' confuse'd because the paperwork was shif ted unti.i everything f turned out right; parts were released to the shop for machining
- with' either no paperwork or incorrect. paperwork; shaf ts
~
Iwere shipped for pumps that were not straight; some of these shafts were straightened with a process with an acety[ene jtorch,and1oftenwonderedwhat it did to the structure of the material; there were even rumors of casings being ground j,af ter a hydro test and parts welded with improper procedures.
1 don't believe in the '.' g o o d f a i ry ", but low and behold the I
next day, the part or pumps would be OK.
All this magic
.loccurredwhen the honest people went home.
Ll Perhaps the biggest thing of all was the i mp e l l e.r s.
- lSomewouldnot fit correctly and didn't run true or concentric.-
.i jThey were knocked around, tightened and loosened until they
~
s would run true.
There were also the keys for the impe11ers 1
iwhich did not fit, and were around by hand til they ran true.
l i'When a pump wak rupto maximum RPM, they could become loose I
l v
or out of balance and seize a pump up or shake it to bits.
I believe these impe11ers are supposed to be interchangeable; l
I ijand if they are, and a change is'made in the field not
- l
{hnowingthis, it would be a catastrophe.
l g
gl This is a rough summary of what went on at Hayward jiyl e r.
I hope it will give you a better idea of things and jpossibly entice you to investigate, the situation.
v.......,.
[
c UtH T E D sl A T M
[ ',', [,'g NUCLE AR REGUL A1 ORY COMMISSION
\\ Q IB q. y-l g.,.
\\
April 12,1982 1
l Mr. k'arren Liebold 44 Roslyn Avenue IN RESPONSE REFER l
Sea cliff, NY 11579 TO F01A-82-117
Dear Mr. Liebold:
This is in response to your letter dated February 26, 1982, i.n which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, seven categories of documents concerning the Hayward Tyler Pump Company.
The documents listed on the Appendix to this letter are enclosed with j
the exceptions noted below.
l A home telephone number has been deleted from document 35 pursuant to exemptions (6) and (7)(C) of the Treedom of Information Act (F0IA) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6) and (7)(C)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(6) and (7)(iii) of the Commission's regulations because disclosure of this information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The remaining portions of this document are enclosed.
Document 37 consists of investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, and is being withheld from public disclosure and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(7)(i) pursuant to exemptions (7)(A) and (D) of the FOIA -
and (iv) because disclosure of the information would interfere with an enforcement proceeding and disclose confidential infonnation furnished by a confidential source.
The review of documents 12,14,15, 21, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 36 has not been completed.
As soon as our review is completed, we will advise you of our disclosure determination.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.9 of the Commission's regulati6ns, it has been l
determined that the information withheld is exempt frort production or disclosure, and that its production or disclosure is contrary to the public interest.
The person responsible for the denial of document 35-is the undersigned.
The persons responsible for the denial of document l
37 are the undersigned and Mr. Richard C. DeYoung, Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
0 On e n&ac.
v; -
.>\\ v
l i
4 Mr. h'arren Licbold This denial may be appealed to the Comission's Executive Director for Operations within 30 days from the receipt of this letter.
As provided in 10 CFR 9.11, any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state nn the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an Initial FOIA Decision."
Si n,ce rely,
/
i
.s
\\
.4'
'.., ' .'..., ;ic..N W
\\
//
J.' M. Felton, Director
/
Division of Rules and Records
)
Office of Administration l
Enclosures:
As stated
?
i S
l 1
l
c 4
RI.
March 5,1982 Memo to Commission from EDO reporting release of draft reports
,to HTPC and including copies of documents released.
22.
March 5,1982 Memo to File by W. J. Ward documenting transmittal of draft reports to Commission and EDO.
23.. March 9,1982 Memo from'Cumings to Chairman advising of invitation of investigatic l
- 24. March 10,1982 Letter from HTPC to DeYoung advising of Field inspection program.
j 25.
March 20,1980 Letter from Uldis Potapovas to HTPC regarding QA Program Inspection conducted on February 25-27, 1980.
I l
26.
January 21, 1982 Memo from John Collins to Ed Jordan regarding listing of pumps manufactured by Hayward Tyler Pump Company for the period 1977-1981.
27.
January 28, 1982 Informal note from David Reiff to G. Bagchi regarding
]
investigation of defec'.ive Hayward Tyler pumps.
28.
February 25, 1982 Memo from E00 to Conmissioner Ahearne regarding Region IV l
Report delay.
l 29.
Undated /'Jasigned draft Investigation Report No. 99900345/82-01'.
30.
Undated / Unsigned draf t Invastigation, Report No. 99900345/82-01.
l 31.
Undated / Unsigned draft letter to HTPC from John Collins regarding Inspection U. port No.99900345/82-02.
- 32. Undated / Unsigned draft letter to HTPC from John Collins regarding Inspection Report No. 99900345/82-02.
33.
February 19, 1982 Letter to HTPC from John Collins regarding Inspection Report No. 99900345/82-02.
j 34.
Chronology of Contact Between NRC and HTPC.
35.
October 30, 1981 Note to W. Reinmuth from J. Sniezek regarding 10 CFR Part 21 Reports / Allegation.
36.
March 22,1982 Memo from John Collins to R. DeYoung transmitting final draft investigation and inspection reports.
I
- 37. Written statements and Reports of Intervieh (w'th names included) and a key which reveals the identities of those not mentioned by name in the report.
38.
March 24, 1982 Note to Jim Cunnings from Jim Sniezek transmitting above Document (36 (enciosure not repeated here).
t i
39.
itarch 19, 1982 Memo from James Sniezek to Roger Fortuna regarding continued
,investigation and enforcement activities regardit.g HTPC.
40.
March 10.1982 Letter from Rep.14arkey tt. Chairman Palladino regarding hearing on circumstances surrounding release of draft reports.
b l
i k
i 9*
l l
l l
l a
1 I
l l
I
i.
l
.......2...<...-,s.<...;..a...w.
f S ull t 10 0 0 f
f*
600 NEW HAMPSHIRC AVENUC N.W.
Tr rn.FxAxx.}!anats, WASHINGTON. D C. 2OO37
.s u,.s.
w..
A
...p...
.... m a s..
f2 02) 342-3 5 0 o
,'[,,%7
[**g',dM**
.o-c4eu: secmc wAs=cio(
l
,,' =,:,
=;;,%
~ " ~ '"""
' ". ~.. '. " '
e *arao8
- '.7.. '!./.';','.','
~
l i'. *.'.'"lll* *
= " " =.
l
~ ' ". ~ '. "
- *!l?.'.'*."."'
. w. m..,....
"'- -uu
- ,
- ma,.
-, !'.*l* ','."'..
"C.'w..snO
Harch 25, 1982
..m.
C l
l
.~..-i l
Mr. Richard C.
DeYoung Director of Inspection and Enforcement
)
l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Highway t
l Bethesdn, Maryland 205S5 Re:
Hayward Tyler Pump Company l
Dear Mr. DeYoung Late Tuesday afternoon (March 23), Larry Clark of l
Indian Head answered a telephone call from Ms. Judit.h Miller, a reporter with the Washington Bureau of the 'New York Times, regarding NRC's investigation of Hayward Tyler Pump Company's,
As counsel to Hayward Tyler and Quality. Assurance program.
Indian Head, Marc Rowden of this firm participated in a lengthy follow-on telephone conversation with Ms. Miller arranged' by,
Mr. Clark.
During these telephone conversations, Ms. Miller stated
'but she was in possession of a' number of internal NRC documents I clating to the Hayward Tyler investigation.
She referred to and quoted from a February 23, J r
,'morandum authored by i:
John Collins, Director of Region V,
nd she referred to a written reprimand to Region IV.
'he % s also familiar with the contents of Hayward Tyler's Mate
.0 letter to you seeking j
NRC review and approval of the custome assurance steps which NRC had. asked the company to propose, nd what,she described
" draft" NRC Inspection Report 'and Notice of Nonconformance.
as the Indeed, she stated that she was quoting from copies of the above documents which were in her possession.
Ms. Miller further made reference to a memorandum prepared by Mr. James.
Cummings,.who is Director of the NRC's Of fice of Inspector and Auditor.
On behalf of our clients, I strongly protest the release of these documents to a reporter.
Such release before inspection reports are completed is clearly the investigation. and It compromises the integrity of an uncompleted NRC improper.
.l
- xn L e n / _i
{)QP r
~
\\
e.
Fx s::.p. h A NX. 3 A Rn13, SB mVER &. A W PZ1.N M f
- r. Richard C.
D'eYoung Page Two March'25, 1982 inquiry -- a inaEter which we believe should be 6f serious c$n--
cern to your agency; and, from the company,'s., standpoint, such;,
(
a, course can only lead to -misundersta.ndings. and. misperceptions,
!l based on media publication of fragments"of the NRC's internal l
investigative records which are taken out, of. context.'
j.
.y,.
In view of the fact that internal NRC' file documer.ts have already been released, I request that Hayward. Tyler, which..
is the subject. of the NRC, inquiry, be given copies' of these
',i,.,,
.g l
documents and any others which were furnished to this reporter ' ;;.
or to other persons outside the agency.
We believe ' that basic j j fairness to the company dictates this; otherwise, the company's l
4 l
ability to ef fectiv,ely represent its' undeniable interests will
=
be seriously prejudiced through' a breakdown in the NRC's own-a l
investigative process.
We would, absent public' disclosure by [
other sources, maintain the confidentiality of the documents; furnished us.
1
~
I look forward to your prompt response.
i l
Yours very truly, h
Milton Eisenberg L!
a ME: dig cc:
James J. Cummings, Director Office of Inspector and Auditor 1
o I
e e
e e
4 4
9 9
e 4
4 O
6 4
e O
/
-