ML20069L797
| ML20069L797 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/11/1983 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20069L796 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-48FR12119, RULE-PR-MISC NUDOCS 8305020430 | |
| Download: ML20069L797 (65) | |
Text
.
i 1/11/83
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD !
1 In the Matter of I I
APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES I Docket Nos. 50-445 GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL, FOR I and 50-446 AN OPERATING LICENSE FOR I COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC I STATION UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES) i CASE'S WRITTEN ARGUMENT ON ISSUES As indicated in the attached CASE's Motion for Leave to File Response, CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy), Intervenor herein, hereby files this, its Written Argument on Issues to be argued orally on January 19, 1983, in the NRC Public Hearing Room, in Bethesda, Maryland. This is necessary since CASE is unable to attend and is unable to find anyone else who can represent us at the January 19 meeting.
NEW INFORMATION Certifications of Charles A. Atchison As part of the continuing information which CASE has presented in these proceedings regarding the qualifications and competence of CASE witness Charles A. Atchison, we are attaching hereto (CASE Attachment 1) copies of the Record of Qualification and Certification of Nondestructive Personnel and corresponding Certificates of Completion certifying that Mr. Atchison has now received his Level II Magnetic Particle Inspection Certification and his Level II Liquid Penetrant Inspection Certification. These certifications were recently received by Mr. Atchison and reflect test results and certification by an independent qualification agency for Mr. Atchison's present employer. We believe that these documents are self-explanatory, and further confirm the findings of the Admini-
- strative Law Judge of the U. S. Department -of Labor (see CASE Attachnunt I to .
8305020430 830111 PDR ADOCK 05000445 O PDR
~
CASE's Brief in 0,pposition to the NRC Staff's Exceptions to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Order Denying Reconsideration of September 30, 1982, dated December 21, 1982, and filec December 22, 1982).
Possible Blacklisting of Jack Doyle We are attaching a copy of a letter we have just received from CASE witness Jack Doyle (CASE Attachment 2). We have talked by phone with Mr.
Doyle regarding this matter, and he is convinced that he has been blackballed because he testified, under subpoena, as a witness for CASE in the operating license hearings on Comanche Peak. He has been unable to find a job since he testified in the hearings.
We will not take the space and time here to quote from Mr. Doyle's open letter, but we urge the Board to read it in its entirety. CASE believes it is highly pertinent to the issues at hand and should be considered in these proceedi ngs . We realize that Mr. Doyle's letter is not in the form of a sworn affidavit; however, we just received it on 1/8/83 and we are asking him to confirm his statements in affidavit form. We ask the Board's leave to file it as soon as we receive it and that it be considered.
Investigation of Allegations of Michael Chandler Last week, CASE received a copy of the Region IV NRC investigators investi-gation report on allegations made by Michael Chandler, I&E Report 50-445/82-29, 50-446/82-15 under cover letter of Dec. 21,1982 (CASE Attachment 3). It should be noted that names and other information have been blacked out in many instances.
The handling of this investigation report is puzzling to say tne least, in light of the fact that CASE had received the statement from Mr. Chandler, turned it over to the NRC for investigation, then entered it as a limited appearance state-ment in the September 1982 operating license hearings (which at the time we t .y
believed would be, the last week of hearings). (SeeCASEAttachment4.)
The cover letter to the Licensing Board from CASE, the cover letter to the NRC investigator from CASE, and Mr. Chandler's original statement am almady in the public mcord, including in the transcript of these proceedings (tr.
48o6/7-4877). We will discuss this further later in this pleading.
Affidavit of Roy Keith Combs On Sunday,1/9/83, CASE met with Roy Keith Combs, and typed up the attached affidavits under his dimetion (CASE Attachments 5 and 6). Mr. Combs' statement raises still further questions about the manner in which the NRC investigator handled the investigation 'of allegations made by CASE' witnesses Henry and Darlene S tiner. Mr. Combs was one of the individuals Henry Stiner told the NRC investi-gator to contact regarding his allegations. This will be discussed further later in this pleading.
Other Attachments We are also attaching copies of some news articles which may be of interest:
CASE Attachment 7 -- 12/15/82 WALL STREET JOURNAL article (mferred to in Mr. Doyle's.open letter)
CASE Attachment 8 -- 1/1/83 DALLAS TIMES HERALD article
. CASE Attachment 9 -- 1/7/83 FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM article t
CASE Attachment 10 -- 1/9/83 WESTWARD article (magazine supplement in DALLAS TIMES HERALD)
The people of this area and this country am very concerned about the matters being raised in the Comanche Peak proceedings. Many eyes will be watching to see how the NRC ms' ponds to these issues.
Other Potential Harassment of CASE Witnesses We have recently gotten indications of possible harassment of other CASE wi tnesses . We do not have all the facts about this at this tim; however, we are monitoring the situation closely and will advise if necessary in the future.
-4_
DISCUSSION One of CASE's continuing excess burdens in these proceedings has been and continues to be that we have often had to take on the duties and responsibilities of an Intervenor while at the same time doing work that th'e NRC should be doing.
This has been true in regard to supplying the Licensing Board with copies of the NRC Staff's own Inspection and Enforcement (I&E) Reports (which would not have been in the mcord but for CASEI ), in regard to keeping the Board properly informed of significant matters pertinent to these proceedings2 , and in regard to the current situation where whistleblowers and potential witnesses are coming to CASE rather than the NRC because they no longer have any confidence in the NRC's ability and/or willingness to thoroughly investigate allegations and to protect the confidentiality of whistleblowers and potential witnesses .
The July 14, 1982, FEDERAL REGISTER (Vol. 47, No.135, pages 30453-30459) contained a Final rule, effective October 12, 1982, on Protection of Employees Who Provide Information. It stated, in part (page 30453):
"The (Nuclear Regulatory) Comission, to effectively fulfill its mandate, requires complete, factual, and current information concerning the mgu-lated activities of its licensees. Employees are an important source of such information and should be sncouraged to come forth with any items of potential significance to safety without fear of retribution from their employers . The purpose of the final rule is to ensure that employees are aware that employment discrimination for engaging in a protected activity, for example, contacting the hmission, is illegal 'and that a remedy exists through the Department of Labor. The organizations subject to the rule should understand that the Comission will not permit any interfemnce with communications between the Comission's mpresentatives and employees of such organization. In addition to redmss being available to the in-di'vidual employee, the Commission may, upon learning of an adverse finding against an employer by the Department of Labor, take enforcement action against the employer because the employer engaged in illegal. discrimination."
l See discussion at bottom of page 36 on, CASE's 12/21/82 Brief in Opposition to the NRC Staff's Exceptions to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Order Denying Reconsideration of September 30, 1982.
2 See ASLB Memorandum and Order of January 4,1983, pages 5 and 6.
3 See CASE Attachments 5 and 6 hereto.
_ m .
These truly, noble and praiseworth/ ideals unfortunately bear little resemblance to the reality of the situation ir. regard to Comanche Peak. To the contrary, the NRC Investigators have admitted that "It appears to be a common belief among them (certain Comanche Peak employees who desired to re-main confidential) that their simple cooperation with NRC investigators may be interpreted as an act of disloyalty by their employers.4" There is n_o.
indication anywhere in the record of these proceedings that the NRC investi-gators did anything to discourage that idea. Nor is there any indication that the NRC investigators ever advised any whistleblowers or potential whistle-blowers of the remedies available through the Department of Labor o_r the possibility of enforcement action against an employer by the NRC "upon learn-ing of an adverse finding against an employer by the Department of Labor."
In fact, according to the sworn affidavit of Roy Combs (Attachment 5 hereto), copies of NRC Form 3, Notice to Employees, are not posted in a sufficient number of places to pennit employees to observe a copy on the way to or from their place of employment, as. required by NRC regulations. (Mr. Combs ' state-ment is consistent with what CASE has heard from other workers and former workers at the plant.) Mr. Combs furthe'r states that "Until last night (1/8/83),
I didn't know there was any kind of protection for whistleblowers."
This gives rise to still further questions about th'e NRC Region IV's dealings with whistleblowers and potential whistleblowers. If this is indeed the case, why hasn't the Region IV NRC office monitored and required the Applicants to comply with the regulations in this regard? In any event, we feel certain that by the tide an investigation is made by the Region IV office of this allegation, the Notice to Employees will probably be posted 4
See CASE Attachment 9, page 2, A.5., of CASE's 12/21/82 Brief in Opposition to the NRC Staff's Exceptions to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Order Denying Reconsideration of September 30, 1982.
m . . .
as required, thereby assuring that the NRC investigators will have to report that they can neither substantiate or refute the allegation. If CASE had the investigatory authority of the NRC, the question would never have come up; one of our first priorities considering the testimony and record in these proceedings would have been to see to it that the Notice to Employees were posted as required beginning October 12, 1982, to prevent a recurrence of something similar to what happened to Mr. Atchison.
At any rate, perhaps CASE's bringing this allegation to light will assure that the notices are properly posted and that at last Comanche Peak employees will be made aware of their duties and rights regarding reporting construction deficiencies which may be a danger to the public ht alth and safety. We would certainly hope so. We would also hope that it will not be necessary for CASE to have to bring this matter up again at a later time again and that the notices will stay up.
The apparent failure to post the requimd copies of NRC Form 3 is even more important when taken in conjunction with another point. If ever there were an f
instance when enforcement action should have been taken as discussed in the FEDERAL REGISTER notice, it is surely the case of Charles Atchison. One would think that the NRC would have been interested enough in the outcome of the Labor Board hearings to have inquired about the results or gotten on the service list to receive a copy of the decision. Perhaps they did inquim. But even assuming that the NRC Staff did not know about the December 3,1982, recomended
! decision of the Administrative Law Judge through those channels, the indisputable fact is that they were given this information and supplied a copy of the deci-sion itself with CASE's 12/14/82 Motion to Supplement our admitted exhibits (CASE Exhibit 738, which has now been admitted into evidence by the Licensing Board; see the Licensing Board's Memorandum and 0,rder of January 4,1983, ,
page 2). A copy,was also attached to CASE's 12/21/82 Brief in Opposition to the NRC Staff's Exceptions to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Order i
! Denying Reconsideration of September 30,1982 (CASE Attachment 1. themto),
and portions of the decision were quoted and discussed in our 12/21/82 pleading.
The urgency of taking prompt enforcement action in Mr. Atchison's case was increased by the findings of the Department of Labor investigation into Mr. Atchison's firing by Tompkins-Beckwith at the Waterford III nuclear plant5 .
"Mr. Atchison was tenninated only after he testified at the hearing of
+
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of the Nuclear Regulatory Conmission in connection with the licensing of Texas Utilities' Comanche Peak Steam
- Electric Station.
"Although Tompkins-Beckwith maintains non-validity, the date of hiring of Mr. Atchison directly corresponded to the date of the hearing at which Mr. Atchison was scheduled to testify (July 26, 1982) thus potentially rendering his unavailability for testimony. This is reinforced with the fact that them were quite a few present and past connections between per-sonnel of Tompkins-Beckwith and Brown and Root. For example, C. T. Brandt, Quality Assurance Manager for EBASCO at Comanche Peak and the man who 4
requested Atchison's discharge- at Comanche, formerly was with Tompkins-Beckwith at. Waterford III; Jerry Magner, the man who solicited and proc.essed
. Atchison's application, formerly worked for Brown & Root; and Pete Foscolo, Project Manager for Tompkins-Beckwith at Waterford III, up until approxi-mately e,ight months ago was employed by Brown & Root at their home offices and at Comanche Peak.
... Lastly, although newspaper articles had appeared in local Ft. Worth-Dallas newspapers starting as early as June 7,1982 (at least six articles) stating that Mr. Atchison had been fimd from Bown and Root, the only ones that prompted Atchison's discharge were the ones of July 29 and July '30,1982 - days corresponding to Mr. Atchison's testimony at the
~
hearing."
The firing of Mr. Atchison a second time at Waterford, by Mercury of Norwood, 6
was also the subject of a Department of Labor investigation . The findings of 5 See CASE Exhibit 684A, Attachment to Atchison September 1982 testimony; also, see discussion on page 10 of. CASE's 12/21/82 Brief in Opposition to the NRC Staff's Exceptions to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Order Denying Reconsideration of September 30, 1982.
~
6 see CASE Attachment 2 to CASE's 12/21/82 Brief in Opposition to the NRC Staff's Exceptions to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Order Denying Reconsidera-tion of September 30, 1982. .
.- \
that investigation indicate a continuing link with Mr. Atchison's initial firing from Comanche Peak:
"Mr. Atchison was terminated only after it was disclosed that he had been in the employ of Tompkins-Beckwith, a contractor at the same Water- !
1 ford Three worksite, notwithstanding that fact that Mercury of Norwood, Inc. was inforced that Mr. Atchison's discharge from Tompkins-Beckwith was determined by the Wage and Hour Division's investigation to have been discriminatory.
"Information came to your company (Mercury of Norwood) that Mr. Atchison had worked for Brown and Root at the Comanche Peak project. It was also brought to the attention of Mercury of Norwood's officials that Mr. Atchison had been considered a ' troublemaker' while there. Conclusion might easily be drawn that the factors of prior employment with Brown and Root and Tompkins-Beckwith, employment laced with controversy dealing with mporting of po-tential safety violations and subsequent testimony at safety hearings, could be the reason for his termination from Mercury of Nomood. Even giving EBASCO's policy of prohibiting contractors, '...from soliciting the non-manual employees of other contractors' an interpretation most favorable to Mercury of Norwood as it relates to the question at hand, would not, it is felt, lead a reasonable person to conclude that a primary concern when tenninating Mr. Atchison was the fact that he was previously employed by an on-site contractor.
"In concluding, if the site policy of not hiring any employee who has worked for another contractor at the site is pivotal it has the effect of pre-petuating a violation of the Act ad infinitum. This is especially true where the facts show Mr. Atchison's termination from Tompkins-Beckwith was illegal."
What else does it take to convince the NRC that enforcement action is necessary and in order? The July 14, 1982, FEDERAL REGISTER Final Rule states that "the Commission may, upon learning of an adverse finding against an employer by the Department of Labor, take enforcement action against the employer because the employer engaged in illegal di:crimination." Yet here we have just such a 7
D0L finding , coupled with strong circumstantial evidence that a snowballing ,
effect has occurred and continues to grow from the initial illegal discrimination, 7
As indicated by the Licensing Board in these proceedings, there is no well-founded reason to believe that the Department of Labor recommended decision will be reversed by the Secretary of Labor. See page 6 of the Licensing Bcard's January 4,1983, Memorandum and Order.
- - - , -- --- ,.,-,n
.g.
.thereby perpetuating and increasing the chilling effect of the initial illegal firing of Mr. Atchison. This has and continues to act as a strong deterent to prospective whistleblowers coming forward to report potentially significant construction deficiencies.
The fact that the NRC chose not to take prompt enforcement action has now had the effect of encouraging and perpetuating the idea that whistleblowers can be fired at Comanche Peak at the whim of the utility or its contractors with the approval of the NRC. At this point in time, CASE believes that the only adequate remedy to counter this idea is swift and stringent enforcement action, including but not necessarily limited to a stiff fine. This action will probably have to come somewhere other than from the NRC Region IV office based on their past enforcement action regarding Comanche Peak and the attitude which they have exhibited regarding whistleblowers) . CASE cannot believe that there is not someone who received our instant pleading who is concerned enough to put a quick end to this flagrant violation of Department of Labor.
and NRC regulations. We would hope that that someone is the NRC itself; it is a bitter pill for this Intervenor to completely lose confidence in the established regulatory system.
In addition to the questions raised in our 12/21/82 pleading, still further very troubling questions have been raised by the Affidavit of Roy Combs (CASE Attachment 5). What kind of " confidentiality" is it when someone being inter-viewed regarding allegations is called into the Administrative Building, left
' sitting in the NRC waiting room where everyone could see him, where he saw other individual _s coming and going from interviews with the NRC? It is apparent from the comment and treatment by Mr. Combs' General Foreman to the effect that Mr. Combs was "probably a stoolie" that he was aware that Mr. Combs had talked
_ with the NRC. How did he find out? Did he also,know what Mr. Combs, had said? ,
Who heard the tape recording that the NRC investigator made of the interview?
What happened to'the tape? Who has it now? When Mr. Driskill contacted Mr. Combs by phone later, Mr. Combs told the investigator that he didn't care about remaining confidential and also told him the reason he didn't care was because of what had been going on at work and that he thought he was being
~
harassed because he had talked to the investigator. Why didn't Mr. Driskill advise Mr. Combs that he had redress available through the Department of Labor?
Why didn't Mr. Driskill tell Mr. Combs that if the Department of Labor made a finding that the employer had engaged in illegal discrimination, the NRC might take enforcement action against the employer? And perhaps the most disturbing question of all: Why did an NRC investigator advise a potential whistleblower/ witness to remain confidential?
It should be noted that Mr. Combs has stated in his affidavit (page 4, Attachment 5) that now that he knows that there is protection available to whistleblowers to protect their jobs and to protect them from other illegal discrimination, he wants "to be protected and to be able to bring these problems to someone's attention who will see that they are corrected without my being fired because of it." Whatever has happened in the past in regard to CASE's witnesses, we want to go on record that this Intervenor fully expects and demands protection for this whistleblower and potential witness. We do not believe that the NRC Region IV office can be relied upon to monitor compliance by Applicants and their contractors in this regard. We therefore request that the Appeal Board and/or the Licensing Board (or whatever agency within the NRC is responsible for handling matters such as this) monitor such com-pliance and take swift enforcement action should any discriminatory actions occur against Mr. Combs. We further request that this agency monitor Appli-cants' compliance on a continuing basis with the regulation that copies of
.NRC Form 3, Notice to Employees, be posted in a sufficient number of places to permit employbes to observe a copy on the way to or from their place of
. employment, as required by NRC regulations.
I&E Report 82-29/82-15 Although not identified as such, 82-29/82-15 (CASE Attachment 3 hereto) is the investigation report regarding allegations of Michael Chandler. As discussed earlier in this pleading (pages 2 and 3), the handling of this I&E Report is puzzling to say the least. Names and other information have been blacked out in many instances. CASE had received Mr. Chandler's statenent through the mail (see CASE Attachment 4 hereto), turned it over to the NRC for investigation, then entered it as a limited appearance statement in the Septenber 1982 operating license hearings. The cover letter to the Licensing Board from CASE, the cover letter to the NRC investigator from CASE, and Mr. Chandler's original statement are already in the public record, including the transcript of these proceedings (tr. 4866/7-4877).
It was a fairly simple matter to match up the dates of the August 4 letter and meeting by CASE with the NRC investigator, the June 14 statement by Mr.
Chandler, and the allegations themselves. We would assume that it would have been equally easy for the Applicants to figure out that.this investigation report was concerning Mr. Chandler's allegations, using the 'nformation already in the public record. What then, was the reason for the NRC's blacking out the information on CASE Attachment Page 6, which apparently discussed the meet-ing held with the writer and her husband and NRC Investigator Richard lierr in his office on August 4,1982? Who is being protected from whom? Why was the writer's name blacked out in this investigation report but not blacked out in the back-up " sanitized" notes regarding the allegations of Henry and Darlene
., _ Stiner (see CASE Exhibit 666C-17)? Why did thejlRC black out the wr, iter's ,
s name in I&E Report 82-29/82-15 (although the writer had identified herself in the public rdcord) while arguing that the NRC Staff acted properly when it prefiled testimony concerning the QA/QC allegations which had been made by Mr. Atchison to the NRC (on the basis that Mr. Atchison had identified him-self as a former QC inspector employed by Brown & Root, prefiled testimony setting out a number of allegations concerning QA/QC practices at CPSES, made statements to the press repeating the allegations, and had been identified by CASE as a witness 8 )? The Staff's position is eternally inconsistent.
Further, the information (what is left after being " sanitized") in I&E Report 82-29/82-15, to anyone who was not familiar with the original documents which led to the investigation, would be very misleading, to say the least.
For example, it is stated "On September 2,1982, (blacked out) employed at the Comanche Peak construction project, Glen Rose, Texas, was interviewed by NRC Investigator R. K. Herr and NRC Inspector L. E. Martin at (blacked out).
(Blacked out) executed a signed sworn statement, Attachment (2), wherein he identified four areas of alleged ' deficiencies' arJ drew a map depicting the exact location of these deficiencies. (Blacked out) further described these ,
deficiencies as follows...." (CASE Attachment 3, Page 9.) This would give the impression that the person interviewed was presently employed at Comanche Peak. However, if one reads further, it is obvious tha,t the person interviewed was Michael Chandler himself, who no longer works at Comanche Peak. The report states: "(Blacked out) other general allegations of deficiencies identified in his previous statement of June 14, 1982, were addressed in the following manner...(Blacked out), after reviewing the nonconformance reports, stated 8 See page 4 of NRC Staff's 11/17/82 Brief in Support of Its Exceptions to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Order Denying Reconsideration of September 30, 1982.
- _. .._-,.-_.,_,-_m,- . . - , . _._m., , . -
that the deficiencies identified in the nonconformance reports and subsequent corrections appebred to address the concerns that he identified in his previous statement of June 14, 1982." (Emphases added.) The June 14, 1982, statement referred to is obviously Mr. Chandler's original statement which CASE supplied to the NRC investigator.
This leads to the obvious question: Are there other portions of the
" sanitized" report which, because of the blacked out portions, are also misleading?
No help in resolving this question is to be found in the "(blacked out) signed statement" or "(blacked out) signed sworn statement" which are indicated to be Attachments 1 and 2 to the report (CASE Attachment 3, Page 14). CASE did not receive copies of those statements with the report, and upon inquiring, we were told that those statements were not being released to the public and CASE would not be given copies of them. It is not clear whether these are the same documents which CASE originally supplied to the NRC investigator (in which case, why wouldn't they have been provided, since they are already in the public record of these proceedings anyway?) or new statements by the alleger or others.
Apparently this was the first investigation report done at Region IV under the new system where the investigative section has been separated from the inspection section, and we can look forward to these " sanitized" investigation reports in the future. If this is the case, it may well, be that (at least in CASE's mind) the reports will raise more questions than they answer.
There are several other questions raised by this report; however, we will make only two further conments about it at this time. Mr. Kelley, the NRC Senior
' Resident Reactor Inspector at Comanche Peak, stated that his report was regard-ing conditions as they existed as of August 31 or September 1,1982, and that ,
he could not comment on the conditions as they existed in January 1980 (CASE Attachment 3, pages 11 and 12). CASE would be interested to know what the
_ 14 _
conditions were between the time the allegations were reported and the time the investigatioh was made, and whether or not the NRC made any attempt to ascertain whether or not the conditions.with which Mr. Chandler was concerned had existed prior to the time the allegations were reported and had been re-paired prior to the NRC's beginning the investigation (apparently on August 31, 1982).
There is one further concern expressed in Mr. Chandler's original June 14, 1982, statement (CASE Attachment 4, page 3). Mr. Chandler indicated that he is presently incarcerated in a Federal Correctional Institution, and states:
" Prior to incarceration, I was working at the Comanche Peak nuc. lear power plant construction site under the name of-Michael Gale Maxfield, identification number T-797. I was arrested at the site on January 11, 1980. The very fact that a fugitive could obtain employment at the site caused questions to be asked about their security measures, especially when it was learned that my job gave me access to all areas of the construction job, even the most confidential."
It is interesting to CASE that the NRC investigators were apparently not at all concerned about this disturbing fact, and if one did not have the original state-ment from Mr. Chandler and relied solely on the investigation report by the NRC, one would never have even been aware of it. Why wasn't this concern addressed by the NRC investigators in their investigation report?,
m "P e e g
l LEGAL ARGUMENTS As CASE has' stated previously, we do not have an attorney to advise us regarding the legal cases and arguments. We have to depend primarily on our common sense in interpreting court cases and NRC rulings. We will attempt to present our understanding of the two cases cited by the Appeal -
Board in its December 30, 1982, Order in that light.
Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. City of Burlington, Vermont, 351 F.2d 762 (D.C.
Cir. 1977):
It would appear to CASE that this case has much to say which is relevant to this proceeding and the issues at hand. It makes it very clear that there should be no hard and fast rule of confidentiality under all circumstances and that each case should be considered individually and that a balance of competing interests should be struck in each case in deciding whether disclosure of an informer is essential to a fair detennination of a cause. The Licensing Board in this instance has carefully considered and weighed such considerations and found that the names and documents in question are essential to a fair determination of the cause before it. As pointed out by the Licensing Board, it "must. reach conclusions on the serious charges that the Applicants discharged a quality control inspector because he was properly reporting nonconformances at the site. To do so, the Board must evaluate the credibility both of Mr.
Atchison and the other individuals, including Mr. Driskill."
i The Licensing Board has not sought to learn the identity of any individual l -who allegedly has requested confidentiality l0 But, as pointed out by the- .
. - Board, "...this does not mean that it is reasonable to withhold all informa-i tion because one or two individuals out of ten or eleven desire confidentiality.
4 3 Page 6, Licensing Board's August 4, ,1982, Order to Show Cause.
10 Page 4, Licensing Board's September 30, 1982, Order Denying Reconsideration.
- b. * '#
- a l
A single request for confidentiality cannot be used to shield an entire investi-gation from scrutiny in an adjudicatory setting." In the Westinghouse case, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Roviaro v. United States, 353 U. S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623,1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), the court stated that it would seem from this opinion "that an informer can waive the privilege...It is difficult to see how the Government could prevent him from revealing himself, practically or theoretically, or why, as a matter of policy, it would want to do so." Since according to the NRC investigators, only two of the ten individuals now desire confidentiality, there is no rational reason for the Staff to continue to refuse to identify the other eight. The reasoning presented by the Staff that to identify the other eight could lead to one's being able to identify the other two is a lame reason indeed, which, if used as a precedent, could presumably lead to everyone involved in future NRC investigations being kept confidential (even if they did not request it) because one utility official who might have an ax to grind wanted his nane kept confidential.
CASE must question the NRC's strong commitment to keeping the identity of whistleblowers confidential, considering the testimony and information orought out in the Comanche Peak hearings. This, then, inevitably leads one to question what other possible reason could there be for refusing to obey the Board's order in this instance. As we have indicated before, CASE has no investigatory authority and we do not have the answers to these many questions. But we urge that someone with proper authority ascertain the answers .
As set forth in the Westinghouse case, again referencing the.Roviaro opinion, "The purpose of the (infonner's) privilege is not to protect the particular informer from retaliation, but to protect the flow of information to the Government." It further states that "The Roviaro balance should be
struck in each case...in deciding whether disclosure 'is essential to a fair determination of' a cause.' 353 U.S. at 61, 77 S.Ct. at 628."
Black v. Sheraton Corp. of America, 47 F.R.D. 263 (D.D.C.1969), affirmed, 564 F.2d 550 (D.C. Cir.1977).
In our layman's review of the second of the two cases the Appeal Board indicated in its Order, there appears to be nothing to support the Staff's claims. It discusses the Westinghouse and Roviaro cases and their applications, and states: "
...the Court must balance the public interest in protecting the flow of confidential infonnation to the government against the individual's right to prepare his defense, 386 U.S. at 310, 87 S.Ct.1056, citing 353 U.S.
at 62, 77 S.Ct. 623."
Surely the building of a nuclear power plant and consideration of whether or not to grant an operating license to the Applicants is one of the most important areas in which the public interest must be considered. It has always been CASE's position that the public interest lies in having all the-facts come out -- and they will come out, whether before the plant is granted an operating license, or after it has begun operation and perhaps had a serious or even catastrophic accident. .
CASE's position regarding whistleblowers has already been detailed in previous pleadings which we have already asked the Appeal Board to consider (see especially CASE's 9/3/82 Answer to NRC Staff's Response to Order to Show Cause and Motion for Reconsideration and CASE's Motions, bottom half of page 4 through page 6). We will not reiterate our position here, but ask that the Appeal Board consider all the pleadings we have previously indicated.
CASE regrets that we have been unable to include more information herein and that we have not been able to addrsss more fully the particular. cases cited
- by the Appeal Board. However, the other matters-which CASE has discussed herein 1
1
and in our previous pleadings is of such overriding concern, where the cradibility of the NRC itself and the entire licensing process is called into question, that we have of necessity devoted most of our time to getting that information into the hands of the Board.
2 We also regret very much that we will be unable to attend the January 19 oral argument in Bethesda.
Respectfully submitted, AU,hL f ' .) Juanita Ellis, President ASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 e
e a ^* * *
-- - c- - - - - - - -
l l
and in our previous pleadings is of such overriding concern, where the cr~dibility of thi NRC itself and the entire licensing process is called into question, that we have of necessity devoted most of our time to getting that information into the hands of the Board.
We also regret very much that we will be unable to attend the January .19 oral argument in Bethesda.
Respectfully submitted, R&, hL
, /( s.) Juanita Ellis, President ASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 4
, - . s_ , ._, _ _ _ . - - _ _ . _ , . _ _ . ..._-c_.
r
, CASE ATTACHMENT 1 - Page 1 RECORD OF QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NONDESTRUCTIVE PERSONNEL 1
gg Charles A. Atchison i
EMPLOYER Tri-Con Industries i
TYPE OF CERTIFICATION:
MAGNETIC PARTICLE: LEVEL I ,
LEVEL II C LEVEL III C PENETRANT: LEVEL I C LEVEL II C LEVEL III C TESTS RESULTS:
GENERAL 24.8%
SPECIFIC 23 0% COMPOSITE 87 2%
PRACTICAL 39 4%
CERTIFICATION DA.TE: 11-23-82 RECERTII'ICATION DATE: 11-23-83 TECHNICAL TRAINING: See Company Records
' EXPERIENCE: See Company Records EYE EXAMINATION: SEE EYE EXAMINATION FOLDER QUALIFICATION AGENCY:
UniversalLaboratory,inc.
ADDRESS: 2633 S. Garland Road Garland, Texas 75041 EXAMINER: Charles Stanley DATE: 11-23-82 EMPLOYER REPRESENTATIVE: dbl &~0 Nw.%;% DATE: 1/- 2 3 - t 2.
NOTE: EQUIPMENT, PROCESS AND OPERATORS CERTIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MIL-STD-410D.
'! e
_, . - - . . - - - , .-..-E ,_ w_-- _-, - -..,---._,-,_-.-,..,y-y, -
- , , -- , . , . _.-.-,.._.,__,.ymy. ,m,,- - - . . - - - - - , , , , , . , - , , ,
. .w' ,,...:fk, ','p' f
S i
- gg'
< e' 'l, f.s,M$h[s, Lw.,, . a, ' .;f h.:m~
- ;.4'</*N a ;. . ' ?i. .
- I' *? '
- Q;N.*
-l ,f. . .:r .' )
. ** . . , 4.W; "I.'y.!:.
F.
>?
. , < ,; W, ?;-
- 5. ' '~ s i.. ;' * :i;.
k;, *. ;,, ' ' ;, ,.0, , .*,.;. . e.'..,:* 1. P .
.s
'u&a b.,; '. ; , *L t
,. j.' . . i
. .. .nP. O. Box 1087 N* ' 2633 S. Garland Avenue
. . . Yk ,g,
- ' - 'c'
- . . h ,Y 1 '.M ' . s.r, s'
& r l
. ^
, .~ t
.
- Ef. 5, ft' - *e-p;.'. a:'..'
f.' i
-Q fr. .
~-
~ ,' . Garland , Te x a s 7504 0 I .' .h.'.'$ ~:' ? *'..
x 2: ,, 1, . - .
- g. *,,' .y : . .- -^ q': ,3 Q 6 3 3
- o. ,.
. e ..
~- .
.c;.r _ ..
-i
]
- 4. . .
,. . y - .
.'. . , i.v. . y e.
.,:7 , ;. ' \- f' Q.t<: . %. ' . *, + + - - + '
(' '
. .+. ..J.b e . .
?
. . Y$[Y$..$ $ V Y'/0.N $ $ $ $.Y
~
- g,j ..
x
-- i 's 1,p,
, l> '
' p- > .
- h. :y ,_ ,^~
, .4 m .- .' >
. -' s
- , ,.f ; '
Y .
. .. . v. - -
p r . . -
CHARLES A. ATCliISON ..- gy. f x , .- :: -
'n
{A.
', {. g,
. . 4' v:
17m
'. elrasYompleted s$c[cAsfully i &ignetic Particle Inspection, Level II. Pei' MIL-STD-410
([ .p .,
. *c.
- a. ; ; ..
W 3
m 9 .
- ~~~, : .K y G i '
l ,.-
- durhig the year '1982 ' . . ' ' . . '
iE;
( * ;
x
'-l$;.??.;
t.: 'u d } $,:. , , _ .
i
?..QWV.:.; *. .
i- ..
f$m
,}. - :
}:'.:;.d,e ...jh:'3.Q-d .. f#c '.d.
i x'
--// / M /e' M , .'
.ta n:,;!.l'..4 ;;;',>:. t.,i.iG.-.r,{'g . fyl;;g.%:.:p 4_%.:.'.i ?-:*
sp ...- d.. ..O... ..
$. _ ss.,:;,y .M. ='.Q ,. g.' I.A.'%.:a gq
,,.. y. . .. - -
.: ?. z "'g" s"*1
"'"".'T' ',
g .
i :
M4EBN$5. I~s. .i.:.y$
T ?. $$g $M -c N % 3N,ygg1: ,,EA M #N MEB'mW M
- 5 g,{.5*:Q'. 3':.y.'
- s.sV;W:.C'.'j. -
' " ~ ~ ~ l' ^ '_ ' 'h
CASE ATTACHMENT 1 - Page 3 RECORD OF QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NONDESTRUCTIVE PERSONNEL 4
NAME Charles A. .itchison EMPLOYER Tri-ConIndusthies TYPE OF CERTIFICATION:
MAGNETIC PARTICLE: LEVEL I LEVEL II C LEVEL III C PENETRANT: LEVEL I [ LEVEL II @ LEVEL III TESTS RESULTS:
GENERAL 25.8%
SPECIFIC 26.7% COMPOSITE 90 5%
PRACTICAL 38.0%
CERTIFICATION DATE: 11-23-82 RECERTIFICATION DATE: 11-23-83 TECHNICAL TRAINING: See Company Records EXPERIENCE: See Company Records EYE EXAMINATION: SEE EYE EXAMINATION FOLDER QUALIFICATION AGENCY: Universal Laboratory, Inc.
ADDRESS: 2633 S. Garland Houd -
Garland, Texas 75041 EXAMINER:- Charles Stanley DATE: 11-23-82 EMPLOYER REPRESENTATIVE: Qv ))_ bwa,tk DATE: //. 2 3- y 2.
NOTE: EQUIPMENT, PROCESS AND OPERATORS CERTIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MIL-STD-430D. .
9
,.
- e e
.-w-- -, y ,.m- - - . - - - - . . - , . - . , - _ - . , - - . , _ _ - . . - , - , - - - - ,. r, --
....a.- ...
. . - . .,. .. . ,. m .. , y .. -
.t., ,
.t .
u f s.l.'.f p g.; i --j.c e n 9 7 M :. W f,'.W .V[f.i;:.,
~
.t f it i
. . .'.; }Q .'.W.
'. ..iS.W..:.::. t.(m.
5
.c::v. m .4 f.v .. p.d.p.l M....
..k
. i:e;:. ..
.~.,n:
e,p.eix.b.: .
<-:q $$$
n:t.w.,
$. ??% m? , ..+;.. ,
'",'U$?l5$..<.Y.&..
>,:9,,o .. L' . .4,g.;,;4 OY >
.h::y;
}? '*
.. 9.q ..
$ fx.
.,[. . ,( fj$, !
'f
. : .t
.. p;;p; g .i .:
e:
.. .:e' ..., .c r v J. ,
P. O. Dox 1087 2G33 S. Garland Avenue ' * :.*I, .;:;*. ': .,
,, . . ... . 2.'?'*
' ' ' .v,.,l,:j .mh. ,f.) ,.
Garland; Texas 750g0 ' . 5 l *'
[ .
lg
{' 'g .
.n n., __ _.
.: . .v -
e 9 ,. -
- 2 .
hi
' + *
( +
f' N- "
'p hl y) jh
.v. a U2r::1::IEN::2 D:: LDnt:1EiTDn.l .
a ;,y
"'j s ,,a
- ~. . ,
Tisis is to cestify ".
3:: f,n z 'g 3
.~.. ..
e ;,9 :
7a s
.- . . ;.g CHARLES A. ATCHISON
,e.
s-7 .
K r-i
~; . .
m , , -
.g . .
n Isas conspleted successfuffy Liquid Penetrant Inspection, Level. II Per MIL-STD _410 ]. h
+1 . V. .. .
c
~
.g .
.~ .+ .: .- . ;.. ' - . g .g y p'1 .
r ' during lise' year '1982 ..-
~
l.a, ;;. . ' ll p s.x . , . : e . ., .
w.AI e..L ' '
~
- ) 3:.9 e /T / "l $. f. .'.; ' j
- g. , ,.
? Wii 4 %7s ?%M f'f;'
b.Q :-.
. 01. . . . , :.
..:. .'. , _ , d' /4/ ?
. .: ..y: . . ;. .:.,;.:
. .a= :' cs. sarief su.asey, rp'. 'n ner ? Q;.;.; . ;. ,,. .
= ..
.' . .P.,':,s i ,~ y .,u.)a ..-
~ .. ..i.. . ..'. ..y.. .pps;
.5.r. ;. p. rs.,r.
l bao
- (. d<
e.!,,,c. .. . . ~ .c.
. * *C ,.. . r. ' a . :. >. ea . -;
- . :er -
e.
m.
l b ,
[
g Y h '
( .
.x _ ___ _, s M9'~=,y . ..,.. y 5 _. & m , & . e " ~'
- m L: n .
A
CASE ATTACHMENT 2 - Page 1 tm open IcLLet from an American diccident
/W article by John R Enchuiller titled " Troubled Project" appeared in the '..'all Strcot Journal on bec.,15,1902.The article raised coveral provocativo questions,tuu of which I addroca at this time.
The firct question asked isu Hou facility in Ohio got co near compleation uith co many problems".The cecond que:: tion,which alco ;
appears on page one and is attributed to Rep.M.K.Udall of Arizona,is !
"It makes one wonder how many other Zimmers might be lurking out there." '
The article would seem to suggest that those two questionc would require at least tuo ansvers.The fact is that a single ansucr vill surfico.In fact one nord would,with modification, lead to an under-i standing of both qucations and the word is " intimidation". ,
The law require that:all violations of cafety critoria at a '
I!uclear facility be reported immediately (10CFR21.1).The law further i states, that those who report such violations, request inve::tigations by tho :.R.C. or appear as a uitness before an li.R.C. investigative board or hearing are participating in a fedcrally protected activity (10 CFR50.7 Federal Register July,14,1982, volume 47 number 135 page 135).Beyond this the criminal ccdes of the United Stal.cc prohibit the intimidation of uitnesses who appear in proceedings pending or who have appeared before any department, agency or committee of the United States Govern.-
g ment (18U001505).Hovover those are moroly the laws and noble as they appear,they do not of themselves, imply that justice vill prevail.
Justico in America ic only available to those uith the power required to incure that thero sharc (or more) is aquired,those with the monetary-means to buy it and to a very limited degree thoco villing to make the neces::ary cacrifices required.For the powerless,in chort, there is no justico only the pursuit of justice and the hope that a small mea:ure of it is attainabic.
As a case in point:I appeared,under subpoena,as a witnoc; in the .
hearinga before the Atomic Cafety and Licensing Board concerning the l#
licensing of the Comanche Peak tteam l'lectric Station Clen Roco Texas.
Refusal to appear is a Federal crinc(Contempt acction 231 Atomic energy Act 1954 as amended). Compliance on the other hand is tantamount to commiting economic cuicide,unlocc you plan on staying with your present employer until retirement in which cace it is fair to assume that if he fires you the proof of discrimination may be cacy to exhibit.On the other hand if you quit your job or are uncmployed at the time that you appear as a uitness(as vac the situation in my cacc)you will find that there is little protection in the real world against "Blacklistinc".
Thic insidious practice ic one of the noct difficult to adjudicato.
It is this difficulty uhich ronders all of the laws and all of the pro-nouncemento of protect' ion by the li.R.C. mute,becauco nou the problem is reduced to cubjectivity contorted by legal gymna:: tics.Apparently I micced an asterid uhen I read the lanc offering protection to wit-ncasos becauce it must stato in the lau "Juctico vill prevail if you can best the batterica of att.orneys that arc employed by your advercary and do it in there arena".
CASE ATTACHMENT 2 - Page 2 Ifatn noucmen ask "uhy" I find it amusing because I and overyone in the Huclear industry know the ancuc N In America there are too mary lava but little justec;too much. freedom but still no juctice, therefor to opcak out counter to the desires of thoco who vield the power vill recult in covere repercussions.The result is,in the case of the nuclec.r inductry,too many Zimmers with too many prob 1cac which will become all too apparent in the event that an carthquake occurs in proximity to one of the encineering fiascos uhich is passed off as state of the art.
Free' dom and power without justice is tyrany (Plato The Republic).
l lif A X ACK J YLE y e . 6
CASE ATTACHMENT 3 - Page 1
, . .g.ce rug .,
. ,4- UNITED STATES
[ j ,*s.q -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.; E REGION IV r.Y g[
O V
$ 'e
- 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SulTE 1000 ARLINGTON. T EX AS 76011 4 +....,
Dockets: 50-445/82-29 s 50-446/82-15 DEC 2 1 1982 Texas Utilities Generating Company
,. ATTN: Mr. R. J. Gary, Executive Vice President & General Manager 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas. 75201 Gentlemen:
This refers to the investigation conducted by Mr. R. K. Herr of the Office of Investigation, and Messrs. L. E. Martin and D. L. Kelley of our staff during the period August 4 to September 17, 1982, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 for the Comanche Peak facility, Units 1 and 2.
Areas examined during the investigation and our findings are discussed in the enclosed investigation report.
Within the scope of this investigation, we found no instance where you failed to meet NRC requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within 10 days of the date of this letter. and submit written application to withhold information contained therein within 30 days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the require-ments of 2.790(b)(1).
Should you have any questions concerning this inv'estigation, we will be pleased to discuss them with you. .
Sincerely, YSW G. L. Madsen, Chief' Reactor Project Branch 1
Enclosure:
Appendix - NRC Investigation Report 50-445/82-29; 50-446/82-15 cc:
Texas Utilities Generating Company
_ ATTN: H. C. Schmidt, Project Manager ., ,
2001 Bryan Tower Dallas. Texas 75201
- )'** ' ,, ,, UNITED STATES . -
age .
[. ,
* ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY C6MMISSION
'k REGloN IV
% ,.[,,' ', [ S 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SutTE 1000 ARLINGTON. TEX AS 76011 OFFICEOFINVESTIGATIbNS DATE: November 23, 1982 REPORT OF INVESTIGATION TITI.E:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Alleged Electrical Deficiencies SUPPLEMENTAL: DN 50-445/50-446 CASE NUMBER: . 4-82-012 CONTROL OFFICE: REGION IV STATUS: CLOSED PERIOD OF INVESTIGATION: August 4 - September 17, 1982 -
REPORTING INVESTIGATOR: / 4 h Richaro 'K. HeYr,' Acting Director OI field Office, Region IV PARTI'CIPATING PERSONNEL: Lawrence E. Martin, Reactor Inspector Reactor ~ Project, Section B, Region IV D. L. Kelley, Senior Resident Reactor Inspector Reactor Project, Section A, Region IV REVIEWED BY: ML '
st Roc}er/A. Fortuna, Acting Deputy Director Office of Investigations APPROVED BY: Ao M .- -
..denfs A. Fitzge.ral.dY Act.ing Di.r.ector Office of Investigations .
. - . . . l 1
I l m . ___ . -
l CASE ATTACHMENT 3 - Page 3 i
s l SU!EARY Investigation of alle'gef 515'ctrTc31"deficien~c ies that occured from ~
August,1979 to January.,1980 in the construction phase of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant at Glen Rose, Texas, included an interview of 44?'ia.3 * ;~
the review of numerous electrical records, and the inspection by NRC personnel of identified alleged electrical " deficiencies."
Investigation disclosed that three of the four basic alleged " deficiencies" were in the areas of non-safety wiring. During August and September,1982 all alleged .-
deficiencies were examined and no irregularities were found. Review of noncon-formance report records did identify similar deficiencies discovered in the . . . .
Dectmber 1979 through January / February 1980 time frame; however, these deficien-cies were properly addressed in 1980.
e e
, e '*
- e
' CASE ATTACHMEfiT 3 -
Paga 4 DETAII.S A
4 e
e e
O E
e . .
m_4 _, - ...- _ . . _- .-
N. .
- e CASE ATTACHMENT 3 - Page 5 1
Purpose of Investigation The purpose of this investigation was to investigate allegations of electrical
" deficiencies" during the 1979/1980 Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose, Texas. construction phase of the Comanche Peak .
e 9
.me p
6 O
G 9
e 9
6 6
e
. \
s.
e '# *
- 3
CASE ATTACHMENT 3 - Page 6 2
Background ,
es in Arlingtor., Texas! Norovided reporting investigate.' a copy of a statement executed on w" ' ~ ' ' _----exp a ined that worked at the Comanche Peak construction site in the remarked that a eged "e ectrica taults of construction',' at the Comanche Peak site located in Glen Rose, Texas.
o 9
l G
O t l l .
e l
l
> ___. a7 ..
3 s CASE ATTACHMENT 3 - Page 7 Interview of nwLmany%
Brown and Root, c,ontractors for Comanche Peak construction, was interviewed by NRC Investicator R. K. Herr at the construction site located in Glen Rose, Texas. 8BPMN)mexplained that he was present during the 1979 time frame, and in December 1979, the electrical department created a " termination crew..", g5EEEL stated that this crew.would check out all electrical (safety and non-safety) wiring ta ensure that work had been accomplished and that the work was done satisfactorily. llBRphiremarked that the men assigned to the work crews would submit handwritten reports to show what work was done, where the work was done, and the status of the work. 43EEB1 emphasized that this crew checked the ...
electrical wiring before the Quality Control Inspectors were advised that the electrical wiring was ready for inspection. EEEEEE explained that the termin- --
ation crew conducted a preinspection review cf all electrical work. jBPEEL also pointed out that, 'if a ceficiency was noticed and reported, the deficiency would be addressed before the Quality Control Inspector would conduct his inspection. IDESEBLexplained that this extra " check out" by the electrical ,
personnel was used as a management tool to show the electrician where problems arose and to point out various pott ntial deficiencies. SERNEEkstated that the Quality Control Inspector could st.ll find various deficiencies, and that the practice of utilizing " termination crews" to check the electrical wiring is no longer being used. F91But remarked that " termination crews" were not a requirement in the Brown and Root procedure or instructions, but were merely an extra check for the electrical department itself, and therefore, none of the handwritten reports or status sheets were kept.
O e
G e
P e ^f *
- a
~~
.' ., ( .. 4 CASE ATTACHMENT.3 - Pige 8.-
~
The Review of HMEy=>.C. Daily Time Sheet On August 31, 1982', a review of sam r = -~, ) Daily Time Sheet, WCSICI
. by NRC Investigator R. K. Herr at ---
the Comancne reak construction-site- Glen Rose, Texas was accomplished. Th is ~ - -- -
review21, August disclosed thatMworked 1979 to January 11, 1980. for Brown and Root (contractors) from The records further disclosed that from August 21, 1979 to January 1,.1980, N worked on non-safety related wiring. -
According to the records,. E v nro -3 worked for the " termination crew" from January 3 to January 11, 1980.
G O
o
~ 1 l
Em l
(
l 1
5
., CASE ATTACHMENT 3 - Page 9 l l
Intorview of f!PJ!UMmenerP'm i
On September 2,1982, re W w . - w w m, ....;: .u n - employed at the Comanche Peak construction-project._GlerLRo.se,_ Texas,_was_. interviewed by NRC l Investigator R. K--Herr-and-NRC-Inspector __L..E. Martin af ex C .. - < : a M ~- '
c.. ~ .. t , y o.- .+ww..
. M executed a" signed sworn stat'edent,' ---
I Attachment (2), wherein' he identified four areas of alleged " deficiencies" and drew a map depicting the exact location o#.these deficiencies. .m further described these deficiencies as follows: -
(1) Motor control center located in the circulation water system: -
use of 1000 MCM cable, using 750 MCM lug that was drilled to accept larger cable. ,
(2) Auxiliary Building, Reactor No.1: lug designed for an approximate screw size of 3/8 inch was used on a terminal blo::k designed for #10 screws.
(3) Switch Gear Room, Reactor No.1, black cable: lug designed for inch screws were used on terminal blocks designed for #10 screws.
(4) Annunciator logic panels, Control Room, Reactor No.1, black cable: improper cable splicing and wiring to the wrong .
side of lugs.
- 1pWpBRB other general allegations of deficiencies identified in his orevious statement of June 14, 1982, were addressed in the following manner. M expressed concern with the improper installation and check-out of Cannon type pl ugs. PPfMWTW was provided NRC Inspection Report 50-445/80-13, dated -
May 21,1980. ;BMBO stated that after reading the NRC Insoection Report, the report answered all' his concerns in this area. N had also expressed concern regarding the patching / repairing .of damaged cable, faulty grounding, and wiring not protected from abrasions. 6 was provided eight nonconformance reports covering the above general allegations that were issued from December 20, 1979 to March 18, 1980 and subsequently corrected.
6, after reviewing the nonconformance reports, stated that the deficiencies identified in the nonconformance reports and subsequent corrections appeared to address the concerns that he identified in his previous statement of
- June 14, 1982.
(HT.'W!!E'3 explained that mp = wA-w -# + w d, he was not in 4 a position to determine if nis concerns were addressed properly, pointing out ,
that he did not have access to the nonconformance reports or NRC inspection reports. Further, GJpHUD remarked that most of his work was with non-safety cable. Hov ver, he stated that between January 2 and January 11, 1980 he was assigned to the Electrical Department " termination check-out crew" that went around to ensure that all work was done properly, and that some of the items he checked could have been safety related. -
, s 6 . CASE ATTACHMENT 3 - Page 10
@ stated that h' was eunaware of QA/QC activities or procedures that took place subseouent to the check-out crew activities on all safey-related activities. N also expressed concern that when cad-welding was donc, welders only protected an area of about 3 feet; however, N had not- -.. .
inspected any of these to detsrmine if any cables had been damaged _.and.could n3t identify any specific areas for follow-up by NRC. -
e e
a e e 8 9
e
.a e *
- p
CASE ATTACHMENT 3 - Page,lh , !
, , , ,. ,7 ,
.. f . - - -
~.[
Inspection of Alleged Deficiencies ,
On August 31, 1982, Dennis"1.. Kelley, NRC Senior Resident Reactor Inspector ---
- ' ~
(SRI), assigned to Comanche Peak, Glen Rose, Texas,7et with NRC'Inv'estigator R. K. Herr to review the allegations set forth byfEERIEH32 MET Allegation Number 1: Kelley was able to physically locate the motor control center (MCC) located in the circulating water system; as describeri in the allegation concerning the use of 1000 MCM cable with a 750 MCM lug. Kelley stated that he inspected the area in question and found no 1000 MCM cable in the motor control center. Kelley reported that he did find one 750 MCM cable in MCC XB3-2 that is matched up to the proper lugs. He also found that the MCC IB3-2 contained paired 350 MCM cables properly terminated. Kelley remarked that as of August 31, 1982, no improper wiring was evident in the MCC's of the circulating water system.
On September 17, 1982, Kelley_ advised that the areas of the alleged deficiencies that were identified byEMWy>ErW in his statement of September 2,1982
,(see below), were locatea vnta M sssistance of the maps drawn by BRMBR4 Allegation Number 2, Auxiliary ' Building, Reactor No.1, ' improper screw size for. lugs: Kelley stated that he physically located this area utilizing Map No.1, and found that there were no washer / screws in panel 5 or 6. However, he did discover a number of screws with attached washers. Kelley explained that upon close examination he found that the washer attached to the screws is an intricate part of the screw (manufactured together) and it not an add-on as it may appear at first glance. Kelley stated that some screws contained brass plate and some contained chrome plate. Kelley remarked that the chrome plate gives the appearance of a steel washer and could easily be mistaken for steel. Kelley concluded that as of September 1982, there was no improper '
wiring in this area.
Allegation Number 3, Swith Gear Room, Reactor No.1, improper screw size for lugs: Kelley stated he physically located this area utilizing Map No. 2 and found that the same conditions existed as per allegation No. 2, above. Kelley I
added that as of September 1982, when he inspected, Switch Gear Room, Reactor No.1, no improper wiring was observed. .
l Allegation Number 4, Control Room, Reactor No.1, splicing and cable termina-tion to wrong side of fuse block with some shaving of the lugs: Kelley stated '
he physically located this area,.using Map No. 3, and found no evidence of shaving or erroneous termination of cable. Kelley further stated that he checked-the section in question as well two other sections in the control panel and found that there was no evidence of lugs being shaved and added that blocks were
~
l of such a nature that it makes no difference which side accepts power leads.
I Kelley remarked that there were three blocks located in this area at the time of Kelley confirmed his_ examination. He did not find any improper wiring.
(. psi J statement that the wiring in this area is black cable wiring, and
~
is non-safety.
r 8
., ,, CASE ATTACH'ENT 3 - Page 12 Kelley stated that during his inspection effort he also examined safety and non-safety cable in the location of M c,oncern, utilizing Map No. 4, to determine if any cables were pulled too tight. Kelley explained,that the, _
cables are tied off with",ti,e_. wrap'sTahd]n' c hored with adhesive clips to hold wires down and stated he found adequate slack in these cables. Kelley pointed out that these conditions are in axistence at the present time. However, he could not coment on the conditions as they existed in January 1980.
WMP ?
SG g M O
O e
S e
o 9
e '#
- D
-A-
- e 9 CASE ATTACHMElli 3 - Page -T3' .
Status of Investigation .
The status of this--investigation-is-CLOSED.- ----- --- --- --- -- - 7- - '
- -~
O e
e e
S e
O e
e o
G e
O e
e-
. CASE,ATTACHMEtT 3 - Pac.a 14-10 ,
.g . c 4 .
Attachments Attachment 1 - M signed statement- : - -.:.: :: w_: . 6-14-82 . COPY ALL Attachment 2 - N signed sworn statement 9-06-82 ORIG OI:RIV/CY ALL O
e a
d W e 9
O
\
e 6
3
l CASE ATTACHMENT 4 - Pale 1 '
1h26 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 I
214/946-9446 (clTIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY) l September 15, 1982 - i Administrative Judge Marshall E. Miller Dr. Richard Cole, Member i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Ker.neth A. McCollom, Dean Division of Engineering, Architecture and Technology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074
Subject:
Application of Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al. for an Operating License for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station '
Units #1 and #2 (CPSES)
Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 Limited Appearance Statement Michael Chandler Gentlemen:
On July 12, 1982, CASE contacted the Board and all parties via a telephone conference call to discuss an usual situation which CASE had encountered. On Friday, July 9, 1982, in the afternoon mail, CASE mceived a signed statement from Michael . Chandler regarding allegations of improper and faulty workmanship at the Comanche Peak plant in regard to electrical construction (including control panel wiring). The problem was that Mr. Chandler is presently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Insti-tution in El Reno, Oklahoma.
During that conference call, CASE indicated to the Board and the other parties the above information and a few other brief' details. The best possibility that.the Board
- offered was that Mr. Chandler's stateent be submitted by CASE as a limited' appearance statement in these proceedings.
However, upon fui-ther reflection, we felt that the magn'itude of the problems indicated by Mr. Chandler's statements were such that they should be more thoroughly looked into than what might be the case if they were submitted only as a limited appearance state-ment. Subsequently, following the hearings in July, CASE contacted Mr. Richard Herr, Acting Director, Field Office Investigations, NRC, Region IV, Arlington, Texas, and turned Mr. Chandler's statement over to him for investigation (see copy attached of CASE's August 4,1982, letter to Mr. Herr, and copy of Mr. Chandler's statement).
Mr. Herr at that time indicated that he did not expect to be able to conduct his investigation prior to the September hearings, and as far as we know at this time, the investigation has not been done. Although CASE would like to cooperate with the NRC in its investigation of these allegations, we also strongly belfeve that the Board should be aware of these allegations and that they should be included as a part of these proceedings. We are therefore submitting Mr. Chandler's statement herewith and request that the Board consider it as a limited appearance statemnt.
Si ncerely;
- - ') -
Attachmen ts ( v. . ) .ha n i -t i.: cdi lic.m rL [:c."
D rac iN
i CASE 4
.,h[
(CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY) s
=ET" 21h/9h6-9hh6 y+' August 4, 1982 U
t%
Mr. Richard Herr
.'x.. Actin 0 Director, Field Office Invesitgations
'l' U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 1114 Arlington, Texas
Dear Mr. Herr:
4 2
I am attaching a copy of the statement of Michael Chandler, an inmate at the
' t Federal Correctional Institution, El Reno, Oklahoma, who states that he worked at the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant until he was arrested them on January
' 7. .. 'll, 1980.
( ...
He alleges certain specific electrical faults of ronstruction at Comanche Peak which we believe should be investigated more thoroughly than the only other avenue open to us, that of presenting hi . statement as a. limited appearance statement in the operating license hearings for Comanche Peak. The members N*; of the Board in those proceedings, the NRC Staff attorney Marjorie Rothschild, l.2 '.R
'e .
and the attorney for the Applicants, Nicholas Reynolds, am aware of the alleger's
,;1 ' name, his assumed name at the time he worked at the plant, the date he was picked
.up onsite, and the fact that his allegations concern electrical matters including S jFi.
problems with the control panels. They do not know the specific details of his allegations.
- l. . '.
" We ask that you expedite this invesitgation as much as possible and that the following be done:
- 1. That the investigation be made by you personnally.
- 2. That information regarding your investigation not be given to Donald Driskill or Robert Taylor prior to your making the actual physical i
investigation yoursel f.
- 3. That I 'be kept apprised of the progress of your investigation.
- 4. That I be provided with a copy of the investigation report as soon as possible (I assume'this would be in the fonn of an Inspection and Enforcement Poport) .
. 5. That the Applicants be asked to waive the usual period for review for pmprietary information due to the fact that the Comanche Peak licensing hearings are due to resume Septenber 13.
S i nce mly , '
. .S'.
w CASE (CITIZENS ASSOCI ATION FOR SOUND ENERGY)
I l',r-
... ~
a ..
' t g' w f jj,f ' ,-
- (/U... 7'A. ~
(Mrs.) Juanita Ellis, President M.ES@ 4
N CASE ATTACHMENT 4 - Page 3 -
<
- STATDEGT OF PICHAEL CHAfiDLfM -
My name is Michael Chandler, Register No. 0303d-06h, and I am presently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution, El Remo, ~
Oklah ma. Prior to incarceration, I was working at the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant construction site undor the name of Michael Gale Maxfield, identification number T-797. I was arrested at the site on January 11, 1980,- The very fact that a fu;;itive could obtain employment at the site caused questions to be asked about their security measures, especially when it was learnod that my job gave me access to all areas of the construction job, even the most confidential.
I can personally attest to and will be supported by documented records of several faults in the electrical phase of construction at Comanche Peak as of January 11, 1980. Having been employed as a journeyman electrician by Brown & Root, Inc. during the latter part of 1979 until January 11, 1900 at
- Comanche Peak, I worked in the electrical " termination crew' doing the actual physical termination of the wiring and later on the "checkoat crew".
This latter crew checks the wiring done by the termination crew as to accuracy and proper termination technique. I was reqaired to turn in a written and signed report on each cable checked by ne. Some, if not all ot' these faulta can be verified and located through these reports. These faults inclnde improper lug sizing and actual physical alteration of lugs, splicing of cabl6, patching of damaged cables, improper pin setting on " canon" typa plugs, faulty grounding, wiring not properly protected from abrasion, wire tension
.,_. - t0o hich,.and improper protection of cables during thermal welding.
Lugs are a wiring device that attach to the ends of wires or cables as an aid to termination and come in a variety or rtyles and sizes. The " ring type" used at Comanche Peak has a hole in its ton: .te to accept screws from terminal blocks. These holes can be of varying size dependent upon what diameter. or stud site screw the terminal block is engineered for. A stud size six is smaller in dia:neter in both the threaded portion and the head of the screw than a stud size 8 or 10. The la;c for these, in order to fit the different terminal blocks and screw size taa- at the same time maintain the amperage capacity they are rated for, are manufactured with a different shaped tongue. For example, #12 copper wire has an at..perage rating of 20 amps, and a lug designed to acoept the wire must navo the cane or larger ampacity. Ths '
rating of the wire is determined by the ciameter of tne copper conductor. The rating of a lug is determined by the size and shape of the tongue. It must have a specific area of its surface in contact with the terminal block or its anpacity will be lessened. A lug vith its tint.;ue designed for a #10 screw has a hole in its tongue tSat is larger iaan tu hale in one designed for a #6 or
- 8 screw. 'Ihe tun;ue is also wider and thinner. .2 a lug designed for a #19 screw is useo on a terminal block designed for uno sith s/b ecrews, its ampacity is lessened bect.use a #6 screw havin; a smaller hem rize only applies pressure to tho iuner ring of the 1m.; toni;ae causin; a " belling" effect. It causes tha l outer edges of the tongue t'o curl outward, also lesa area under the screw head is in contact with the terminal b.wck because of its larger hole. There are many instances where this .as happenua at Comanche Peak. Scste of these ares
- 1. Auxiliary unildin:: Reactor hl---1.ug desi ned for an approximate screw size ,
l of J/3" ras used on a terminal block cesigned for fr10 screws. lhis was dtme with the aid of a steel washer with,;t the use of contact aid to prevent alco-trolysis cotween the two disoimilar netals. ,
4
~
CASE ATTACHMENT 4 - Page 4
- 2. Swit,ohgear Room. Several lugs designed for 1/13" screws were used on terminal blocks designed for #10 screws.
These two instances stand out in my mind but there are saany more in particular concerning the circulating water system and fire control; however without reference materials I cannot be more specific. Howevr,=,
there is at least one instance I can recall-in fact for which I an at least partiaUy responsible. This is the termination of a 1000 EM cable with the use af a 750 nCM lug that was drilled to accept the larger cable size. It was done after protest by both myself and Dennis Neaves, another journeyman working as my partner on the tennination crsw. Drilling the lug affected its anpasity in two manners one, it reduced tb amount of metal to conduct electricity and it was a bolt type mechanical lug, meaning that the lug was secured to the cable by means of a bolt or set screw in its body.
Drilling the lug body had the effect of lessening the number of threads to not more than three or four for the set screw to be screwed into. This was in a Motor Control Center in the Circulating Water system. Any failure in the circulating water system which provides coolant water for the reactor could possibly cause very serious problems.
At least one cabla in the Annunciator Logic Panels in the control room for Roastor il was spliced in the annunciator panel itself and covered over with other wires to hide it from sight. 1he cable was too large (it was assumed) to terminate on the fuse block to which it was designated.
Upon examination of the fuse block I found the cable terminated to the wrong side of it. Had it been terminated on the correct size the original cable would have fit. The splice was r ade on the orders of Frank Platt, the General Foreman over termination. also in the Annunciator panels there were several " Canon" type plugs in which the pins were not seated properly.
This can cause the connector pins to be pashed back into the body of the plug causing the pin or pins to have poor contact. The Annunciator Logia Panels give the alarm if any part of the system malfunctions. Any malfunction in tho annunciator systan can cause no alarm to be given in any emergency to which the plant may be subject.
Portions of the groundi- system for the cable trays in the Spreader Room were damaged either by e. .aployee collecting copper or deliberate vandalism. Strands were cut frk the cables in several places. The conductors were never cut entirely in two but the removal of a strand of no matter what -
length reduces the capacity of the conductor.
In the Control Center for Reactor hl literally hundreds and possibly thousands of wires were brought out of their metal ra,eway and pulled sharply over their sharp, unprotected edges, making them particularly vulnerable to abrasion and vibration. byery portion of every system in the plant could be, adversely affected by this faulty procedure.
At least one cable in the Switchgear Room was damaged while being pulled. Its insulation was nicked in several places and patched with heat shrink tubing instead of being replaced.
- In at least two instances wires or cautos were too short by only a matter of inches for proper termination. Shese were palled very tightly and terminated. They were pulleo tit ht enough that there is the possibility of their being pulled from their la ;s. One of these is in the Spreader Roaa; another la in a Motor Control Center in tha Circulating dater System.
l
( .-. -
s .
CASE ATTACHMEtiT 4 - Page 5
" Cad wolding" or ther.tal welcing of the groundin; conouctors on the cable trays was done after many cables had already been pulled through them. I could not inspect for damage, but the only protection used on the cables was an asbestos blanket that ,orotectea only the cables in the innediate vicinity of the weld.
I am necessarily vague on which partical.tr cabinet or panel or even syste:2 to which I refer dae to tino elapsed and the large number of. systems en which I worked. ' lith reference matorials the location of these faults could be much :nore closely identified as could others not rentioned specifically herein.
Signeo this _ /4 N _ day of Juno 1982 at El deno, Oklahcasa
//
O r$/ :. l k$ .
liichael Ghandl2
z e
e
'[
. , CASE ATTACHMENT 5 - Page 1
, AFFIDAVIT OF ROY KEITH COMBS j My name is Roy Keith Combs. T reside at 1020 Plaza Drive, Granbury, Texas 76048. 1
)
I hired on at Comanche Peak in December 1979, as a structural welder.
I worked two years in pipe hangers, then was transferred to the pipe welding department. I am certified in plate, carbon plate, stainless steel plate, stainless steel pipe, carbon pipe, gas tungsten arc welding, shielded metal arc welding.
I have been shown a copy of NRC Form 3 (6-82), Notice to Employees, on which it is stated that " copies of this notice must be posted in a sufficient numtier of places in every establishment where activities licensed by the NRC are conducted, to permit employees to observe a copy on the way to or from their place of employment." I have never seen a copy of this Notice at Comanche Peak, to the best of my recollection. I will look closely when I return to work tomorrow to be sure I did not overlook it.
I was contacted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding allegations made by Henry and Darlene Stiner, by investigator Donald Driskill. He contacted me at work. They called me in out of the field to talk to the NRC investigator.
-I was told by my immediate supervisor, Thad Turner, to report to Charlie Scruggs' office, the Assistant Project Manager fo'r Brown & Root. I was just told to go down the hall to his office and sit and wait in the NRC waiting room, in the Administrative Building. It was located so that all the" superintendents knew that I was there, and that I would be talking to the NRC. I was by myself at that time, and saw Al Marcot (not sure of spelling) come out of the NRC office.
When I came out of the NRC office, Isaiah Pickett and William Lamb were waiting to go in. All three of them are welders.
When I went into the room, Donald Driskill was there. No one else~was there.
There was a tape recorder on the desk, and he recorded the meeting. He told me that Henry Stiner had made some allegations and said that I knew about some x
CASE ATTACHMENT 5 - Page 2 things that were not by procedure at the plant. He wanted to know if I had ever plugged any base plate holes or done any illegal welding out there. I told him yes. He asked me if there was anything that I did that might cause serious damage to the plant or the people around it. I told him no. I felt that I didn't know that much about the stress of welds, that I'm a welder, not an engineer. I felt that I wasn't really qualified to say whether it would damage the health and safety of the plant or the people.
He asked me about whether or not rod cans were plugged in like they should be. I told him that I had seen negligence and improper rod control, and that I had seen them unplugged longer than they are supposed to be.
He asked me about whether or not I knew anything about illegal plug welds in base plates. I told him that I did know about a hole being drilled in the wrong place and their having to fill it in and mdo it, using illegal weld filler material and without QC being informed, and then making 'the hole again in the same area. I told him about other instances in the north cable spread room (Uni-t #2),
the 796 yard tunnel of Safeguards #1. In the Safeguard #1 yard tunnel there was improperly installed tube steel. The angles of the tube steel were cut wrong which by procedute would have left too much gap between the tube steel and the base plate.
He asked me about non-Q material being used for Q material on pipe hangers and supports. I told him that each crew had their own symbols and they were able to stamp whatever numbers they wanted to on the material.
After I talked to the NRC investigator, my General Foreman, Paul Collon (not sure of spelling), and Tliad Turner, my ininediate foreman, began treating me differently from what they had before. For instance, Paul Collon made a comment later to the foreman of~a group I had been loaned out to that same day
. CASE ATTACHEMNT 5 - Page 3 to " watch this guy -- he's pmbably a stoolie.'.' I worked for him for the' remainder of-that week, then was loaned out to somebody else to work on hard welds that were hard to get to or something they had been putting off. It wouldn't be considered a good job -- it was the sh-- detail. I also had to wald limited access welds. It seems like they saved up a lot of them for me to do, in the hottest part or the coldest part of the building. It seemed to me that I was being punished for talking to the NRC. This kind of thing's been going on ever since I talked to the NRC. I've been to the doctor for nerve medicine because of all this. It's affected my home life. I've had problems between me and my wife because of it.
Last week I told them I've had enough of it. It's got to stop. My foreman fixed me up with a transfer back to the pipe hanger department where I was before. I don't know what it's going to be like when I go back to the pipe hanger department tomorrow. They're having problems richt now in the pipe hanger departmen't and I feel that they need me as a' competent welder.
But they want welders that will confonn to what they say.
I had just come back from my vacation when I was contacted again by NRC investigator Driskill by phone. This was over a year ago to the best -
of my recollection. He telephoned me at home. He said if the judge subpoenas my name in court that he would have to probably tell hint my name. I told him I didn't care, and I toid him the reason I didn't care was because of what had been going on at work. I told him I thought I was being harrassed because I had talked to him. He said he was sorry. He told me if he was me, he would remain confidential. He didn't say why, but I assumed he meant to keep from being blacklisted.
e 9
CASE ATTACHMENT 5 - Page 4 i 4-I I have not been contacted by the NRC since I talked to Mr. Driskill ;
by phone over a year ago. !
I know of other problems in construction at the plant both in regard to hangers and the piping which could be significant safety factors. Until last night, I didn't know there was any kind of protection for whistleblowers.
Now that I do know, I want to be protected and to be able to bring these problems to someone's attentir 'm will see that they are cormeted without my being fired because of it. I've ried to tell my imediate supervisor, Thad Tumer, and he told me to just forgt s' , it, that this line had to be completed by this evening or possibly we'd all be looking for a job.
1 I have mad the ~ above statement, which was prepared under my direction, and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
W T Roy Kei$ Combs "
Date: 1/9/83 Aus %,fR>
fness Azaw Zf gAW Gitness ' -
STATE OF TEXAS On this, the 9th day of January,1983, personally appeared Roy Keith Combs,
.known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes therein expressed.
Subscribed and sworn before me on the 9th day of January,1983.
<Notary Public w d.fr>e m -
Tn and for the State of Texas
~
~ ' '
My Commission Expires: n/> s'
CASE ATTACHMENT 6 - Page 1 of 1 dFFIDAVITOFROYKETTHCOMBS .
My name is Roy Keith Combs. I mside at 1020 Plaza Drive, Granbury, Texas 76048.
This is a supplementary statement in addition to my other statement of this same date.
10" WAL'G There is a defect in a piece of 13 pipe. A piece of a consumable insert is hanging inside of the pipe. It has supposedly been bought off, but there is no possible way it could have passed RT (radiographic test) or X-ray. It should be very smooth inside, and the insert should have been melted and consumed and none should be left hanging down inside. The proper procedures could not have been followed. If it has been finaled out (which it has), the documentation was falsified. I'm not sure whether it is a Class 1, 2, or 3, but I know it is Q (safety-mlated). I can supply the location.
There are other problems at the plant of which I have personal knowledge, and if I am allowed to testify in the operating license hearings for Comanche Peak, I will discuss them further in my testimony.
JCMT ~/N Roy Keith/ Combs Date: 1/9/83 w L ffA*J p tness sadwa 9 Ak Witness /~ p M *f E o
/
/
\
\
N Em me as siar af Iummer tanned ar-Ise a surmer preadset er omsman!I Cast WAa SMEET 90GrA M * "d * " " ' * **
gDecenber 15, 1982 an,d e ,m,r,as ,s,, .t,su,n'd,u'm,,s,,ta,n,t, qu,e,,u,s,es'" anna,
' Front Page ,6 a jp her abwa er a,r stae one CAS 7, 9 IIRC emuldIsseassued a phet out a~s 9- 40 CE N TS _- We,"X es TroubledPro;,ect -
,,, ,,,,m,,=
at me ggmiser (NOTE: The copy which CASE
. he armar em ame. ,a,d,m,,e,,,,,,j;;g yeceived e tais article Constiuction Halt
>=er u asvi n===anac ano. already had portions underlified.)
huan.
At NuclearPlant Raises
's==w,s i a .dau.a"sr.
r"'-
ram =. = =s wie masar. v i.se ar easm.
Unset'tling Questions iram tBE*. *'""'
^ "_="e mnsr="
One is,How Fadlityin Ohio:='fd5'fghr ~ te NEIC-a measJ aveseransa et m'e","c s
ee.sia, rm e.e acomme n-d ,r.at Got So Neat Complet2on m m With So Many Problems
- Dmgs & Alcoholon the Job! am.,.d _ __ . un~s, -
" he asce r===...
9BkYsL%/i y' ear. ihe imC acney gave penulumiss to PacIse Oas a sascine mafr .By..JeMN av Tim R.m.m Eassuum8'sama*
a, as, :e6 to mast operser as Dahls h au-CUICDfMAT1 3y as owner's rechasing. . cimar plaar at Asus Smaca, um.-emly to me waam st Zimmer =eaar Maat, le seerest eat geakend sha PG43 engtseers ested atest 5 miss trera pas city. k Tf% essmeeved eat a amanyang the plant's ato esmpisest The tale af the romaamag 3% is gry to emanand as annagunaa, se atuary unclear. .
had almahemly used esmaructie data t'im tast asse baasd se a vanery of se a esagasese plaat being hadit at the s.a.
tural and papeNfort irtugelarmas at the remdar senaisuem et met prehlma. Se plaat rumales%Aused.
- propret, me federal leucasar ILagnismry ,
Omrmnismen ordered a hast to construensa There k miss me pumhety that asme op.
et meme pans of me plant dramed ascamary gramas plaats may ha .umpetmeted d= dane ser safe operanos and standswa. OsCIPaan because sedeal niety seenlasers bad ahma Cas & Easetne Ovwhich at heading a jggpstggg pag. 3g3 33ry a page E *
"Tgngr,ty at nuclear plaats recoved ta-gueup ase.omuuswan of sinnes huudag factpry, had se st? him"g.
tura protectm tense pubacity Imusung me Iffs arr+dem at to nand fuel is De 9e Three tide *kland ancesar ScBry la Insrd goaMer of Elst Noe er unty as reas- Pennsylvaalt Though the verst escadest la 8 mutag th= pred#ctism, a20sigt a spda 9e tamary of annumercial suelaar power s an ang two are akadussey eenam me' was caused by equipment huusus and sper, Plant si he ladit and operauuL" aest mistake raser mas esasoucusa een.
James Neppler.me hand at the N3tCs te thracles. R was aise due h large part to the g%hal a=9am= atDe- mest Oncaro. ganure of ethclals a me government and au-enesn1 have that ahmslute certalary. Mr. clear Industry to idently and effecuvely Neppler, unser st$ce serrases the 2irmaner deal wie araDar prehdems mas had ec.
plant, mys iam u a alim paustery me turned earber at seer nuclear inc2 Des.
7,,,,,
n'"c,','e ,I'_' $"',"#de ans En history. And gaugt he ad4s sat the more te the esse of Three naar Island. and 1 mary anrer as mat Se pit a wul evassantry apurred partly by Ge esperutte as Iarn-mer. me NIIC has manad as he answas is apurase he Jams as to say: ggg!L to prete andramans reruse ars hapuuster me sta a N a ammaar ter at sueleu -
""'"I'""""*'8 mas aan an_ _un M
A 5330.000 Ftme as maars ser up muy sessak a team The pruttusa, ammeng to the 30tC and I seers, are named: ommarucase rumres erw. ** O' I'.IA .I* IP .
a a.re ma.mm.t . er.ha.ue epm = te.enr earta.ru.d; t.
But, a.se ,are W c,-
he ergesag; se gehy of mael and say, analy at the sumy ed the unspamun hdl'6-sentenal h suponL added to hat, alery ,, hr ne - -- -
getsars hose em to tatut &&rummuns ama m"WNymn w ago adals arm 888 a*'
and harasmus syns a de mar seen ja , _ M Ese 4.ar IrlE Wetas a IIIe - ende mat ihr emnamme has me rigsgrc_es Q areass na Ces 4 -
only a maan mart se the art al the Isrzgg ggy ager hyrumme h ~ -- as a nuclear alta "We rely a me ,
web a marasaramarense ----- A gar she ammeractsrs le do the job salgg. spree me aan is as asistreutend en' etshc.* anys me IIItC's att. Neppler.
eggggL And a -- = u prot
- te lhe enar of 2kamer, the Jf3tC fuels ag.genthat crt:maal visiaams Dr same el that tis trum was sheet Frers a gn:lty-ther ^ :- J IB ^ * * *
- assarance =***!*at. als k the eerst plaat Ptrase Thru e PepealCohena f , -
e#
l t
CASE ATTACHMEftT 7 - Page 2 A t uuuttu r iuject. vu11su ucuuli natt at n utiear r.latit In Ohio Is Raising a Host of Troublesome Questions - .
Continued from First Pape So Mr. Applegate went to the press and tics.
I've ever seen." says Victor Gilinsky, one of managed to generate a few stories, includ-the agency's Dve ruling camm*ners. Though obviously pleased with parts of ing a lengthy piece in the Onicago Sun- the NRC reports, GAP Sereelv disagreed For its part, Qacinnati Gas & Electric Times. And in May 1960. he contacted the with tame major condustons. GAP argued strongly defends its conc et and the quauty Government AernnatsWi*v Praiaet, a 9tzt likw ouuanng at Zunmer shouldn't go of the Zimmer plant. A nokesman for the r==nrion. D.C.-based nrivate group that stuity admits that there are-" paper work wgrks to protect whicia hia==, snostly in ahead until all the problems in the existing work liad been idenuSed. And the group as-n de etaaria="in the conhtructice records and the governrnent. Though the private detec- serted that given the utility's past failures to that some repairs are needed, but he adds: tive was a private citizen, GAP sook the follow construction rules.at Zimmer, inde ;
- Basically, we think the plant construction case.
pendent engineers should be brought ja to is safe and sound." trinelanau Gas & Elec. Enter 'Ibomas Devine, GAP's legal direc- help fix the plant's problems.
tric ' owns 40% of 21mmerl.a unit of Co- tor. In the 31 year old Mr. Devine, Mr. Ap- .
iumbus, Ohiobased . Arnerican Electric plegate found someone willing and able to AledIntosupport of its posttion. CAP inJ3 ggt the NRC 120 paees of EFLher conten-Power Co. has a 28.5% interest in the facil- probe into matters at Zimroer. (la choosing
' ity, and Dayton Power & Light Co. owns the a career, Mr. Devine says, "I had to decide tions about i,. ;Jems at zunmer and sur
,,gg,) ,;. pdFlutr!!REE"tEhtentions with another group whether to be a lawyer or an investigative of documents numbering some 3000 pazes.
Whatever the merits of the respective ar. reporter. So I became an investigative law-What's more, by this ume, other ageocaes guments, the fact is that the NRC was get. yer.") Mr. Devine and his coucagues at and individuals were locking into matters at ting warning signals since 'the mid-1970s GAP talked to every source suggested by Zimmer. The JustggRggzgnent, for exam-about problarns at Ziramer. However, those Mr. Applegate and fonowed every le ad pro-pie, began investaratins enrrihta erbnital signals-ranging from complaints by plant vided by the private detective and then de, at the plant. And in June.Tgg workers to some of the commission's own veloped new sources and leads of their Id his Srst hearing ante'situabon
! routine inspect'on Teposts-went largely un- oWB-at Drnmer. -
heeded unti! coeThomas Applegate ap. When the GAP investigators felt they had '
enough evidence of an inadequate invesuga- Construction Halt ared on the scene ~
The 31 year old Mr. Applegate is an un- Don by me NRC Bey nnt to the special '
,,, red
! t e
likely Sgure for the role he has been playing in 'the Zirntner affair. A private detective
'I
, fed al n- n ', Zirdiner halted atelv/nanAah$rts with no nudear background, he first came wiusde-tilowing rovernment employees. Th'e I' * "" " '" * ** ""' " "# "'""""
to Zimmer in November 1979 in the course c o w e at the plant.
, of investigating a domestic squabble; the p fhe r n r. nn , 7,' 'Yarlier this year, CAP !Lled requests un-husband of the couple involved happened to C der the FTeedom of Information Act seeking work at the plant. s sponse was 2 start new h-' supporting documents and draft reports re-During the domesuc probe, Mr. Apple- va"' nunn of ammar one b the commis- leased 2 Se NRC's invesugabons of 2&rn-
! gate uncovered evidence of timecard cheat- sion's inumal audkrs n&nd the NRC's mer. GAP's Mr. Devine says the requests ing by Zimmer workers. He brought that to initial probe of Mr. Applegate s charges.. An; were partly prompted by suspicions that the attention of utility officials, who were other looked at the quahty of Zimmer's core parts of the reports had been watered down 1 sufficiently impressed to hire hirn as an in- stacuan. W 2at 02emeum men dekkd en- '
vestigator at the construction site in Decem. Th a te ro re la 2 tirely' i ber 1979. A month later, he was let go. The g g, response to those requests, the NRC yg;gms M 12 M 18 We safety criuria for told GAP that the comrnission's files didn't t utility says his work was finished. Mr. Ap-l plegate insists he wasfired because he was buildmg a nuclear plant. The report also in- contain any drafts of the auditors' report on
- exposing construenon problems at ~ the da s imm wo ers who d k WUM Appimu hbuon. But plant. cl(de g rs , sources say that statement, though perhaps
- Being dropped didn't daunt Mr. Apple. mer. Two plant guards testified to observing . technically correct wasn't ready true. As.
gate, in early 1980, on his own, he called the a bekmaking operaun and gun raEes k m NRC Wesup h@ed h me e NRC in Washington 1rith his charges, which Ing mn at me site. told Congressman 'Udall, he had had draft copies of the report in W office Ble but was included theft of materials and defective 'Vlolation of Our Rules' welding at Zirnmer. He talked several times ordered to remove them after GAP Bled tts The spokesman for Cincinnati Gas &
to staff officials, he says, but didn't-think Electric says the utulty paid the NRC fine request. GAP recently filed suit against the they were showing enough interest. He then "to avoid endless hearing" on an appeal and NRC in a Washington federal court wektar placed another call to the agency, demanded a determination of whether NRC employees not because it agreed with all the findings.
to speak with the top man and was con- He says further that alleged incidents in- acted illegally in handling the requestL i nected with John Ahearne, the acting NRC volving alcohol, guns, drugs or bookmaking The response to GAP's informatld re-
, chairman. " Twenty four bours later . . . two quests ramed heated debate within the
' would be "in violation of our rules." NRC. sources say. Some NRC officials ar*
NRC investigators were at my front door." The probe liy NRC's intemal auditors rued that while the agency could fight pub-t he recalls. agreed with Mr. ADD)eeate that the 193] ge diggjosure of certain d0curDents, it was But the detective was soon to be disap- NBC_.tnvestigauon ot his ebarres was super-pointed. The NRC investigation resulted in Beial. FoTexample, the detecove had said obligated under the law, kt Be very least to only one, relatively minor, citation. "They HITdeScient welds had been accepted for identify all the documents it had. "What i just surfacely treated my allegations." he use; he went on to cite three such welds. happened was a cover-up," asserts one NRC 3 asserts. *Tve spent more time looking for a The NRC invesugating team said that official.
lost dog." (In hindsight, Nunzio3glatmo, Jamesrwningt. the head cf the NRC's' i charge couldn't be substantiatedc But the internal andit office, says tnat twme of
.the NRC's current chairman, that NRC's internal auditors found that the com-the commission's initial orobe . r pending litiganon he can't fuDy respond to e- mission's investigators had missed the fact i " ce charges of a covenp.3ut he does say:
late s charres should have been more com- that one of the cited welds had teen re- "If you know all the facts. It isn't fair to prehensive.} placed after Mr. Applegate mMe his allega- paint us as being less than hooest."
CASE ATTACMENT 7 - Page 3 Documents CreateDoubtsA bout Veracity OFSafetyReportsonSomeNuclearPlants av .wau s===v JM siwyn,,.n,, the CAO faded to make a "convindng case **
A number of nuclear power plants oper, of the wed for an inspector general, ating in the U.S. may have undlwvered de. The GAO report didn't touch on the mat.
fects because of falstDed federal safetyin. ter of falsmed inspection reports, which spection reports. were the subject of an OIA investigation in
. Documents obtained under the Freedom 1977. It that year, according to the needom of In!ormation Act from the federal Nudear of Information Act doeurnents, an NRC in-Regulatory Commission indicate that in the spector charged he had discovered faked in-early 1970s federal inspection reports were spection reports several years earber while irritten for inspections that weren't cer working as inspector for the Atomic Energy made on nudear power plants under con. Cornission, which was succeeded by the struction.$uch reports are n triterrai part NRC in ."1975.4 af the process for determining:whether a Besides reports being written for.taspec-plant is built safely enough to operate. . tions Dever made, this inspector claimed The documents also show that despite ev. that valid inspection reports had been al-toence of falsi5ed reports, NRC oscials. tered by ser'ar NRC cmcials with the possi.
made little~ effort to determine whether un. ble result of hiding construction de5dencies.
safe plants had been allowed to operate
- The inspector also asserted that colleagues Since 1975, the NRC has had an internal were temporarilysuspended from inspecting watchdog known as the OfDee of insrector- blants if they tried too vigorously to do their and Auditor. Among other tast.s. the QIA in- 30DS-vesugates charges of misconduct on the part' 'in ' releasing the documents on this mati of NRC omelais. But off1dals inside the ter, the NRC b!ctied out the name of the in-NRC and other government omelais contend spector making the chargesi. Altnast .all the office lacks independence and isn't tough other names were similarly expunged. How-enough in pursuit of possible wrongdoing. ever, what ident15 cation there was, along For example, a 19S1 report by the General with interviews with NRC sourtes,indicale, Accounting Office, an arm of Congress, said the charges involved federal inspection ac-l the OIA regularly submits draft reports to !!vities in the southeastern U.S.
people. being investigated and sometimes The NRC inspector refused to give OIA changes the reports as a result of their com.
ments. - -
Investigators spec!Sc evidence to'back up his charges. He said be had given such spe-The GAO also contended the OIA has pre- cifics to Atom!c Energy Commission o!S.
mhturely terminated some investigations cla!s four years earlier and felt his career and recommended that Congress consider had suffered for the effort.
creating an inspector general's omce for the-NRC. Documents show the OIA investigators talked to ofBdals involved in the 1973 inves-In responding to the GAO report the tigation. Those officials confirmed the find-NRC disputed many of its findings and said log of transgressions serious enough to prompt the transfer of a number of AEC employees. But_the OIA investigators found that all the records of the AECinvesfigation had been destrond.
In a report, OIA investigator liwrence J.
Strickler concluded that available evidence tended to support the inspector's charges.
Following 'that report, however,2the NRC stopped its probe. Senior NRC staff officials decided again.a sending a report ca the mat-ter to their bosses, the five NRC cornmis-stoners, on the ground there wr.sn't anything the commissioners could do.
' James Cummings, the head of the OIA since 1978 and therefore not involved in ei-
- ther the 1973 or 1977 probes, says be hasn't reopened the investigation partly because he doesn't believe any falsification really. oc-curred. "I've never seen people in this agency make out phony inspection reports."
he says. But be adds that if anybody did make out such reports,it would be a "very - -
very serious pituation."
I s
\
\
t
/
./
i I
s o l
! l s allasTmlesHerald
-d.
.'.s '. . ,
Saturday. January 1,1983 _ ; 25. cents
=
s 4 -. . .
! Whistle ! blowers accuse $., RC of hostility i
- o, - -
,,a,,,,,,e, Coman/che Peak worke.rs say mformants aren,t protected . .
ma,cc. .:'ry;-*
in her drtwway and she was abruptly infortned she of their report, whirk tencluded claims almut eenswurtton defarteses The kunne of RC s e When cluality tenuel inspretor ers found e Carlene Stmer antarted the U.S. with.NRC enarldngs. and the foi- could as longer rtde the company there hwas no enertt to her charges, at Canenrhe Ibk. 80 sesles sansde toward whistle biswers tank en e O Nuclear Regulatory Commission lowing day en ,NRC mwetigster bum, becoine there was no insuranre amirding to Mrs. Super, is west of Dallas, and whether the new dwnennan in Mowenbee when G shemt allegedly faulty welding at gave her a cheery helle he frena of for pregw women, ersurdeg to what happens when a sturleet plant agenry enskes any effort to prewat senswurtinn prehlesna prornptest the >
the Carnanthe Peak nuclear plant. ether employees. a her tretunany et Camanche Peek h- **hestle belower"--employees conn- setsleauen agesnst those who emn' NRC to ordet a hah to safety-relet-she was amured her 6dentity would . Later, two eewerkers thrutened W heanngs last September. Pisineng about costrurten defms forward The yrtes of heartngt es wher4' nuclew ed workplant et themeer wuham d
be kept er, ret to beet hee sep, a supervisar amesed Then she said she found that - gare to the NRC 6 II. Zanurire
_ Ohus >3 A controwesy has developed over Mrs Suner sesufted b engweenf to g $r-It dain't work out that way. Ar. her of steahng darwnents, her offire enurh of what she told the NRC he. ,3, nving home meth sewral cowork. was snowd four umes in two days, wetsgators was garbled or left out whether the NRC is recepuve to resume by March, es the preredure
! l $
ce e
er
g-
- m i
s s
\ ,
\
- \
s _
. DAI.LAS TIME 5 HERALD, Saewday. Jan I, IM3 NPtC accused:of{ hostility to whistle blowers
~
/
Crours say the NRC shouhf not how eDowed h ' - J
. o ,,
_ p _ g._sW._._
the hearings they were emsble to determine en- _ m.t ,_ __
the plant were fauhy and eviutd cut $15 benson
, ( -a "E,'," eiustwly whether the Aprg It firing of formee to repasr. The suppnet, drsagewd to keep steene l perevet e planeofwith . f -, so andsnany problene to get withke 97a they stucouse wheth- :. Feek hispeciar Charles A. Aarheen and celant papee fran rupturing and causing a
( er smilar proberen have gone omdrteriod by the was in Ntahation for reports he (Ged about wid* snettdown of the veertor erf wad geot isnderge '
i NMC at the other 60 plants under ennstrwton in ..' Ing defects et the plant But a _ . ' , UK.
ftmas ouves analysis by the artsty uned Iste ned j Uruned States, inraudes Comanche Peak. >
Q Department of tabar found that the whRng m- y,ar. The NRC staff memhers enkt believed The NRC has admitted that R InicaDy did a 'de , # porta, and soot . , disetamfaction wkh the supports would pass the test, laugerfedal Snwezigauan of a whistle blower"a .-' '
Atrhimon's performance, were the cause of th*
amid any that dadn't would be fined by the utdely.
sunnplaints et the Zammer plant ,
e- -
firing "gf that phiknophy were te prevail, we
- But NRC and uttilty offirtale hulst the .
NRC Investigster Donehi D. Diesktil said of wouldn't newd any heertne, would j NRCs inwetagattens et Cornanche FWok have . ' . - ' Aktiesen *l beheve that he's bestenDy an honrot we'* aasd Mdler, who the NRC to sub '
I teen estennwe. -
person. I don't know that he is always totaDy
'If you hwilt et the snes>hom et the howsql. snit a soport en the Doyle aDrgetions "The staff Informed with regard to the snetters he wouhl M say Twerythhig h OIC er if M isn't, ge8ans tavolwd. aad au the deians they druerthe dunawa" s in ther reporta, I think it has to be etn6ms that we's newee 6 and take care of u? s why as we
. 'In anothee development, the NRC after td. .hewe a hearing ** The stafra repart has not been '
the anweetagatsons are thorough." said Dek Rane- . ItiaDy Bnd6ng Ettle snerte to Anthemnn's aDegemons gg,p geg,d ecy, e spokesman for Temas Ute: sies Serwkwe Inc. labout wekhng deferia, was farved to roweree its NHC offannis in Asiingtese say the their Insk
. , , Anordeng to CA5F, the pubhr Intervet I stand in Newendee when a pairster et Comanche grimps the NRCs herCinns of the Atchanon esse is mnre diffaruit bresume they have ordy one in. - , Feek arttdenta9y found such deferta sent a ch61hrq aneumsge se other workers who spretor in ress fence et each g4 ant, and sedy e .
- After the pe6nter snade his disconry, the handful of investigators se handle a 13etate , , pg.3 NRC, in an isnusisal mowe, rewrote en eerber wre M of emhg forud m the NRN regim. *
.investissove separt The changes made at etea' that the NBC wee not heterested in preescting Howewr, snore than 4 slosen wttnesses at
_-.( that the first NHC Inweedgemon had not twen as them fran eenpany retatiegen.
the C he Pesh hearings easd one of the
'f*__- g , Am NRC spokesman declaried terrenesis en c.: ,. thorough as the feret separt druhrated.
ht adeg% W he h h W 6 N7tCe biggces probierns is a negatswe attitude to-werd wheele hinwers. ., _.. g'.,"
, be August, Marshall E Maller, the chairman of the US Atomic Safety arut Llrensing Ibard, ered by the htensing board. But an Aug 27 afD.
A trical pubhe interest group that has twen .',A*,*,"' which is heartng the Comenrhe Peak case, see * ** ' "
n partsnpaung in the brensing hearings, the Ost , - - s ' *'~ ,
eased NRC staff snembers of swegenre end lg , g erns Amonatson for Sound Dwrgy, chargid that 7 ,smus, ,
gw g,j 7
. .. . r.,
the NRCs Arhngtnn effere has twen se hnstDe es colhe Alchleen their inrenrhasive case a 41g emerrisebowstigation in fuusty." of the*""' : j *ft appears to be a .
g bellef amnng p
' - 'g' AM whistle blowers that workers no longer see any juuria m talking to federal effartals.
ve, He threatened them with contempt sanctions If they faskd 88 **arn over tenrensored reports of them that thetr admple cooperation with NRC hi-wotigeh a may to interpreted es en art e8 dis-g The problem is not isolated to the Artngton offire a.ud leute Clark, the emenstive direnne of
.., theer inwstigauon es the twierd sould drew hs ' Inyalty by their employers," wrote the bevestiga, een conclusions about the firing The NRC has ines, Drtskatt and Rachard K. Kere, '
- 3 n
.the Govervunent Arieuntatabty Pro)1. e Wash. ', * '
g = ,, g*
- p
' i Idarked out namco end crudel details he he inves- gggy. Preesdent Juerdta I3ha, who has pre.
h thetan, D C-linsna prswate group art up to gen. .n ,, f- - . g - p ,5, tigeuwe transertpts to presert the anonymsty of tertwn.ci,unw m - -
wunem , .
,m,d 13 h.mid
,,, ,ee,,ne. miei,rioet die four a do ne,,oie, of Ikens.
w,uie ,s as "The NRC In retarinuely bed almut low *
- "You%e geot tisen cooperedwe * & filler teki dem ews u usufy
' hey deal with the people who cente to thern @trnversy has developcd over whether "You have not been canded les yene preernte. e with mformaban," esuf Clark, whose group was . v the NRC is rweptive to claims ohnut teost" The NRC staff is appealing his order A "Thn=c who haw gnne to the NRC have in y evinnedered instrumental in bnnging atiencon u constructiore defkiences et Camanche Peak, hearing is scheduled for Jan.19
- seeny cows hwd to regret it." she seed "The .o the prntdems of the Cmrtnned plant. and whether the agency makes er.y effort to Mauer anin thesumed the NRC etaff he Srpm estowne wheatle blowere have rewivent fenen
- Snme erveria events have reinforood the prevent retalaation agamst those who corne temhee for einempting to rebut the test many of 8'he NRC has been apperhng end the import en t . m
- g 1 , - 1 Jart Doyle, e former s'oinanche Peek engineer, - the and their fannhee is eseggveeng 'Dus gets epinem of the NRC of crttles who epscothm enwegegations of whistlethe thoroughness blower comJ forward. '- before they had stud 6ed Doyle^e testimassy and bak to the propic et the glent. Many patential plaints at Crwnarer he Peak. that of another enguarer, Mark Walsh whistle blowers simply are not rende to put Certr future and peesent ptie en the kne." -
I
-a-k
\
\
\
\
6
/
./
- s Iloth 54rm Est and Qark, the hood of the -
nothmal whette blowers group, any MRC hweets. 8h' N 'y My. a'nd sh(s nm a drafts' man," charged,is eften a way to avoid tooldng et owr.
Tam"ys on h tape. . -
en M as wh wHnen claire thM hun-gMore eften dhplay a hastile atu.tude tiet d.is.
gg , m.
In the meetmg with Mrs. E2hs, NRC erhc6als drote or thousard of weMs are defective .t tend her the wunmre frwpently cani pinpnint In alw ene of the Zimmer plant, the NRC in
-g think the emnudiese M,of ite NRC' appears to be.*Why are you hew? Do you have a which of the M00,ehettkal cabire they beheve 1000 partvwed a whistle banwer's widesweeping grudge assenst the musipeny*' Mrs.13hs said. .
wm improgwely speed ce wluch of Llw H.000 charges down to Amt three allegedly faulty I During a tape-russeded heterview on Itee. 3 p'pe suppnrts were defereve. Leida When the NRC eeld stee weM charges
,.,g.nded by Mm Mts, a young draftenen told "Wh* ' th' Prettfac informanen of where couhts's be substenuated. the whistle blower It's at and h"elptng us locate it, we're swelly at a turned to Clark's gseup for twfp.
. three NRC E ' . that electrtcal embers sney have teen My epiked et the pasnt , lose to be able to expend the type of snanpower has roup, efter finding evklence the NRC Ne she ased that hp and other draftensen were to go and Isok at en of the emble er all of the investigation was inadequate, persuaded the fasted e use guseswork to eseede where to put h*"8 s to try and Israte something bke that," Merit Systems Protectke. Board.a federal agenry pope suppnrts, when that work should have been * . NRC"investagster Jun Gaghardo sold on the tape. estabhshed to help goversunent whhtle blowere, done by egneen CI
~
In the tspe, the NRC staff 'ummin's rEpset3 . son wh'y'k however,anye the weineeses there Wien can is an sect be obvious prectae - ree. Se prod De NRCs the invesdgation second NRCinte reopening its investigation found viola.'
edly assured the drafunnen Dennis Odeon, that - th'J *N shu emP oyed l at the6r plant and de not Hans of 12 ef the la basic safety erlierte et the the plant's "cherks and balanresa system of Ituel. a haw amme to schmoue drawings that could plant, including defects in about 70 pennt of sty AWntrat would ashe care of any probb'm that l'elp them p6npoint a partkuler weld out of the the welding he NRC then halted a;, ,
might estet. When Cultan eeuM not penpohit the
- thoisiands they may how inerked oss he said and NRC offarlans any they don't know whether enact Incettons af the electatesi embke and pipe .'U* NRCs dnnend for sprtif6 s, Gark the plant ewr win be granted a keenne.
' ' - - (' ,y supports, the havestigators sold he was astiang them to land "the provertdat needle he the baystark? . . , ,, . . . . 3 ,. rt Culton left kg frustration and later sent a M
statement to the Ihrenshq luned espleining why t's he decsded not to pursue the nestese. *1 think the y, NRC repreernteeves trted to niske sne feet hke I ' Q canw from a hitle Pedunk dirt town and treated 2 me as such." he esid "They tried to say things and make sne any things that were not true. As A far'an I'm eencerned, we were badgrred." . 9 4
'. In a tape-stverded meeting in Nowebee be. ,
tween Mrs. E21e and Rohert Taylor, the ree6 dent to NHC inspartor at the plant Taylor es64 Chhore ,
was wrong 6n feeling unquahfied to de the pipe support work. *I think my wife could have done a" t.,
I
h
\
\
n . .
W' , CA$t ATTACHMENT 9 - Page 1 FORT ll0RTH STAR-TELEGRAM Friday Evenin'g 1/7/83 g
, $$ Editorials / Letters -
WI ,
/
Doyer-upat ComanchePeakischarged ed,couM mesa the potential for a Brown & Root Construction!ne.,the to the Nuclear Regulatory Comt'nt, Theinspector, Charles Atchhon, He said the improperly poured By ERIC II ARRISON nurlear disaster. contractor bundlag the plant for alon because he does not trust the esa fired three separate times from base could shtft under the wescht of star. Telegram Wrtter But AntentoVers.TUGCO'aquak Teass Utultlea ne cesspany tnvet federslagenrytoconductamtmpar. construction jobs at two different the 70&too rtactor, causing the pipe A former foreman at the Comaa- Ity amurance supervisor,saliin as tagnuonfauedtesubstanuateanyos tiallavesugaden. nuclear planta after tesurying at that supplies cooling mater to the ehe reak nuclear power plant has interview the vlolations do not pose Duungham's charget Opponents of nucletr energy regulat hearings about faulty reactor te break.
anche Peak. which is charged that offklats are conduct- a hazard.
Inga coverep*tohidehazardsthat However,a second lovestigatlee, have questioned the commission's welds et Vega said Dillingham ts act quall- conducted byTexaa Utilities Gener- im rtiality in hearings before the enderconstruction nearClen Rose. g,b,gh,W,,it y,,f" B a &
,gg brandothersbroughttotheiretten- fled to pedge potential hasards in stingCo.,oneof threesistercompa- f Gon, but a safety official for the the condition of concrete wallt al mies that form Tesas Uuuties, sut> Ing AppealBoard.
Atomic Safety and IJcent Juanita Ellis. president of theCiti- N g, sens Amortation for Sound Energy, that a superior ordered him I[
4 alw'8ust Au to ese plant says the former employee is "He's not a structural engineer." - stantiated two of the charges *** tant gst ta a not quahfied iojudge potenuat ham- Vegassid.*He's not knowledgeable ' DullaghanW most significant said at least I.AST MONTH a former weld. employees backedaeut dozen ef tesunuclear fyin fj((aag 3g gg ,e ardL 4 - Inengineeringtechnologyorlacon- charges - made in a sworn state- Ing inspector at the plant, who beforetheNRCheesuaetheyfear who worked in the area tha said
- The fortner foreman, Arvill Dill- crete." spect signed Dec.18-tavolved two chargeo that he mas ttredin raprisal similar reprisals. -
ingham Jr,said Thursday tn an ta. *** - aDeged safety violations that he said for testifying before the NRC, was Dulmghamcharged that rejected93 the,y g. knew laor nothing theef theinc6 la dent Dil.t.IN r aggr.e. gate mat,er,ial was mixed with, dead. ,~
s.erview th.at_proced.u.ral v.lo,ta.u.ona, c.o.ul,d.a,esult Hes.. core.H o.t c.o, in.a sneltd_own.,of to borthe adm ordered,rei.n.
th.
stat,e,d,with back_ pay by .s ge ,g
.ou.,s to re-r ..o mot e.r_e o,,t.b p .m ted r. .G.a.ter HAM,WA,Slaid of,f la1kemsc vesuga o. 3.s is - c e r t.e ..ncrete_. min, the - t motm o e.ks b, he a tt . g.a a,verw ,mudge.
t ar t tor. the mse ,. . P, esse see <.ver..p 1
! Cover-up at Comcmclie Peak is charged
$l.m a s Contissed from Page13 remeter head is being removed for talning walls without the required didn't havethe autherttytoput DlH.
f A COMPANY REPORT on the refueling. authertsation. The drtiting weak Ingham back towork."But evenifI l d. lavestig uon sold tests on the con, "the shavings ces be washed in- ened the walls, Dulingham enld, did, I wouldn't let him blackmall ll cretefausdteshowanylmpurlues side the reactor.which can jam the Danny Grismo, who said he wit. us."he said. ***
Dullaghsmaald theconcretewas fuelcellstandicouldeventusetoth* Dessed the boles Selng dtt!!ed. coe
- aever tested. Witt could not be controsroda,"Duunghamealdinhls perated in the company's August
- VEd A SAID Du!!nthamlost his i reached for comment. statemenL investigation. In an laterview job because employees are being One of Dulingham's anegations * ** Thursday.he stid heis satisfied now laid off as work at the plant slows g;
e that was never lavestigated in. IFTHEMETALparticlesfused that proper paperwork was done dawn.
1; volved the construction of under. to the roda,they could prevent the and properauthertza'lonwasgiven. Dil'Ingham, however, questlens water lamps In the pool surround. rods from being replaced property Vega denied Dillingham's access. the timing of his layoff.He said that
- ' Ins thereactor Dulinghameharged and could cause a speltdown, he tion that Vega warned him not to in August, when he returned to h that his superintendent prevented said. contact the press with h!s charges. work after meeting with proun &
l m. him from cleaning drill shavings Vega -who said he would need He said Dillingham called him in Root officials la Houston, he was l* fromtheismpposts thesupervisor, inore information before discuse. ' December and asked if he could stripped of his work crew, p' Dulingham aaid,wesin toomuch of Ins the atlegation-dismissed Dill- help get his job back.He ssid Duling. After working a new asstanment Ingham's claims that any of the al- ham threatened to make the far several weeks he entl'd Vega h a hurry.
Dillingham said the shavings, leged violations pose a threst. charges public if he was not put andthenWSt Rice.groupvicepret
. Nwhich remale Inside the hollow Dtillogham etse charged that back to work. Ident of the Brown & Root Power lamppo.sts.cou.ld.beco.m.e di.alodged holes
- were.dri. tied throuch the Vega who said hig job is ron. Division.Dillinghamseld liessidhe I
.~.s.. . .
- 1. W . 5.
- v. ,
. CASE ATTACHMENT 10 - Pace 1 --
, D .11as Times H:rald Sund y, January 9,1983 $
V f:.
T D' '
' ~
R~A N K CONTENTS F
.7 .
E i The Atchfalaya hasta f.,.P7,f "
- ~ i
'~'~'~'^"""~'~
12 -
'g
' ~
.bp'".t W
~
tains some of the country's most l',
e)
.CfD'>
, l beautiful scenery in its swam-E i. -
i' g plands and bayou muntry. But it's ( .? r-
}.y.J':?,;'0 ca.
a,_
in danger, both from nature and ?.l. ~ k ',,Wf . . . ,v, . i -
fro:n man. The Mississippi River, -L* ;7 t .' . .'r 4 "
- h '
always seeking the a=aiaat course, .J I */;?t< ; .
- f f
threatens it from one side. Oil in- f' ..,-G 7 .. ' C7
)
d tarests, and man in general, threnc- -
en from another. On the cover,
./.*/ .j
- ($3 l' -
'e
,M L G,
- Daniel Singleton, whose family hves on Avoca Mand e-
- = h . U . ?. .
..e,,,-
-. Y By Mary Barricanu &pi. . A:u
~
3- .. !
'.l*
ci
. a '.
a -
Cover byBarron Ludlum .c
%,"" :- .#?YM4 .
1- .
i s t g ,,
g f;
'M Blue Haven your leading Blowing the whistle s, f
&threeW poolpackages M W sizes and pdces to h today and thanks again for Chuck Atchison is a whistle blow-er, a former quauty atrol inspec- ,'a'i #
! h/ '(-
' '5. f NN'./(4;;
tor at r%mmk. Peak who was i
'eaanyM.*39aa. fired after be reported safety viola.
.' ! DN u-tions. His former employers say be T.C.K .;. . ND ELECTRIC m a liar, but the Nuclear Regula. _ f )
. -c * #..
d_ 18' x 36'- tory C-=i= ion has substantiated . -
[ t
,15.. .~ = . 4119 995 By Mary Barnneau -
- 2. i i
. l
- e. a.- ,, e- .
t V ; f '-
, ,c ..
i l
3-
< 1 e *
. iof ths. Blue Haven bonus package.
a wilindude these fantastic automatic )
-avenEnergy-Sweepwiu keep yourpool -
) ,
sai.oinduoethem tectranaior. ' , l:. .
t and dispenses ch!arine to your pool E*xg.e. in
.w, save energy. save time. DEPARTMENTS ')L.
e.
People 2 1:
FINANCING ,
AVAILABLE O.A.C. r gad gggdg 10 P
.lNTEREST RATES AS LOW AS 14% g [
. . na.m.q. ,
- g :
ar i.
t cc. .. m,,+ w rt-s . 20 .
DING THE .
SINCE 1954" Chris waMweed, ~n.pne edi:a Ramire Razaires wh:at a s abe: tw h Mary Barrim+s u. etatt writor Kerrie Wolf. n . A-S~* ~ ~-
J
CASE ATTACH]1ENT 10 - Pace 2
=
j.b i
'". Mr.u:.5..?g?
i.rA.
- h. V)in '
' E *h i
~ .= 4
~ ..
6 .
- . s
~
- B)%ryBarrineau -
i .s
\
j CHtG AltHISCN'S FRIEND REMEMPERS WE1.L THE TI:Q: HE , .
tried to interest Atchison in beeing The China Syndrome, a l Jane Fonda movie abcut an accident at a n.2 clear power plar.t.
Atchison had just signed on as a quality control worker at .
l the Comanche Peak nuclear-power plant under construction near Glen Rose. He'd worked at manufacturing planta before, but this was his first exposure to the nuclear industry. He was full of enthnatamm for what he felt was the energy source of the future. -
He was scornful of the movie's point of view, but after much prodding, he agreed to see it. "Afterwards, he still took the aide of the nuclear industry. He said that kind of thing could ""
never happen. He said what happened in the movie was just a M ., "; -
I fluke and that it wasn't very realistic," says the fFend, Bobby .
AD.
s * ~- * -
Hobbs.
It was like Chuck Atchison to take on new projects with ' \M. s *"'
unrestrained ardor. A big, affable fellow with a thatch of ct.rly -
gray hair and a fondness for Western clothes and country music, Atchison had taken a similar approach to previous jobs and a succession c,f hobbies - underwater photography, scuba i diving, motorcycle racing, karate. "If he sees something he I
wants to do, he'll keep at it until he does it. He isn't discour-
[V e# j r, aged easily," says Hobba. 4- .
Soon after Atchison saw The China Syndrome, an accident j , ,, f v i at Three Mile Island proved the movie prescient After the * ,. 4 4. - .. I real-life disastar, in which radioactivity was released into the .
l .
atmacphere, Atchison was somewhat more skeptical about the
' safety of nudear power - or, as Hobbs puts it,"That kind of made Chuck think."
Now, nearly four years later, Atchinan says he is still a proponent of nuclear energy. But he is no longer welcome to .
work in the industry.
- He is an outcast, an. inspector in exile, a certain kind of expatrista known as a whistle blower. He was fired lar,t April I?., he says, for being overzealous in his quality-control inspec.
, tions. He says his supervisors ignord reports he submitted on I drfectw in pipe whip restraints, pieces of structural steal e.aed
a - .-
_ _ _ _ _ __ CASE ATTACHt!EtLT 10 - Page 3 -
hm ...
m ' '
._ ji;,;\
** ~
~'
f__,
'k N, g. - .
e
- -w-y .- .. . .
M '
s . ,
Ks. - -
~- ..
- = . .
{g
? ,., 7, f ;
s ... .. ..,: ,-
y'
. u
' 3'h. . THfS
, WM W
\
r
+
y,,, _
- .p- Jg;q.c.#
! p- Q. . ~
PM r a *. - -
SI '& '
', F . . . y< E+ +
. .. 4, . . . ,
i,
_Q
& ' ' * ,* s _ . .-
'* %I
. . .i Q.3 ,', , ,, . ,, -
fc
.<v,_
9y
.;., s i ,. .
~
. , . . , w! .w;; ; ? .
. , . ,,. , r. s .' . .
v .. , c n a .. . , .
iA ? ," $., ' Y- ' -
'pN . k ' ' .' g a 5 %' , : ' * *y
- ' : ' git.w f,'@.w;; m !??
s' '
& : t 8' @ts'n%j :er;;Q:nh'fyA i 4# low
- 3wifie-j
"$r r*j.3).a,1f.7$W)[,1kly.
y .
k' .# "(- N$h
un g nygngwngwi-1;g o ygge g - , -- }
l [h, Q.: -
,,; A.hf:,
' M$i$W ggg
'A- 4- s 't,* ' -
W pg 7v . [}gttggiggyl}gg3l160
-' i -
' & $. ,m.*)y. .' ho .
~
).Qe...
WL* .
.. . 3 , , . - , - . q. ,
.'* - ;.16 ,^ . .. .s&
a ~~ g % % -
g_
- 4. . y e .
3 ?. -s.-.
'4 - '
' ~
k - .k7. ~~,-,- - '
e ' -g --
i
[ .<
.<' . 4 .;
,- 1 $ r *. h m.JI$ - p ,
.' A.
n- -7_; , ; y . -== J$ epum-n , a j '-v p ' .: ' - '
- i. C* , nf ' -
2:y,y miy,76py , sW, W4 3 ..V..,9 -
to restrict the movement of p.;,nes in critical safety areas. ,
'. ..,, ' i, ,' .D;l.L. ' '
< 7 T.%+ , [ . , g' ' : M '
, , , yi
- When he pressed the iseue, he was fired.
e- -
Atchison he since been fired by two contri-! ors for a Lou-
' . ' . . p, .
~ 7 . . . , , e .L (,
. 0 ,l iiiare power plant, and the U.S. Labcr Department 6 ruled
-;.;, ger de, ; ;, ' 4 '
that ea:h of the three terminations violated a federal ta;;'
Y ' - ^
.I
' ,9y. .
desigr.ed to keep employers fro:n punishing workers who re-d)n.,Q.
% - , d.J! h,n' * ) t ' n' i M port alleged safety vietations. The two Louisiana contractors
( r y j'j'$G', q d Q B.7; -).;; , y Y, S ' 3 W
? ,
/ 8 iA fired him in retaliatior, for his test:mcay before the Atomic f3 :. ( '
Safety and Liansing Board earlier tb year, the Labor De-
' ,3
. .g . . j- . , . . . . . . .
'T-tf.'
?
partroent found. In fact, said Labor Department area dir3ctor .
s" Thomas Killeen, it seemed more than coincidental that the
.'.u.L.q.
ls 3:g:g y .- ~ .
h.n 5 3..f ..
%- first of those contractors, Thompkina-Beckwith, hired Atchi-N. 'd *4 3.~..,' ..
son on the very day he was scheduled to testify. The circum-
-fg*p a. ygy. , ,e <;;g, r
-- 577 stances, combined with personnel connections between the two
'~~
7s .
. . . <- p .
.I.*'.} .. -
'~....
M' ' '
plants, pointed to a conspiracy to prevent Atchison's appear-
,,. ance as a witness, Killeen said in a letter to Tompkins. Beck-q b. 4 Yg @'$y 7 2 4i. p with introduced into evidence at the hearmgs
.i
- [5'^ < ~ 1,'g* g ,g~,Q.Il,b *Q[4 i]
A federal hearing judge has upheld the Labor Department's
[,
ruling about the initial firing at Comanche Peak. In a sharply I'j f[.; vgl.- -g ,;ng" Ej .. 'y s
., worded ruling, Ellin M. O'Shea, a Labor Department hearing
-e we, . ,. ,.
~
.' 4 [ -f , judge, accused plant officials of mnkmr "unconvmemg unbe-3
.. 1 ; .g / g - . .,,, 7C7.- .' lievable and irrational" charges in an attempt to dracredrt
.Eg,p[..;dr'. , .
" Atchison.
. i . A c7'IMM. ' f c.. 7- .. .C* .Rf'I.J5 ^y # -
t N. Citizens who are opposed to the licensing of Comanche 7eak r f' ? %.s .y, . . m%. s t ..
l .
- c. ' - .A',M w-C M"f.. F C consider Atchison a hero. His former employers may be is in-competent and a liar.
- l. ; . ' '
Atchison is an unlikely hero for the anti. nuclear forces. The
, - ]g)O(~.c . i.h@,*
[.'
71,.s k- }f (. ; C O): .N+ -- .- Dug M .4 only organization be has ever belonged to was a rescue squad A*g,w 1.j, t-3 efY .ys c. ; c t.sl . j .. that specialized in pulling corpses out of lakes and rivers. The g .~ % .g -sig, _ miggMh
, only political action he has ever taken was riding around the 6% '
to .W y courthouse square in Weatherford as a boy with a " Jim q . : ' N44 Wright for Congresa" sign on his bike. And that was to earn a d6p.. 4
~y%[MM,e,n i
~;Y ph Boy Scout merit badge that required par +Mwi= in a politi-cal campaign.
h'PtfiM@!g%..,yh.
$hA -~
% a/ Yet his closest friends say they aren't surprised that Atchi-wW h% M son ran into trouble while working as an i"r"'" at hs-z yy::wc .w%q[Mkh.y hM 4V..b.. ,g. che Peak.
V g % ,,T M .% :.f. 7 *pJ.:ygg'h@G,[p f.h2Nht*MkO"4 D T ,M h M'DM has'known
..M% ? Atchison 13 years. "He's very straightforward.
"Anything he takes on, be goes at it," says Jim Rounc, who N'crm M':WM;p W4:9. NWg@ Whatever he sees, he says. lie tries to, es :el in whatever he b MI does. He might overdo it.
kr.:..c,hhMNhMhbehbMa
. .-- s.pnU ' -%
m.- A-n d. u .g "I%s.,
think thstMwas Ma M lot ofeel.;yt.
p,,,a p, ,,, . c. . . . a . L ,.. .u his problemh,.n out at Comanche
......--.,.s.. .. -- .
CASE ATTACHMENT 10 - Pace 5
'. work. But Chuck thought if his job l and education. "Looking back on it. Shah to learn industrial skilla. "I came was to inspect thmgs, he was going to no, we shouldn't have let him do all within two weeks of being permanent inspect. that he did," says Chapman. However, in Iran. We were going to move there "Out at Comanche Peai they want Atchison seemed eager to improve his to help them set up a belicopter manu-people to go along with the system and position san Chapman. "Nobody's ac. facturing plant in the mountains, but Chuck is one who ll go along with cusiing him of not having ambition." the revolution came first," says what's right," he sayl. Atchison we an experienced teacher Atchison.
by the time he came to work at Co- He spent a month in Culver City, mrr JUST ANYONE BECOMES A WHi&lLE manche Peak. He had taught scube Calif., working for Hughes Helicopter, blower. People who have studied the divmg as a member of a rescue squad but returned to Te as when be decided personalities of those who report viola- in his home town of Weatherford, and his standard of living would have to tions say they are often those on the says he personally recovered the bodies drop considerably because of high costs fringe of their professions, those with of 64 drowning victims du ing 15 years in California. "I had a daughter in the less than perfect work records. on the squad. "It got to the point fifth grade who would have hed to Chuck Atchison's flaw was a falsified where I developed extra-sensory per- travel 90 miles to school. Houses start-educational record. When he went to ception in the water. Visibihty in the ed at $95,000." His wife, Jeanna, and work at Comanche Peak, he lied about lakes and rivers around here is zero if daughter, Jennifer, had stayed behind his schooling. He said he had a college I got m the location of the body, I and before long, he came home. Almost degree when he didn't, and later, when could physically sense it." immediately, he saw an ad for work at '
applying for a promotion, he used Turnover in the rescue squad was Comanche Peak and started to work.
" white out" on a transcript from Tar.
tant County Junior College to change "D-T hyMYQp. .'*. C WF% v*9 * " -
the words "no degree obtained" to "de- M $ l'l1 M [I' '~+ .'. ?
J
- i! % . ' '
'" ,'F "
gree obtained." > . '.
'l ?
The misrepresentation was not a fac- .C ,- 7,; . ; -_ f.d , g' m ;'m'", d . .? T 4 . . '
tor in his firing, but it did damage his a" ' .. ,j vn, gi. .I .O
. '4., "( " ' b , O T ' a[ l "g ..y',
,; .y - c n l' '
credibility during testimony about de- . ,[ ;o
' ' s '. . - . ,y p
fects at the plant Attorneys for the l ; -% s M*!.
s plant hit hard at the fals:fication, and ' (M;;(%t . _
C . :. M.
k spokesmen for the p' ant continue to ,s' w;W W 4,+ d
+ .
, use st to try to discredit Achisen.
W@'M
- [ ,~'li Sp*'%
T ,s k'
- I $
"la the nuclear q'lality-aseurance or- .
- f. g '
C
. ( 'n garization, if there is one thing we have to have it is high ethica' aware-
~'
$c' c f.M
~[Y .) - N9 '9
~ *: - *.
1 ,1
'N.i
. + -Id
?: 7.$ f %~
ness. I can't afford to have someone <'. ' 7,\
working there whose ethics are even 5% i.
d[l NJ :i g; p{, ;; C' 1 *g,~
su4pect," says Deve Chspr an, esan- -
ager of qua.ity assuance for tha con- -
, f ,,, . e.%e- M. . .
- y' f . x., q '.;,4y .p - y; sortiur of pcwer compam,es that owns ,
the plant. b1 n .",y 4 1 ]5r. 4 N'
[I*h. k' ~ i J .Wi Atchison,40, originallj was hired in * #*
- February 1979 as a documentation spe-
, M.
.s.. *I . >d
,E '
t'j.
- ' 'f M S J %J P i~
cialist to make sure paperwork for in-g]gg- ,., , . . . g, ge . . .
spections was complete. He had no .
0 . . .. ., m
.7. ,.
<)
training in the nuclear industry. He t- I' a ., -
. %z - ' . ,
l learned as he worked. After about nine JM M.m p. ' d
^ ^
~ ' i,U.N"%, '. W. S nf 7 M.S. F * "CJ7 - e' M
~~
months, he was teaching other people - ;
ke
- II y ". " f.%f C . *-
7.P
- Q' how to do the job.
Nuclear inspectors at the plant Ng#/ "J. h M ,J f ' T k f. ,;
i heard about his, teaching and before u d5, y w /* ;4;rg l g l
long he was admtmstering tests and m-structing other workers m site proce- a... 4. . ' y.g ; 4,gf/.g2 m, ?**f.'8. a .p .;. -
l dure. "I learned it myself and then l s taught it," says Atchison. high, he says, since many divers Atchison says be doesn't know why All of his evaluations praised Atchi- couldn't take pulling body after body be lied on his educational recocd. Cer-son for his verbal-communication out of the water. He trained new divera tainly, the position for which he.was skills, rating him above average in his often to replace the ones who dropped applying didn't require a college de-work, although suggesting he needed out. Friends say Atchison had the per- gree. "At the time, it didn't seem to be improvement in his written communi- feet personality for teaching. "He's real that big a deal," he says. "I figure cation skills.~ Atchison's " primary easy going, down to earth. In all the probably 50 to 75 percent of applicants strength is his verbal skills in present? years I been knowing him I've never for jobs anywhere aren't completely ing information to peopia in a cencise seen him get mad. Oh, maybe occasion- truthful on their application." When and understandable manner. He also ally at his wife. He's strong willed, but he applied for the promotion, he real-has the persistence to research a prob. he's patient. He doesn't lose his tem- ized he had checked " college degree" lem or task and complete all the detail per," says Hobbs. on his original personnel record. "Then work necessary to resolve an assign- Atchison left Weatherford and his it was a matter of making the tran-ment," said supervisor J. R. Ainsworth job at . Bell Helicopter in 1971 and script match the original form," says in a Dec. 22,1980, evaluation. spent three and a half ye.ars in the Vir- Atchison. "Of course, now the lawyers At the end of 1981, four months be- gin Islands teaching scuba diving and are using it to try to discredit me "
- fore he was fired, Atchison was pro- operating a dive shop.. ~
There was conflicting testimony at moted again, to field ' inspector. Now When he returned to the U.S., he the licchsing hearings about whether spokesmen for the powcr plant say went to work for Bell Operations Cor- Atchison's misrepresentation of his that Atchison was probably given too poration, tea-hing bonding to 102 Iran- education enabled him to qualify for rnuch responsibility for his experience isn students who had been sent by the promotions he would nnt have nther-
CASE ATTACHMENT 10 - Page 6 -
- came- wine obtained. Such promotions are involved in othsr areas outside ? .. cbla indications as rejectabis, and re-wasnt based on a point system combining ex- neope. Consequently, his services .re jectable indications he did not report,"
.there .perience and education, plant supervi- no longer required." said Brandt.
manu- nors testified. Experience required for ..
The labor Department determmed Chapman points out that Atrhtann's
,a.
. but~ each inspection job is a function of that Atchison was fired for filing sever- "above average" evaluations were all says what educational degree a worker has al non-conformance reports on possible made before he became an inspector .
obtained, they said. Charl&s Brandt, a safety problems at the plant, and that However, some of Atch-n's super-City, quality ass' rance supervisor at the making such reports was clearly within visors testified they did not think be mpter, plant, said he doubted Atchison could -
his responsibility even if it was not should have been fired. Randy Smith, ecided have become a visual inspector without within his specific inspection area. his immediate supervisor, gave that iveto the associate degree he claimed to Atchison says that in early March opinion, as did his former supervisor, hoosta have. 1982 he was criticized by officials of Richard loe, quality-control inspector in the However, the supervisors were un- the Texas Utilities Generating Co., the of -h=*=1 equipment, who said be ud to able to come up with the specific point group of power companies in charge of would have been willing to take Atchi-
. start- system or number of points Atchison the plant's construction, for "over-in- son back on in his section.
- Cand wculd have been lacking for the job. specting and witch. hunting" wbn he Now the Nuclear Regulatory Com-
' seh nd According to the Government Ac- reported defects in pipe whip re- mission has substantiated Atchiman's
> G ncet countability Project, which has de- straints. Although he was only sup- charges. A report by the communaion
,orkat fended scores of whistle blowers across posed to examine the area an inch on says that its own investigators found
ork. the country, such a person tends to be either side of the weld on the plate, he weld defects of the type mentioned by different from his co-workers. noticed a defect about 18 inches from Atchison.
"For some reason or another, he de- the weld and reported it. Clyde E. Wisner, NRC public aCairs cides to do something that is not the He son received a copy of a report director in Arlington, says the weld i norm. Let's face it, blowing the whistle written March 13 by a superior at problems in pipe rupport restra'nta are is a non-conforming action," says Lew- Brown & Root, the plant's construction a "significant item" that may ind!cate is Clark, executive director of the pro- subcontrector, which said that inspec- a " breakdown" of the plant's inspn..
ject. " Whistle blowers are people who tors "should ascertain defecta m an tion procedure for pasta recoind trors
- tend to have a stronger se 1se of con- area . . and not beyond " two supp!'ers. L sci 6nce. Ivs like they draw the line The plate was subaequently iastalled Ofncials at the plant deny .that sooner than others." in the reactor, says Atchison. Atchison'a a:legatioca led to the dis-Whistle blowers do often ha,e some- On March 23, be discovered five oth- covey of the problem. Wisner says thing in their backgrounds that the nu- er pipe supports with similar welding that although the specific pipe suppors clear industry or government can use problems, he s.sys. Some had cracks restraint mentioned in the NRC report to try to discredit them, says Clark. and bubbles. Others had beer. welded is not the same one discoved by "The advice we give to people who are from top to bottom,instead of bottom Atchison, he did charge that many considering such a move is that if to top, uhich causes weaker welds, he welds in similar restrainto were .
> there's mything in your background says He turned in a non-conformance defective. I
' i prob-that is less than perfect, it wll report on the defects. "It wss totally In a report baaed os inspections at ably come c,ut. You are going up s ;uashed at the time." says Atchison. the plant Oct.19-20. the NRC said agamst people and institutions which Then on Aprit 12, hours before he " numerous" weld problems were found have a direct interest in destroying was fired, he turned in a final non- in a massive metal frame that supporta your reputation," he says. compliance report. Attached to the re- a steam pipe connectmg a generator to At nuclear-power plants, whistle port was a note in Atchison's hand- a turbine. The frame is considered a blowers tend to be pro-nuclear. "They writing that said, "Open to pow-wow crucial component because it is sup-are also usually apolitical and have on subject." posed to keep the pipe from rupturing fairly conservative values. They tend
~
Atchison's. bosses later charged that in the event of an earthquake or an to try to work within the system to be was trymg to use the non-confor- accident that causea abnormal vibra-correct something before going outside, mance report (NCR) accompanied by tion. Wisner said the restraint, which as opposed to leakers who anonymous- the note as a tool to force a raise. has 10,000 feet of welds, is the same ly report violations without getting Atchison "gave the impression that he type as the one Atchison had cited.
personally involved. Whistle blowers was willing to disregard the NCR-if Company officials said the weld de-become completely baffled by the sys- possible consideration would be given fects were discovered after a painter tem they once believed in. They can't to his salary increase." noticed a cracked weld and reported it-
,why believe the massive assault on them- This, according to Chapman, over- The NRC report doesn't vindicate 1
- 8. Cer- selves when they try to correct some- shadowed all the questions his superi- Atchison, they say, because the plant's a was thing they see wrong." ors had about Atchison's competence. components are so large that problems 4 d>- In Atchison's case, he says he was "The fact that he was clearly trying to are bound to be evident somewhere-
. to be stunned when he was told he was being arbitrate a quality matter makes it "It's like me saying there are going to figure fired. "I didn't have the slightest idea clear we can't use him at a nuclear be deaths on the highway this week-icanta it was coming until they did it," he power plant. Those matters are not end," says Tony Vega, a supernsor for leta!y says. subject to negotiation," says Chapman. quality assurance for the consortium of When A report signed by quality-control Atchison denies he had anything of utility companies that is building Co-4 : real. manager Gordon Purdy on the day the kind in mind by writing the note. manche Peak.
! gree" Atchison was fired said be was dis- He frequently discussed non-confor- However, Juanita Ellis, praident of
% en" charged for " lack of ability to perform mance reports with his superiors and Citizens for Sound Energy, a public in-tran- assigned tasks and follow supervisory y sometimes disagreed with his terest group that participated in the
' says direction." the, fin dings. He simply indicated an open.
licensing hearings, says the report does nyers Purdy had been following written or- ness to discuss the subject, he says. substantiate Atchison's testimony.
ders from his superiors issued the same In addition to questioning his hones- "The company doesn't want to ad-y at - day: " Subject employee has demon- ty, Atchison's bosses have attacked his .mit that any of the allegations made Jiher strated a lack of ability in performing competence. In testimony at the licens- by our witnesses are what have led to f his saaigned task, in that he refuses to lim. ing hearings, Brandt said Atchison the findings of these significant prob-
/ for it his scope of responsibility to pipe seemed unable to properly visually lems," she says.
" * * * ~
th r- whip restrainta and insists on gettine evn!nate w Miw "Ha e-ru - *
. CASE ATTACHMENT 10 - Page 7
,.g O "It's the first house wa've evsr owned.
te.7
V 3@h BWE We've only been in it for three years and we worked for nine years to earn ContinuedImm Page 9 th H is kbg (in quality contol THE EFFECT OF CHUCK ATCHiSON'S at an Arlington manufacturing firm, tant,many before the Atomic Safsty but his salary is $7 an bour, less than g and Il~a N Board went far beyood half what he could earn in the nuclear
- the allegations he made about flaws in ndustry.
I pipe welds that could pose safety haz- Atchison isn't the only one who sac-i ards at the plant- rificed to testzfy before the mmmia-1 He broke ground for other important sion. Darlene Stiner, who is pregnant I testunony that followed. says Eis- and still works at the plant, has been j "Many, many others came forward shunned by her co. workers. When she i after Chack did," says Juanita Eis, tried to catc5 a workers' bus from Wal-i president of the group "He was the ,
nut Sprmgs, a bus she had been riding first. We were going into the neanng for five years, tb driver told her he
. without any wit =aaaa before be agrsed had no insurance for pregnant women.
' to testify. He called on the Fnday be- Workers on the bus made obscene ges-
! fore the beanngs started on Monday. tures and commants. Her husband,
- We ended up c=Ilmr nine witnaa= "
i who was fired from his job as a weldar If be had it all to do over knowmg at h plant, now drives Mr to work.
the mnaarluences, Atrhinan says he The Stiners had taken concerns
- probably wouldn't chanse be actions. about had welding o'a pipe hanger sup-1 "I've jus', got my mind made up ports to the Nacbar Regulatory Com-
,) now," be sap. "Ib going to see it all mission. The couple requested r.no-
- the way througn. Tcey'v3 get this nymity, but in the NelC's second g country toy mvi nmr. Pye r m th full mesting wit 1: the Stiners at thir home
! , I got firad. is Walnut Gprings, inverthstors drove T i game Bu: f%c!got eenocims ac kwp onsings,th wi it lwca "*
l up to theb bouw in a charly marked
_ {' dre r.c,s jm vanring aboat ma. We're govermaant tar. Lat4 r, an NRC inves-l
, atso talking abcut the others, insper-t '$- tors and otha kinds of whist.le blowers, ) tiator n:.nde a point to single Darlene cot mod speak to her at the plant when
( j who come behind. I understand ther* sh er,s with a. group of workers.
r are mcny air.ile.r cases still ir the sys- Eariy hat summer, after they went ters which haven't gotten to the point to & NRC, Darlena sai! ab was bed-I my cosa hava. I feel a res,ponsihbity ly knu is b ba:k yard of her mc-I for otha.: irynctors. " bile ho:ce. She did not se h r at-
, Atchamn aya le ran understand tacker. She doesn't know who be3 was, i peopla mating mt="b- during the and thre is '20 evidence to link the
! construction of the plant. "When attack with the plant. But Darlene says y you're bundmr anything, whether it's a she hd no known enemies kfore b-
? house, or aircraft or whatever, there's coming a critic of the plant's construo-
! always somethmg you have to pull out tion operation.
and do over again. What I can't under. Others who tatified are finding it
[ stand is why at Comanche Peak theY impossibl'e to get jobs in the,raclear keep trymg to hide it or pull the rug industry, says Ellis. "Everyone who over it." testibd has sacrificed sometmng," she The plant's construction is way be- ,,y,, A limited edit 2cn p hind schedule and way over budget, Atchinan was asked at the hearmgs 9*
and Atrhinan believes those are the set with a precous to describe his reasons for *estifying reasons for the alleged cover-up. Domg "The primary reason is my concern for Available for this V thmgs over to get them right would safety and the prospects of what's go-take more time and money, be nya- ing to happen if the plant breaks down 6 d["#F n i timefor I
rha~ba Peak was achma uled to open or has an accide :t - what's going to 3our order must k poo, in 1980 at a total cost of $779 mahnn. happen to th gen'.ral area where I was
, Now official projections set an openmg born and have beea raised all my life. r-------------------------
i date of 1984 for ik first unit and 1985 What really ticks me off is that if it l THE N V M
, for the namnd at a cost of at least was just me, it wouldn't be a problem l
$3.44 bilbon. Citiona for Sound Ener-i gY project the cost at $5 billion.
-.- but when it affects my familv. then
- g m,h.s me mad," b sa
- d.
i (heg gaflaL g , '
1
. The three companies that fired -p_ ,.;any wkn you've got a 14-i
, y g g g , ,, ,, %
p,,,a,,,,, ,n ,,,,i ,,g saur agree. see wa a Atchaon are spyaling the Labor De- l ynar.o'Id girl who wanta to quit school e grmous partment's rulings, wbeh order in each ' tw> tacetedd rubg. and 5=$Peaded case that be be remstated and awarded or at taast go to work part time be-cause of this. My wife has had to go to
! ,ng,,Q'$nfn",'It 7nD$
l 4 tnti t=. a amPan-4 by a sitt ard.
back pay. A win fee Atebson would tb doctor to get tranqnni=s to calm i i erv'er to Pay as folk =s.
probably maan a large financial settle-
! ment, but he says he probably will do her nerves because of all thia. All be- l 0 NNP 3 e"f#y SY '*"^a" d **
cause I wr.: doing my job the way I l o i g en Afrer sh inent. twH tb little bettar than break even. thought it ought to be done and be- teamanio'W*to'ar M a*
For now, the sacnfices are great. l cause of their rush to g-t that riamn- , O Arwncan Emprm
- G Dusm Oe Atebson hopes he can hold on to his thing on line."O l C "' # d U home in the Fort Worth suburb of Azle Anounino until after Chnstmas. Then, be will Miry Barrmesu is Weatward stas have to sell it and move into a trailer. writer.
1h26 S. Polk
.,Mj.\
- f
- F 2f"'"' . Dallas, Texas 75224
'm c.ed -
(CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY)
January 11, 1983 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT:
Application of Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al . for an Operating License fc r Comanct.e I . ik Stei.m Electric Station Units al and 42 (Co3ES)
Ne are attaching the criginai signed Affidavits of Roy Keith Cor.bs cated 1/9/83.
These ,were included as Attachments 5 and 6 to CASE's 1/11/33 Written Argument or. Issues.
Respectfully subr.itted, CASE (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY)
\ 24d O -
Mrs.) Juanita Ellis President O 4* e
i e
- tlNIT FI) STATFF, Or AMritir.A Nilf t ! A!; RI Gill A10RY COMMI %!OM BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY _AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of l I
APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES I Docket Nos. 50-445 GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR I -
and 50-446 AN OPERATING LICENSE FOR I COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC i STATIONUNITS#1AND#2(CPSES) l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE's Motion for Leave to File Response; and CASE's Written Argument on Issues have been sent to the names listed Delow this lith day of Januarv . 198,3_
by: Express Mail where indicated by
- and Fir 5T lass flail elseehere.
Administrative Judge Marshall E. Miller vAlan S. Rosenthal, Esq. , Chair:aan U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atorcic Safety cnd Licensirg Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555
- Or. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean *Dr. W. Reed Johnson, Member Division of Engineering, Architecture, Atonic Safety and Licensing Appeal Bot-d ar.d Technology' O. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Oklahomr. State University Waaiir.gton, D. C. 20555 Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074
- Thomas S. Moore, Esq. , Member
- Dr. Richard Cole, Member Atoniic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Debevoise & Liberman Washington, D.. C. 20555 1200 - 17th St.., N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Docketing and Service Section- .
Office of the Secretary Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Executive Legal Director Washington, D. C. 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 *Ms. Lucinda Minton, Law Clerk
. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Panel .
Washington, D. C. 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 David J. Preister, Esq. ..~
Assistant Attorney General O
V1/Lv 569 b> a/
Environmental Protection Division P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Ms) Uuanita Ellis, President Aur. tin, Texas 78711 ~
[ CASESound (Citizens Association for_
~ - -
Energy) Mr. John Collins, Region IV Administrator, Arlington, TX