ML20058E769
| ML20058E769 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 09/04/1981 |
| From: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Warnick R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058A387 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-82-206 820904, NUDOCS 8207300187 | |
| Download: ML20058E769 (1) | |
Text
(n
(..
O t**
SEP 41981 HEMORANDUM FOR:
R. F. Warnick, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2B FPSM:
A. Bert Davis, Deputy Director
SUBJECT:
ZIMMER IINESTIGATION, WELD CY--516 As you know veld CY-516 was determined to have indications when it was radiographed.
This weld is in a system where RT is not required; the NDE for velds in this system is visual inspection.'. I understand based
'.'1,,
on the RT that the licensee plans to cut out and replace this weld.
- /-
If the licensee is doirg this because the RT has shown that the veld is unacceptable for tha service intended, then this casts questions on
'O other velds in this system.
We then need to make an evaluation whether the other volds need to be further reviewed.
If, on the olther hand, the licensee is replacing CY-516 just because the weld indications have come to the attention of many people, then there would be no reason to become concerned about other velds in the system.
Please determine the reason for replacing CY-516 and if appropriate, assure otl.er velds in the system are reevaluated.
A. Bert Davis Deputy Director cc:
P. A. Barrett D. H. Danielson C. E. Norelius R. L. Spessard K. D. Ward 8207300187 820609 PDR FOIA i
DEVINE82-206 PDR bMY R n/)?tC/l b8
)
l <" >.. R I I I
, j, l.
1 l
,,,i,,,
'" *,.. Pav} s/J a.. I J............
j.. 9. /. 3./. 8. 1.......................
/*/p,."...,o UNITED 5T AT ES
-3J NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
f,*([,g REGION llt
{
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD
.:; g -
CLEN ELLYN,lLLINOl5 60137 k
h 8 1981 y
SEP s
M ARANDUM FOR: James G. Keppler, Director THRU:
J. F. Streeter, Acting Director, Enforcement and Investiga-tion Staff 1-FROM:
G. A. Phillip Investigator COMMENTS ON OIA REPORT ON THE ADEQUACY OF IE INVESTIGATION
SUBJECT:
REPORT NO. 50-358/80-09) AT THE WILLIAM H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION The overall thrust of the OIA investigation and the basis for its major f
criticism is their unstated premise regarding the primary purpose of an This premise is that investigations of allegations IE investigation.
are conducted to determine the literal validity of allegations, i.e. to It appears that DIA is confirm or discredit an alleger's statements.
of the view that the primary objective is to make an accounting to the While this is a secondary consideration and a consideration alleger.
that has grown in importance in recent years, it is not the primary I did not view our investigation as an purpose of an investigation.
effort intended to either vindicate or discredit Mr. Applegate.
The primary objectives of IE are to determine whether licensee's ac-(
tivities are in compliance with NRC requirements and whether their ac-tivities constitute a hazard to the public health and safety and to l
One useful tool.in pursuing take enforcement action when appropriate.
those objectives is the investigation of licensee activities based on Such individuals information provided by allegers and complainants.
sometimes provide information not likely to be obtained through the normal inspection process and problems are identified which might other-For. that reason the NRC, specifically IE, has wise go undetected.
encouraged contacts from allegers.
As a matter of courtesy and in recognition of the alleger's interest in the matters he brings to our attention, we have followed the prac-Not very tice of informing the alleger of our investigation findings.
many years ago, this was accomplished only orally, either personally or It has only been in the last 5 or 6 years that we have
- by telephone.
routinely sent a copy of our report to the alleger.
. The investigation conducted on the basis of information brought to us by Mr. Applegate was conducted to determine whether the licensee's actions in the specific matters raised by him were in compliance with our re-The fact that our report characterizes an allegation as "not substantiated" or " partially substantiated" is perhaps unfortunate quirements.
but it was not intended to convey an evaluation of the alleger or his To state that an allegations but merely to provide a brief bottom line.
is not true.
It substantiated is not to say that it allegation was not v
/
gwp -
~
James G. Keppler,,-
(
may very well be true but the investigation was not able to confirm it.
[
The NRC cannot hold a licensee in noncompliance without providing a sound objective basis for doing so.
Regarding the allegation that defective welds, specifically identified, had been accepted was approached from the standpoint of determining the
' status of these welds as of the time of our investigation. This was I
viewed as the point of interest to the NRC. Had the welds passed the point of further review or evaluation and were they defective? The his-tory of the welds was not viewed as significant.
There was no attempt to determine whether these welds had at some time in the past been accepted. We normally withhold making a finding regarding a weld until no further action regarding it is planned by the licensee.
I believe that with all of the information now available including that contained in the OIA report, no noncompliance regarding these welds has been identi-fled. The findings as set forth in our report remain unchanged.
Since I am aware that the OIA conclusions and criticisms are being address-ed in a memorandum from you to Mr. Stello, I will not comment further here regarding them.
I am also aware that Mr. Foster has prepared a memorandum to you containing an evaluation of the investigation conducted by OIA. For that reason I am not addressing that subject in this memo-randum.
The following are comments concerning statements in the OIA report which relate to information attributed to me which I consider inaccurate, in-hs complete or misleading.
These comments are keyed to the marked up pages of the report which are attached.
1.
(Page 4) - The main question 1 posed during this meeting was whether this investigation was intended to determine whether I had violated the law as charged by GAP.
2.
(Page 5) - I indicated I had destroyed my field notes after holding them for several months after the report was issued and that even-tually destroying them was consistent with my normal practice.
3.
(Page 5) - On August 4,1981 I advised OIA that this statement was in error.
I pointed out that, when Wm. Ward briefed me on his telephone conversation with Applegate, he informed me Applegate had made comments which implied some inspectors' conduct might be included in the allegations. Wardc(nseledmeagainstinvolvingany inspectors in the case until it was determined through an interview with Applegate whether allegations were being made about NRC per-sonnel. We agreed that two people should interview Applegate and Ward offered the services of Williamson for this purpose.
4.
(Page 6 ) - This was not my observation; Applegate told me this.
5.
(Page 6) - I did not characterize anything as " divorce" or " divorce-type".
v l
3-James C. Keppler 6.
(Page 6) - Applegate's statement alluded to all of the information he g
discussed not just CG6E's failure to take action against Marshall.
7.
(Page 7) - More accurately. I said that Applegate told me that either CG&E or Kaiser had instructed PM to examine some pipe that had been unloaded by dumping it on the ground. He said PM had gone further and had radiographed the welds. The radiographs had showed that the welds were bad.
CG&E and/or Kaiser ignored the results of the radiog-raphy because the welds had been checked and certified by the supplier and therefore radiographing the welds after the pipe was received at the site was not required.
(NOTE: It was subsequently determined that it was true that further NDE was not required.
Because of their being mishandled when they were unloaded, however, the welds were re-examined to assure no damage had resulted. PM was instructed to radiograph them "For Infor-mation Only" because it was known that radiography was not appropriate l
and could not be an acceptable basis for determining whether welds of that kind were acceptable.
Since radiographs of welds on three of the pipes showed " indications" they were placed on hold in the warehouse.)
I 8.
(Page 7) - I stated the receipt inspection generally consists of a i
visual inspection to assure no damage was incurred in transit and a check is made to assure required documentation pertaining to the items has been received.
9.
(Page 8) - I informed OIA on August 4,1981 that this statement is incorrect. Applegate did not tell me or suggest that Murray would cooperate with NRC.
10.
(Page 9) - Applegate did not say the threats, etc. were the result of his attempting to bring the information to the NRC.
l 11.
(Page 9) - The statement about tapes indicating collusion is not appropriate in this context. During his initial telephone conver-sations with Ward and with me he implied he had tapes of this kind.
I don't recall that he so characterized the tapes during our inter-view.
(Page 10) - It would be more accurate to say I asked for clarification 12.
as to Tyner's whereabouts.
(Page 10) - Regarding communications with Norelius, I told them that 13.
I had briefed Norelius on the main points of my interview with I
Applegate and gave him the reports Applegate had provided me.
I'm then prepared a letter to Applegate and Norelius concurred.
sure that among other things I informed Norelius of what position j
I had taken with Applegate regarding matters not under NRC juris-diction.
- e. -., -..
~
S James C. K:;;;;;.
I informed OIA on August 4,1981 that I had never said I relied on my vast experience.
I did say that Norelius usually allowed me to work without a lot of supervision - possibly because I had been around a long t*
14.
(Page 11) - I also said that I was reasonably sure that Keppler was made aware of the fact that Applegate had made allegations which would be investigated.
15.
(Page 11) - I said I did not recall the specific details of our meeting with Schwiers but that I was sure we did not give him the specific allegations.
16.
(Page 11) - The description of my interview with Applegate does not bring out the fact that one of his assertions was that Sellers had a list of welds which were rejected by PM but which Kaiser /CG&E had said were acceptable and had overruled the PM findings.
When Sellers denied having any such list or any practical means of identifying such instances, we decided on the spot to select a safety related system and to review the reader sheets for all welds in that system to check for instances of overruling by Kaiser.
17.
(Page 12) - Regarding Tyner and flushing problems, I informed OIA that Ward and I had a lengthy interview with Tyner who made complaints about the Zimmer site but did not provide any specific information.
He, was repeatedly asked to provide specific information and his wife, who was present, even commented two or three times that he was not giving us anything specific that we could pursue.
18.
(Page 12) - This statement is not accurate.
I informed OIA, and it's also in our investigation report, that on the day following the Tyner interview, I asked T. Daniels, the Resident Inspector, about the hydro test.
Daniels informed me everyone (thelicenseeandtheNRC) l was well aware the test was invalid and would have to be redone.
I
(
didn't say anything about an inspection.
I did say that'Daniels j
informed me the future hydro test would probably be witnessed by an NRC inspector.
19.
(Page 12) - The paragraph regarding the spool pieces is neither accur-ate nor complete. While this is not crucial, it makes me wonder whe-ther OIA understood the matter or bothered to read our report which
(
I believe describes the matter.
The following are specific inaccura-cies.
l When we arrived on site on April 7, 1980 the spool pieces were not in l
a " Hold Status".
They had been installed and were not tagged.
This was the basis for the noncompliance.
There was, however, an open NR regarding three of the five spool pieces (see page 13 of our report).
k.
J.
James C. Keppler.
While it is true Kaiser, not PM, could accept or reject, that point is not pertinent in the context in which it appears here.
The result of radiography performed for information purposes is not a basis for acceptance or rejection. Also, because of the nature :f the "-'ds, good radiographs are not possible and the quality of the film accord-ing to Ward was such that little, if anything, could be learned from them. The film therefore was not used or intended to be used as the basis for accepting or rejecting the welds and the last of a series of NR's which was first initiated before radiography was performed remained open, that is unresolved.
To state an NR was subsequently issued is incorrect.
An NR was initially written on July 5, 1979 and because of it the information only radiography was performed, the results of which were reported by Surveillance Report dated July 23, 1979.
This NR was voided, being superseded by a series of NRs.
It is incorrect to state "... ultimately an NR was improperly written..."
It was improperly altered in that a notation referring to another succeeding NR was lined through.
To discuss the matter of Schwiers instructing someone to line through in this context is misleading.
It appears to the reader that this was addressed during my first visit.
The alteration of the NR which permitted the pipe to be released from the warehouse was one of the reasons for my secon'd visit to the site.
It is also inaccurate to state Schwiers apparently told someone to line through.
An employee told me this during my second visit to the site.
Schwiers denied it.
I did not conclude that he did or did not issue this instruction.
20.
(Page 13) - Foster informed me that Applegate wanted me to call him so I did.
I had no reason of my own to contact Applegate.
l 21.
(Page 13) - Regarding identification keys, it was intended that one should be prepared if there is a need for one.
Not every investiga-tion file needs one.
I saw no need for one in this case.
22.
(Page 13) - Regarding Johan, I advised OIA this statement is inaccur-ate in that Daniels contacted the site switchboard and was advised that no one with that name was employed at the site.
23.
(Page 13) - While I regard contacts with the press as irrcievant to the purpose of the investigation, the information is misleading, incomplete and inaccurate.
Channel 9 and others contacted me after l
Applegate went public. Channel 9 continued to contact me every few days and in that way they knew when my investigation at the site was concluded. They requested an interview either on'the site or outside the fence.
I agreed to an interview but indicated that their
t e
o 6-James C. Keppler access to the site would have to be arranged with CG&E.
Immediately prior to our exit meeting with CG&E, Schwiers said Altamuhle was on the telephone and wished to discuss the subject of my interview with the press.
Schwiers said CG&E would agree to allow Channel 9 t6 interview me in Daniels trailer.
I then spoke with Altamuhle who asked whether I would be willing to be interviewed by other news media people if he set up a press conference in downtown Cincinnati.
Since I had already made a commitment for an interview with Channel 9 I felt I had no choice but to agree to meet with others.
I told Altamuhle I would "make myself available" to the news media.
24.
(Page 14) - Although I informed OIA, their report omits the fact that Applegate stated he was calling at this time from the offices of the Chicago Sun Times.
Since he was in Chicago we arranged to meet him l.
in the FBI's Chicago office. We did not ask him to come to Chicago, l
Since the matter of Applegate's transportation is not relevant to the purpose of the OIA investigation, I can only conclude that this information was included as a means of implying that Applegate was ill-treated by us.
The implication is made that we requested Apple-gate to come to Chicago from Cincinnati and then refused to provide him transportation to the airport after our meeting.
If OIA could recall and saw fit to report that we refused to give Applegate a ride, it is difficult to understand why they did not recall and report that Applegate made his contact with us from a Chicago newspaper office.
I regard this selective reporting as reprehensible.
25.
(Page 14) - It is my impression that DIA interviewed Buckley but their report does not provide any information regarding the interview or state that it was conducted.
'It does not state that a copy of our report was sent to the FBI.
26.
(Page 14) - The report does not state that I attempted to interview A11 dredge during the next few days but was informed that he was out i
of the country and would not return until about May 20, 1980.
Further, the report does not state that I contacted two other PM personnel in Cincinnati by telephone or that we transcribed the tape It also does not state we made the tape and draft App, legate gave me.
transcript available to OIA or that it was available for review by Region III supervisors.
27.
(Page 15) - This sentence should at least read: Region III was already aware of problems relating to welding through numerous NRC inspections which had Treviously been conducted before we heard i
from Applegate.
l Any people Applegate mentioned with the exception of Sellers were se-curity guards or pipefitters, most or all of whom had been fired for r
i time card cheating.
w
---t-r
-,.wy,
--4
-,y-----m
- -,e---t-m-
- -+ - +---- - - - - - - -
m-
James G. Keppler
?-
28.
(Page 16) - I don't recall how I characterized the manual to OIA but in fact it is the manual for the fundamentals of Inspection course.
Its contents are a written discussion of various topics which are orally presented to grc; : f !! - rsonnel periodically. The oral presentation is not a recitation of the written material. To por-tray the manual as an instruction which must be followed is incorrect.
The paragraph quoted was written to convey the idea that telephone complaints, concerns or allegations are documented by a memo to file if an investigation is not considered necessary. Normally, if such a contact results in an investigation, a personal interview is arranged with the caller to obtain more detailed information.
The telephone contact in those instances is not usually written up because of the ensuing interview includes that information.
29.
(Page 16) - Ward selected the Core Spray System. We proceeded to the val (k and asked for all radiography film packets on that system.
Until we asked for them no one could have known we would look at them.
We stood there while they were pulled from the file and handed to us.
30.
(Page 35) - Regarding there being no cover up, the report should state that another NR remained open.
I think our report more clearly states why the lining out occurred.
(Page 35) - Regarding ultrasonic tests, OIA neglects to state that I 31.
informed them, and it is stated in our report, that the reports on the magnetic particle and ultrasonic inspections performed by PM were reviewed by Vandel and that we interviewed the PM personnel who
, s%.
performed these inspections. Both they and Pullman-Kellogg, who also performed ultrasonic inspections, concluded the welds were acceptable.
./M@
G. A. Phillip Investigator O
e9
_. _ _ _ __j
4 r
s The CAP petition listing the allegations investigation (April-May 1980).
(pages 13 and 14) which were presented as not being appropriately investigated is included, with enclosures, as Attachment 3.
Meeting with Recion III Personnel David H. Camble, John R. Sinclair, and krthurA.
On January 13, 1981, Schnebelen, Of fice of Inspector and Auditor, met with the following Illinois:
employees of IE, Region III, at the regional office, Glen Ellyn, James G. Keppler, Director, Region III A. Bert Davis, Deputy Director Charles E. Norelius, Assistant to the Director l
Gerald A. Phillip, Senior Investigator Gaston Fiore111. Chief, Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch l
Kavin D. Ward, Reactor Inspector, Engineering Support
(
Section #2, Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch the request of OIA Eo inf orm these Region III The meeting was held at personnel of the purpose of the OIA investigation being initiated.
These employees were informed that the investigation was directed by the Chair =an in response to Thomas Applegate's allegations as described in i
the GAP petition to the Special Counsel of the Merit Systems Protect on They were inf ormed that OIA was investigating the NRC's handling
~
of Applegate's original allegations, to include why certain allegations Board.
allegedly were not addressed by 'NRC and shether Region III's investigation adequately dealt with the allegations that were addressed.
this point Mr. Phillip inquired whether the investigation was not He displayed a copy of a Atactually an investigation of his conduct.
4 '/
draf t of CAP's petition which he said made numerous allecations acainst hhn by name.;FMr. Keppler then inquired as to whether he should beOIA confir=ed each of his employees.
obtaining lawyers to represent that Phillip's name was si=ilarly used in the " final version" of CAP s that they had an 01A indicated to all e=ployees present when they were interviewed but petition.
to have a lawyer present
.OIA did absolute right that DIA could not advise them whether lawyers were necessary.they considered that CAP had verbally advised OIA that briefly recount s.
l
n-...
their allegations to be more against the NRC than individual e=ployees.
OlA repeated that, similarly, the OIA investigation would concentrate on how the agency handled the matter.
In response to a question about DIA's ability to investigate a matter which also alleges that the Director of OIA did. not act quickly enough on the earlier allegations, the group was advised that the Chairman was aware of that aspect of the case.
The employees present raised no additional substantive questions. OIA asked each to locate any docu=entation of their activities such as notes which they might have so they could be reviewed during their interviews.
-gf Phillip pointed out that he had destroyed his notes prior to having
/
f A
heard of CAP's petition.
Interview of Gerald A. Phillip Mr. Gerald A. Phillip, Senior Investigator, Region III, IE, NRC, was interviewed on January 14 and 15,1981, by David Camble, John Sinclair, and Arthur Schnebelen, OIA, at the NRC Regional Office, Glen Ellyn, Illinois.
Mr. Phillip began the interview by explaining that his first knowledge of the Thocas Applegate allegations occurred approxi=ately February 28, 1980.
Phillip recalled that he was contacted by Bill Ward, Executive Office for Operation Support (IDOS), IE, during which Ward related that he had received information from one of the Cc=missioner's offices which had been contacted by Applegate.
According to Ward the information related to the Zimmer Nuclear Plant site and the initial determination Ward also was that there may be some significance to the information.
related that Applegate alleged that there was a possible conspiracy between the site contractor and utility to cover up def ective velding.
Ward also stated that apparently Applegate had made previous contacts with the NRC and felt that he was "getting the run-around" because he did not see NRC taking any action.
Phillip stated that he centacted Applegate the same day and obtained some of the general information concerning Applegate's claims.
Phillip also stated that arrangements were made to meet and interview Applecate for more details.T rnillip recalled that af ter talking initially to
'Applegate, he (Phillip) believed that there was infor=ation which appeared to be casting a shadow on NRC inspectors. Phillip contacted Ward at NRC f
Headquarters in Bethesda and notified him of this fact.l Ward then inf ormed Phillip that no inspectors should be brought in on the initial phase of the inquiry and if additional personnel were required then Ward would make someone available from Headquarters.
Phillip then stated that within the next few days arrangements were made to have another investigator from Headquarters meet Phillip in Cincinnati to assist on the interview of Applegate. Ward advised Phillip that he vould have e
and
\\
~
6 Len Villiamson meet Phillip in Cincinnati to help with the interview.
Phillip explained that the initial, plans to interview Applegate were ce= plicated by the f act that. Applegate was very cautious 17. his instruc-tions and guidelines for the meeting. As he recalled Applegate would not provide his addresa or the address of a neutral meeting place. Applegate had advised Phillip that when he or tha NRC investigators arrived in Cincinnati they should call a specific telephone number for additional instructions. Phillip stated that on March 3 af ter arriving in* Cincinnati, he contacted Applegate at which time Applegate ins,tructed the NRC investigators to meet him at an address which turned out to be a church parking lot.
Phillip explained that he and Williamson arrived early and eventually were approached by an individual who identified himself as Applegate.
Af ter the initial meeting the three of them went to a rooming house that was located approximately one-half block away.'
Applegate advised Phillip and Williamson t, hat he had received threats as 'had the landlady at the roo=ing house. lFrom Phillip's observations it acpearedJthat Applegate gp/p/
rented a roem in a house which was owned by a policeman and his wife.
Shortly af ter arriving at the house ipplegate took off his jacket revealing that he was wearing a firearm. Applegate began by providing so=a infor=ation Applegate told Phillip that he had been pertaining to his background.
ecployed by a security firm /shich did work in divorce investigationsh Initially he (Applegate) had been assigned an investigation involving a gr "pipefitter" at the Zi==er site who had been suspected of " playing around" by his wife.
Af ter the fdivorce-type investigation}had been e
started, Applegate began to discover inf ormation of " time card padding" by individuals employed at the Zi=mer site.
Applegate informed Phillip l
that his supervisor, Major Cox, contacted the utility co=pany, Cincinnati Gas and Electric (CG&E), to advise them of the discovery.
Subsequent to the contact the utility contracted with the security firm for the services of Applegate, provided him with a f alse identity, and instructed him to look further into the time card padding.
After Applegate began the assign =ent he began to provide the utility with weekly reports which cenfir=ed the time card padding and disclosed a degree of collusion between certain pipefitters and security personnel at the site.
Applegate explained to Phillip and provided Phillip the opportunity to review security reports which described security guards' permitting pipefitters to leave the site during working hours without " clocking out."
Applegate j
also explained that during the same time f rame (December 1979-January 1980) inf ormation began to be developed identifying the illegal sale of the site. Phillip also indicated that Applegate had surfaced firear=s at infor=ation disclosing that the site supervisor, Mr. Marshall, utilized site materials and personnel to perform work on his private residence.
According to Phillip, Applegate stated that Marshall's acts were dishonest, however, when he (Applegate) brought the inf ormation to the attention of CG&E the co=pany refused to take action against Marshall. JAccording to Applegate the condoning of these type of acts was going to have a eajor
_ gudi impact on CG&E and, in effect. put them out of busipess.
f 1
l f-b Applegate continued by explaining some of his concer.ns to Phillip about potentially f aulty velding. Phillip explained that Applegate sta ted that l
FM was radiographing velds which were questionable. Applegate did not CCLE or appear to know who was responsible for their instructions:
Kaiser. JEowever, someone had directed PM to go back and "re-examine Applegate inf ormed Phillip that either CG6E or Kaiser ignored welds."
PM's radiographs of the welds because such examinations normally only p
This ac ording to gy 7 constituted a visual inspection and not a radiograph.
5 the direction of Mr. Marshall who instructed PM toi Applegate was done atradiograph. ) Phillip stated that he believed Applegate
" examine" but not was referring to a specific shipment of pipe that had been delivered to the site in the f all of 1979 and improperly unloaded (droppe d off the a quality control inspection.
Applegate infor=ed Phillip truck) without took place around the time of an NRC hearing on that this incident Zimmer. Applegate said that much controversy was generated at the hearing in fact it was regarding fuel rods that were allegedly dropped; but fuel rods - that were dropped.
these pipes - not As background, Phillip then provided a brief description of the supplier, Phillip stated that Pullman-Kellogg Pullman-Kellogg and the delivery.
lity was the supplier (vendor) and therefore was responsible for the Qua Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) work related to the veld and the
[ As a nor=al procedure QC inspections are not structure of the pipe.
Phillip the site for adequacy of the equipeent or the velds.
the equipeent is inspected only for damage in transit
/ 'done at further stated that pg g and inventory purposes during a " receipt inspection" which does not either visual or radiography examinations of welds.
8 include Phillip said Applegate provided him with three specific examples of Applegate claimed velds rejected by PM but then approved by Kaiser.
going to that one was buried in concrete and he felt the utility was not l
do anything to correct it.
l Another area related by Phillip pertained to Applegate's disclosure that App arently,
there were " problems" with a pipe flushing operations.
someone had informed Applegate that as a result of banging pipes during i
and the flushing procedure deleterious substances case out of the p pesThe individua the " flushing" failed the test.
atte=pted to resolve it by raising the issue with his supervisor.the individu Applegate claimed thatAs the discussion continued Applegate also stated was no action taken.
the site had been keeping a notebook to Phillip that another individual at Applegate did not identify the or log on his observations at the site. furnish specific inf ormation, such as the individual and could not Phillip also content of the log or why the individual was keeping it.
recalled that Applegate nentioned having been trapped by a fire dovn in one area of the plant.
(s_.
E
.e
1 a
.c s
8 g
Applegate then identified. an individual by the name of Murray who was Applegate, Murray
/
emoloved bv CC&E. _IPhillip stated that according to
.gP 7 ',luas "all r$nht" ecaning that he would cocoerate with NRC. lApplegate then (Applegate) had provided Murray and A
proceeded to tell Phillip that heSchwiers QA Supervisor, inf ormation ab Phillip believed and the specific locations of the velds in question.
Applegate-said that Schwiers had one veld tested, found it to be defectiv and then related that the veld would be fixed.
Phillip then stated that Applegate continued the interview by clai=ing d padding.
that infor=ation was developed pertaining to the time car Phillip further stated that Applegate inf ormed him that CG&E notified f the time card the Kaiser Corporation Headquarters in California oto this notification represe cheating. Sub sequ ent b i d came to the Zimmer site and vere informed that evidence was o ta neApplegate that confirmed the time ' card padding.they had an individual working undercover.
that CG&E told Kaiser that shortly af ter this meeting the undercover Applegate then stated that (1) Kaiser was now operation was terminated because of ruo factors: aware that someo f
f the h
subject of the original divorce investigation had made visits to t eif he were ob site and Applegate feared that, reveal his true identity.
(
Applegate related to Phillip that he had been trying to bring the informa-d problem was tion to the attention of NRC because although the time car
(
the QC iusues. Applegate being addressed no action was being taken about John Glenn's told Phillip that he originally contacted U.S. Senator Senator Glenn's office to apprise him of the inf ormation and obtain assistance.
OIA, NRC.
office provided him with the name of James Cu=mings, Dire blems at the telephone and related the information concerning the pro (Applegate)
Applegate also related to Phillip that he became frustrated with Cummings as a result of several telephone conversa-Zimmer site.
' requesting that tions sdth Cummings which culminated with Ct.t=mings Applegate provide "something in writing" compiling the allegations.
over a weekend thought about the request Phillip stated that ApplegateAccording to Phillip, Applegate stated that he.was al the request because he (Applegate) had been incurring person and became angry.
d nov he expenditures to bring the information to someone's attention anAppleg upset about was requested to do more.
office who apparently referred the matter to II.
Applegate stated that he provided the same information igation (PBI).
Phillip stated that to the Cincinnati office of the Federal Bureau of Investthe type of allegations broug to Phillip explained to Applegate that d
i of NRC the attention of the FBI were items not within the juris ict onPhillip also l
and would not be addressed during an NRC investigation.
the site advised Applegate that allegations of criminal activity at
(
l
,a r
9 f
A would have to be handled by the appropriate agency.
Phillip said he explained that the cost of construction (i.e., cost overruns) also was not a catter within NRC jurisdiction. Phillip explained that Applegate was not happy with his (Phillip's) explanation regarding the NRC's position but Applegate did not challenge the response.
the only other re= arks made by Applegate related to Phillip stated that a variety of problems which allegedly indicated that there was mis-management and collusion between pipefitters and security personnel.
Applegate stated this demonstrated that there was not a proper co=mgt Applegate also stated that Fs a result of
, to building a nuclear plant.infomation to officials of CGE as wil as his attempting to, bring gg others (NRC. TBI) J he had been threatened, run of f the road and his landlady had been harrassed and threatened over the telephone.
Applegate provided additional inf ormation to Phillip in the form of excerpts from According to Applegate the information on the tapes indicated
.-/jf $ audio tapes. collusion between high level managers of the project. Applegate played portions of tapes for Phillip which he (Applegate) believed corroborated Phillip said Applegate controlled the recorder and his allegations.
in-only played selected segments for Phillip - describing the context which each one occurred.
Phillip explained that Applegate vould not release the tapes because he considered them to be " insurance." Phillip said that many of the tapes were difficult to understand; in those instances. Applegate interpreted what was being said.
Phillip stated
(
that, based on what he heard on the tapes he did not hear any information which indicated there was some type of collusion or cover up going on at the Zi= er site.
Phillip said that, after Applegate had skipped around on the tapes, Applegate confirmed that he had played all the important However, Phillip did stcte there was some information on the parts.
identified three specific welds which was detailed enough to tapes that check into during an investigation. Phillip stated that in his opinion ecceents like 20 to 30 percent of the velds at the plant are defective i
were too general and needed.nore support before they could be investigated.
Additional information which Applegate furnished to Phillip, related to the ranuf,acture and sale of belt buckles by personnel at the site.
Phillip stated that he advised Applegate that, although some of the I
material used in the manuf acturing of belt buckles may be required for construction purposes, it was a problem which should be addressed by CCE, the licensee, and was not within NRC's jurisdictional responsibilities.
Applegate also provided information about people being fired for time card padding or cheating. As Phillip recalled, however, Applegate did not state that any of the individuals fired as a result of his investiga-tion into time card cheating were in fact the same individuals who had attempted to raise safety issues.
Phillip advised that the only docu-mentation furnished by Applegate during the initial interview were reports submitted by the security firm (Confidential Service) who employed Phillip said Williamson lef t i
Applegate and were under contract to CCE.
the interview to photocopy these reports at the Federal Building in e.
~
10 s-Cincinnati. He said Williamson spoke with,an FBI agent and obtained a copy of a February 14, 1980, FBI letterhead memorandum which confirmed that Applegate had spoken with the FBI. The letterhead cesorandum also reflected that an Assistant United States Attorney had decilned prosecution on the matter.
Phillip recalled that he had a subsequent telephone conversation with (1)
Applegate on March 4, 1bSO, during which they discussed two points:
f shat would be the best approach in trying to contact the individual who J
- p/,~,e ouit over the flushing operation /and, 12) to confirm details about an individual Applegate mentioned previously by the na=e of Sellers (phonetic).
the site and had been keeping a Apparently Sellers was still employed at list of def ective welds rejected by PM but.spproved by Kaisar.
Phillip said that he asked Applegate whether Sellers ever shared this list with Phillip him as Sellers said he would; Applegate responded negatively.
said he also confirmed unich of the Sellers brothers at PM was the one Applegate was ref trring to.
after returning to the Region.III office and Phillip then stat,ed that, reviewing [seme of] the material furnished by Applegate, he (Phillip) had ___
adiscussionlwithChuckNorelius,hissupervisor,regardingtheallega-f Phillip explained that the meeting was held to establish what
/
tions.
/
issues were going to be investimated bv NRC, F Phillip also explained that he had already made an initial assessment of the information and f'
had informed Applegate, in_ general tenss,* of which allegations were within NRC's jurisdiction.] Phillip then stated that he relied on his vast experience with:the Commission and his professional experience in q
l judging what issues were going to be investiented.1 rnillip continued by there were additional discussions with region personnel
' gp5 f stating that
/
af ter they deter =ined that the welding allegations were going to be investigated. Phillip stated that Ekvin Ward, an inspecto?, had been f
assigned to assist him in the invertigation.
Phillip said that Bill Ward, IE' Headquarters, contacted Phillip on
- Harch 13 to apprise him thac Applegate had contacted IE Headquarters and the FM trailer had been brcken into and some records infor=ed them that were allegedly stolen. Phillip then called Applegate on the same day to obtain specific information regarding the incident. Phillip recalled that Applegate could not provide any inf ormation related to specific docu=entation which may have been taken from the PM trailer.
The interview continued with Phillip's explaining that the issues weregeneral in nature "secped" lut initially they were probably somewhat
~
specific.1 rnillip also stated that the early briefing of not very Norelius was general, however, he (Phillip) recalled providing all r.vsilable documents furnished by Applegate for review by Norelius.
Phillip then. stated there were subsequent t.alephone conversations with the letter describing.the allegations Applegate after Region III sent (issues) and scope of the upcoming Region III investigation. Applegate satisfied or never indicated during these conversations that ha was not that NRC was " limiting" or "too narrowly investigating"' the allegations.
i t
~
l
1
.a 11 l
f Pertaining to questions about regional procedures and discussion of the initial allegations, Phillip responded by stating there were severalPhillip stated he regional personnel.
)
discussions with diff erent conversations with Messrs. Norelius, Kavin Ward, Vandel (Project Inspector.
As Danielson (Kavin Uard's supervisor), and perhaps, Fiore111 and Knop.
Phillip recalled the discussions were general in nature and not too Phillip stated that he did not recall discussing the catter Phillip did state that d et ailed.
guith Ja=es Keppler, the Regional Director. ten Villiamson's (assigned from gg limited and as a result he was not requested to write or document any inf ormation obtained during the initial Applegate Interview.
Phillip explained that he did not believe that there was eny advanced 95 percent c notification made to the Zimmer site and was about Phillip stated there that it was a "special unannounced investigation."
bly most,
was no fixed policy on announcing investigations. however, proba
\\
are unannounced. [Phillip indicated that he did not believe that ainventi-1
) licensee could alter " poor performance" ranidiv enouch to h t% _
to the Zicmer site and had an entrance interview vith Schusure how specif vent site CA Hanager. _ [Phillip was not
]
v ~ the allegations to Schweirs; they probably identified them as' Q g.,
Schwiers they interviewed Alan Sellers, QC Supervisor for FM vho st problems without
(
that he was unaware of any list As a result Phillip and Ward were subsequently accepted by Kaiser. decided to inspect a representati Phillip recalled that.
whether or not there was a problem with velds.
\\
Ward was f amiliar with velding at th'e Zic=:er site and thereforefasked/FMy FM ra I
to pull raciographs and " reader sheets" to determine how tand subseouentiv approved._f
" rejects" were overruled by Kaiser an p/6
_ stated approximately 99 weld radiographs vere checked and only two were Phillip explained that in both cases Kavin Ward concurred overruled.
with Kaiser's interpretation of' the radiograph.
Concerning the three specific welds alleged to be defec with the radiographs and/or docucientation existed but in a comprehensive review of PM radiographs conducted by another firm, Phillip advised that Ward could better answer specific questions NES.
regarding the velds.
Phillip then stated that he did not check into the " break in" of the PM know if the trailer was broken into or if trailer and, in fact, did not the licensee is responsible Phillip noted that documents were taken.
for maintaining the record copies of all documents, so PM's copies were not the official ones.
oo
~
+,-
12 7
I the allega-d PhilliP stated that at that time he also attempted to ad ress" pipe flushing" pro tion involving alleged problems in thethe allegation arose from the initial allegation Phillip advised that h individual vho had
. " [Enowledre of the problem (Tyner){ he [(Phillip) was u made by Applegate; however, af ter contactice t e Phillip, however, that f
specific inf ormation.] The individual did in orms modified after the test thus g
/7 the " hydro test" was run and the system waresulted in an inspection stich invalidating the test. [This state =ent idual, were the circu= stances, as described by the indiv Phillip then stated that the " hydro test" was going to be disclosed that N8 factual.
/
rerun with an inspector present.
allegation stich was addressed had to do hillip explained that the next (pipe). According to Phillip, with the handling of five " spool pieces" h
pieces of pipe were the time that he_and Ward %rrived on site t ese
'Ihe spools
}in a " hold status,"j however, they were not " tagged" as such.
.a t
" unloaded" at the were shipped by the vendor, Pullman-Kellogg, and were d"
Phillip stated site by " dropping them of f the truck onto the groun.and over a half-inch in the pipe was approximately 12 inches in diameterRegarding the radiog d
ion purposes" and not vall thickness.
the pipe was radiographed by PM for "informat test procedure.
i as part of a regulatory requirement or appropr ate that
@hillip stated that CGE and/or Kaiser were therefore co =itting to.
d i f the pipe radiographs and docu=entation as it related to the con it on oficient. [Phillip noted when a visual inspection would have been sufthey did not.actually reieer the P
PM found " rejectable indications;"
or reieet.f lSubsequently, an NR sipe because oniv Kaiser could accentwas issued and ultimately an N hich resulted in g.f P'
d installed.
seme of the pipe beine released from the varehouse anill kept the problems with y
.However, one remaining NR vas written shich stTherefore, Phillip did not the pipe as an open item of nonconf ormance.
installing believe there was any type of cover-up; he said that Kaiser, by j
h i
might later this, point, was assuming the risk that the p pePhillip then stated th the pipe at there was a " hardware problem,"
be found tn be unacceptable.
individuals interviewed believed thatonly a "papervork problem "lPh that apparently l
the _QA Supervisor. Schwiers told someone toSchwiers regarding the alleged instruction
,e to line through NR. Elbillip stated he interviewed at stich time Schwiers denied giving anyone instructionsPhillip concluded f
items identified on an NR. take any svorn statements or write reports o I
by stating that he did not interviews and did not believe it was necessary.
j even after he left the Zis=er site l
Phillip continued by explaining that,maybe all the work had not been done - a he had he thought that After returning to told CCE that there was one item of conco=pliance.
ih Region III Phillip discussed the results of the investigation w t believed Norelius and also told Norelius that he had some concerns an
13 Phillip then stated that g
that more work was going to have to be done.
he returned to the site several weeks later with another NRC inspector,_
s Tom Vandel, to make further inquiries regarding the spools. j rnillip the pipe was checked and they concentrated on the " paperwork stated that probl em."
day or so'of Phillip recalled that he received a call during the first l
the investigation from another investigator in Region III, Jim Foster, who advised that Applegate had called the Region and explained that he (Applegate) was contemplating going to the PM people and possibly the Anril 7.1980.,according to Phillip.
, newspapers. This occurred abouthe contacted App'legatel and told him that he was s/P_h1111p then stated that'f ree to go to the press, novever, it el1=inated any chance g(g p maintaining his confidentiality. Phillip believed that Applegate did then go to the press, probably the Chicago Sun Times.
In response to a question regarding procedures for identifying individuals the contacted and reported in IE investigations,[7nIllip stated that procedures do call for making an identification key. / Phillip then f
there was no identification key for his investigation.
yj stated that an individual named Phillip said that he made one atte=pt to contactsota tvoe of journal.] Phillipl claimed was keeping "Johan" who Anplegate said Resident Inspector Daniels unsuccessfully tried to locare Johan i
h throuch the Etamer evitchboard. I Phillip said he did not pursue t e gr y,
supply any specifics of what
/-
J... _,
matter further because Applegate did not N-.
the journal contained.
Phillip continued by explaining that shortly af ter Applegate " vent contacted him to obtain public" a reporter from Channel 9, Cincinnati,The reporter asked if he could inf ormation about the investigation. the rate. I'Ph1111p had a discussion interview Phillip on the site or at with Schwiers, QA Kanager, CG&E, who stated that they would per=1t Inspector, Channel 9 to come on the Zimmer site for an interview in Resident Semetime later, Mr. Altemuchle, CG&E public relations l
Daniels' office.
1
- 1jf officer, asked Phillip if he would attend a press conference downtown.
This apparently was done to provide the other representatives of the media an opportunity to learn about the results of the investigation at provide a story for one station (Channel 9).
the site and not just Phillip then explained he vent to the Resident Inspector's trailer and Later the same day he (Phillip) vent to was interviewed by Channel 9to attend the press conference. Approximately 20-25 downtos, Cincinnati reporters were in attendance and the two main points of interest were the vel b on the pipe spool pieces which he stated were "OK" and that the licensee was going to be cited for an item of noncompliance relating As Phillip recalled, one to records and violating " hold" procedures.
that reporter asked about drugs and alcohol on the site and the fact workers were cocing to work drunk or intoxicated.
Phillip replied to G
14 I
the question by explaining he did not know of the allegation, as stated.
When asked whether NRC was concerned about this, Phillip replied that it was the e=ployer's concern because, even if a drunk welder made a bad.
weld, the licensee's QC inspection program was designed to catch faulty Phillip stated that Mr. Borgmann, V.P. of Engineering, workmanship.
CC&E, and Mr. Altecuehle were also present* in the press conference.
Phillip explained that on May 7,1980, he had several different telephone conversations with Applegate, Bill Ward (IE Headquarters), and Rita Giordano (reporter for the Cincinnati Inquirer). Apparently Applegate had new inf or=ation (tapes) which he claimed indicated that CG&E had lied to NRC and that there was a criminal conspiracy. According to Phillip he contacted Applegate who explained that he had evidence in the form of taped conversations with individuals which showed there was a conspiracy on the part of the licensee and Kaiser to prevent PM from disclosing defective velding at Phillip stated that he decided that if Applegate, in f act, the plaat.
had Ithis type of inf ormatio4 it would be better to interview Applegate This apparently was concurred in by Bill Ward and at an FBI office.
Phillip explained that he then talked with Jim Donah'ue, Norelius.
Region III's Chief of Safeguards and requested that he make arrangements b
Donahue then contacted Special Agent Robert Buckley, for an interview date.
Phillin stated that the Atomic Enertv Desk, Chicago Field Of fice. FBI.
-h4 interview took place in the Dirckson Federal Buildinc in downteen Chicecol at which time Applegate presented the " tapes" and made his allegations.
of Af ter listening to the tapes Buckley advised Applegate that he did not hear anything which constituted a violation of the Federal criminal The taped conversations were mad; by Applegate of telephone conversations he had with representatives of PM, including the president statutes.
of the company, Mr. Aldredge.
Phillip then stated that Applegate was not satisfied with the results of the FBI did not accept his (Applegate's) the interview and the f act that the tapes were evidence of criminality. ] Phillip 'also stated claim that rtation
, that Applegate was complaining of not having any maney or transpo to the airport for his return flight to Cincinnati and requested FBI orPhillip NRC transportation.
the close of the interview Buckley advised Applegate that the NRC would provide him with any additional information obtained and a copy of the Phillip also told
$NRCreportwhentheNRCinvestigationwasconcluded.,Applegate th gg Applegate provided) and interview Aldredge.
Later the same day Phillip explained he was called by a reporter, Rita Giordano, wanting to know what happened at the meeting with the Phillip stated he provided Giordano basically the same information FBI.
Phillip went on to explain that he then made attempts described above.
20, 1980. The to contact A1 dredge and eventually interviewed him on May
)fcnext contact with Applegate came on June 7,1980, at which time Applegate Phillip stated to Phillip that he (Applegate) was "not sitting still."
~% dC S*
- c
-o o
15 t
advised Applegate that a report would be coming out and NRC would provide him a copy.
In response to questions about velding problems at the ZL=mer site which were described in Applegate's " Confidential Report" compiled during his l.
contract assign =ent at the site Phillip provided the following responses.
Phillip explained there were individuals named in Applegate's reports who may have had knowledge of the selding problens; however, Phillip did g<,$ 7 not believe that it would have been fruitful to " track people down to obtain weld information" because Region III was already aware of welding
.<gdifficulties and numerous NRC inspections had been conducted. )Phillip added that the specific welds in question could be checked by reviewing radiographs. Phillip also noted that individua16mlders] vould not be in taken to position to know what subsequent actions were or were not 6-3 correct deficient velds.
Phillip was then provided 'an opportunity to review the l'ist of allegations described in the petition to the Special Counsel. Upon reviewing the allegations Phillip provided a response to each allegation identifying allegat. ions which had been previously addressed during either his investi-gation or other Region III efforts and those which appeared to be new allegations.
Phillip said there was no explicit EE policy on how to write the " details" section of investigative reports. He said the investigator uses his discretion to prepare the report in the way which best presents the inf or=ation to the reader. Phillip said that although sometimes the report is a series of interviews.,he of ten feels it is better to organize the report by subject tatter. He said that, when this is done, there are no documedts which comprehensively su=marize what each vitness stated: the report presents what each witness said (identifying them only by title) on each issue.
Phillip further stated that he believed that investigations of allegations are best reported as follows:
(1) state the ellegation; (2) list details provided by the alleger; (3) state the findings; and (4) list details supporting the findings.
He Phillip said he did not take any written statements in this case.
said it Is up to each investigator's discretion to decide when to have a witness or alleger sign a statement.
Phillip recalled only one occasion when he asked an alleger to sign a statement containing his allegations.
Phillip doubted that this approach would help pin down the allegations or help the allegers be more accurate.
Phillip said that he generally does not obtain statements from any witnesses unless he f eels he vill be receiving conflicting significant inf o rmation. Phillip said the only time the thought even entered his mind was in connection with the circu= stances of the notation being crossed off the nonconfor=ance report which allowed the five spool pieces to be installed.
Phillip noted however that the consensus, which be believed also included Norelius' view, was that this crossing off was not that significant because the problem was still identified l1n'the systeml therefore [it turned out that statementswere/
[notneM M
e
~, -
n O*
f
~
16 P
I Phillip said that having IE investigators administer oaths to witnesses He said that oaths are a useful tool, however i
is a relatively new idea.
Phillip said oaths they are not appropriate for use in every situation.Phillip noted that IE investigators do have been used only sparingly.
not have general authority to administer oaths. He said that investigators must receive a written delegation of authority to administer oaths in each case from the Regional Director and the delegation must receive the advance concurrence of the Office of the Executive Legal Director in Phillip believed this was a rather cumbersome approval Headquarters.
they use oaths. Phillip also process if it is really intended thatan investigator does not know what the
~
noted the practical problem that situation is until he gets into the field, yet the authority to ad=inister oaths must be requested in advance.
j Phillip said that the [1E Inspectors F.anual is a training tool for new d/jj' Phillip said he wrote Chapter 8 which addresses investigations.
personnel.
Phillip's attention was directed to paragraph 1 on page 6 which states:
l or allegation received, regardless of the source or Every complaint the avenue of coccunication involved, must be evaluated and docu-There are instances wherein the co= plaint or allegation mented.
obviously has no substance and it comes from an individual suffering f rom a cental disorder. Even in those cases, at least a memo to the general the files should be prepared documenting the contact, f
content of any coccunications and the basis for the conclusion that the catter need not be pursued,further.
\\-
Phillip responded that this passage means that investigators cannot appropriately documenting it; however, dismiss entire contacts without it does not require itemization of specific allegations and how each one vould be handled.
Phillip said that people outside the nuclear field generally do not exist at nuclear power realize the number of checks and balances that He said that as an example it would require a lot of collusion plants.
to get all the required signatures on a false docu=ent such as an NR.
although review of documentation is necessary, it l
Phillip stated that, their inspections to " paper reviews."
is not true that IE inspectors limit the hardware He said it was more than common for inspectors to look at itself. He also pointed 'out that,.under the IE modular inspection program the licensees notify IE of when certain tests and activities I
are to be performed and IE inspectors then vitness them. Phillip said in this investigation Kavin Ward reviewed radiographs, which Phillip l
l that Phillip said that IE does not have
- considered to be "hard evidence."
capability to perf orm its own radiographic testing to double-l independent check the licensee's radiographs.
Phillip did not c_onsider this to be a problem because the licensee would not have /had timej to substitute l
7 radiographs af ter Ward and he had randomly selected the system they intended to review.
- Changes incorporated pursuant to reinterview on 8/4/81, e
G l
1 l
t" 35 r
velds would be re leved. Phillip noted that, inasmuch as Applegate claimed he brought these velds to Schweirs' attention, the licensee =ay I
k have expected that someone would be reviewing this veld so=etime.
Investicators' Note _ - Af ter a lunch break the interview was continued with Phillip only.
Phillip said he knew from his first visit to Zi==er that the notation on NRBE-1911, Rev. 2 - which.vas holding up installation of the spool I
pieces - had been lined out; however, he did not establish who lined it Phillip said he also realized on his return to the Regional Office out.
af ter the first visit that Applegate's allegation was that the spool pieces were bad at the f actory - not that they were damaged when unloaded from the truck. Phillip said that he discussed the matter with Norelius and, f or these and other reasons, they decided that Phillip should do f urther investigation at Zi==er.
Phillip said that the Zf==er persennel knew he was returning because he so inf ormed Schweirs a couple days ahead of ti=e.
Phillip said he established that Mr. Oltz, with Kaiser's Docu=ent Control Unit, was the one who lined out the NR notation. Phillip could not recall Oltz' excuse, but Oltz did agree that his method of closing the NR by lining it out was incorrect. Phillip said the varehouse can who released the spool pieces based on the altered NR informed him that he the notation.
was present when Schweirs directed Oltz to line out Phillip said he did not pursue the matter af ter Schweirs denied it Y because the " bottom line" was that there was no cover-up, as evidenced by /tne otnerJ NR that re=ained oven on the matter.JPhillip suspected that}
this lining out only. occurred b_ecause the Zi==er personnel considered it b
to be only a " paper preble=."_/ Phillip said that, in fact, the spool pieces passed ultrasonic tests FM and Pull 2an-Kellogg* perfor=ed between F
M/
ltheir two vi*e -
Investigators' Note - Toward the end of the interview, Ward returned to the three advise OIA that he had just learned from Len Wood of CG&E that l
velds are all safety-related. He said K-916 is a class 3 veld and both K-262 and CY-606 are class 2 velds.
- Changes incorporated pursuant to reinterview on 8/4/81.
Interview of Everett L. Williamson, Jr.
Everett L. Williamson, Jr., Investigator, Region II, IE, was interviewed at the Washington National Airport, Washington, D.C., on March 5, 1981, Willia = son said by Investigators David Ca=ble and John Sinclair, OIA.
l f
he participated in an interview of Thomas Applegate which occurred someti=e around March 3,1980. Willia = son said that about a week before that date his supervisor, William Ward, instructed him to meet Region III i
Investigator Gerald Phillip in Cincinnati, Ohio, to assist Phillip in 'an investigation. Williamson said that Ward informed him that Applegate had called NRC; he believed the Headquarters Duty Officer had received Ward said and recorded Applegate's call and Ward called Applegate back.
e
-~
.