ML20073B686
| ML20073B686 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 04/08/1983 |
| From: | Mcgarry J DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8304120505 | |
| Download: ML20073B686 (43) | |
Text
~ -
'.y
.o e. .
0?'.(CD
/
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 83 E 11 A10:13 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al.
) Docket Nos. 50-413
) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO PALMETTO ALLIANCE'S
" REQUEST FOR REMEDIAL MEASURES IN LIGHT OF DUKE POWER COMPANY'S COMMUNICATION WITH WORKERS" I. Introduction on March 30, 1983, Intervenor Palmetto Alliance filed a " Request For Remedial Measures In Light Of Duke Power Company's Communication With Workers." Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.730(c), Applicants provide the following response.1 At issue is the propriety of Applicants' communica-tions with present and former employees concerning Palmetto Alliance's Quality Assurance contention (Contention 6).2 1 In conference calls of March 25 and March 31, 1983, the Licensing Board directed that Applicants' response be filed on or before April 8, 1983. ,
2 In furtherance of its operating history contention (Contention 7), Palmetto Alliance has also sought the identity of certain' employees. Applicants have been ordered to disclose the names of present and former Oconee and McGuire employees and former employees who have been disciplined for noncompliance with NRC operating and administrative procedures..See Memorandum and Order of February 9, 1983. During tdus March 31, 1983 conference call counsel for Applicants notified the Board.and partieslof their intent to send letters similar to those already sent to Catawba employees to
-(footnote continued)
B304120505 830400 PDR ADOCK 05000413 O. PDR _
i
- \ / l o e' Applicants have sent a letter to present and former Catawba Quality Assurance employees and a limited number of Catawba construction employees whose names were released to Palmetto Alliance in discovery. Applicants' counsel also had a meeting with present Catawba Quality Assurance employees. See Applicants' March 22, 1983, report to the Board and parties which details their contacts with such employees. In each instance the communication was limited to informing the employees (1) that their names had been disclosed to Palmetto Alliance over Applicants' objection, (2) of the nature of the concern which gave rise to the disclosure of their names, (3) that they may be contacted, (4) that they were free to speak to Palmetto Alliance, but (5) that they were under no obligation to speak to Palmetto Alliance.3 (footnote continued from previous page)
Oconee and McGuire employees. Counsel for Applicants have agreed to refrain from sending such letters until the Board has had an opportunity to review this pleading and those of the other parties. See Board Memorandum and Order of April 1, 1983.. Applicants' contact with such employees will be similar to the letters contained in Applicants' March 22, 1983 report to the Board.
In light of the above, the instant pleading should also be read to address the propriety of Applicants' anti-cipated contact with relevant employees and former employees concerning Palmetto Alliance Contention 7.
3 In the meeting with Quality Assurance employees, Applicants' counsel also asked that they be provided with any information responsive to Palmetto - Alliance interrogatory 23 on Contention 6 so that such could be
' furnished in discovery.
y ' ,. ,
Palmetto Alliance requests that the Board " direct certain remedial measures in light of the communications already made by" Applicants to " undo the ' chilling effect' on potential cooperation" and "to supply material infor-mation on worker rights and responsibilities omitted in Duke's communication." The remedial measures requested by Palmetto Alliance are:
- 1. A Board-orderad meeting'between represen-tatives of Palmetto Alliance, the Government Accountability Project'(GAP) and Catawba personnel contacted by Applicants "for the purpose of discussing Palmetto Alliance's Quality Assurance contention and discovery related thereto."
- 2. A Board-ordered on-site meeting, with the agreement of the NRC Staff, between Catawba construction workers and personnel contacted by Applicants and a senior NRC official, such as the Region III Administrator, "for the purpose of briefing these workers on their rights and responsibilities with respect to giving evidence . . ., reporting defects in Quality Assurance . . ., and assuring con-fidentiality in providing information to the NRC." Palmetto Alliance also requests that.
the Board provide for it and GAP to attend such on-site meeting.
- 3. An official notice from the Board to be mailed at Applicants' expense to all persons contacted by Applicants which would'" explain in concise terms the workers' rights and responsibilities with respect to giving evi-dence . . ., reporting defects . . . and protecting confidentiality in providing in-formation to the NRC."
Palmetto Alliance alleges-that Applicants' communi-cations "fai1[ed] to provide a complete picture of worker rights-and responsibilities" and were " seriously I
i n-.
,1 .
incomplete, and therefore misleading" since Applicants did not explain as a part of those communications with em-ployees certain statutory and regulatory provisions (i.e.,
10 CFR Part 19, " Notices, Instructions.and Reports to Workers; Inspections;" Part 21, " Reporting of Defects'and Noncompliance;" Part 50, Appendix.B, Quality Assurance Criterion XVI; NRC I&E policy and practice on complaints and confidentiality; and the provisions of 42 U.S.C. {5851) which Palmetto Alliance apparently asserts govern rights and responsibilities of workers.
Applicants maintain, for the reasons set forth below, that there is no basis for Palmetto Alliance's request, and that it should therefore.be denied. Applicants' opposition to Palmetto Alliance's request is three-fold: first, it is entirely proper for Applicants to discuss ongoing litiga-tion with employees; second, the content of such dis-cussions has in no way chilled any employees' potential cooperation with Palmetto Alliance; and third, the remedial requests go far beyond any action necessary-to correct the alleged ' harm caused by Applicants' ' comraunications with -
employees.4 4 Palmetto Alliance's pleading is characterized-throughout i by conclusory assertions of wrongdoing and an asserted i corresponding need for remedial action without a single citation-to legal authority to support its claims or to provide a rationale for the relief'it seeks. Despite theffact that the instant request raises significant questions of' law and demands the extraordinary remedy of'
" remedial actions,". Palmetto Alliance apparently sees no-need'to discuss ~ applicable legal precedent to explain (footnote. continued)
y i .-
II. Argument APPLICANTS WERE ENTIRELY WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS IN CONTACTING EMPLOYEES BY LETTER AND IN MEETING WITH fHEM The underlying circumstances giving rise to Appli-cants' contact pertain to Palmetto Alliance's discovery of names of various Duke employees and-former employees.
(footnote continued from previous page) and buttress its presentation. For example, while it alleges the need for remedies to undo the " chilling e f fect" it believes has been caused by Appli-cants' contacts with its. workers (p. 2), Palmetto Alliance provides no indication of the principles of-law it seeks to raise by this statement (i .e . , First Amendment questions) or the standards-by which' such-activities are to be judged. Nor does Palmetto Alliance state any basis for its interesting assertion that Applicants should have all communications with employees approved by the Board. This failure to' provide any support or legal analysis-whatsoever for its claims and accusations reveals a disturbing -- and continuing:--
disregard or misconception by Palmetto Alliance as to its obligations as a party to this proceeding. See,Lfor-example, " Palmetto Alliance Statement of Position on Issues Accepted for Review" (January 24, 1983), and Palmetto Alliance's Motions to Compel Discovery from Applicants dated October 4, 1982 and November 3, 1982. .
'~
In NRC proceedings - . as in other types - of administra-tive proceedings or in a court of ' law -- the proponent of a motion has certain responsibilities imposed upon him by virtue of his status as a party. One'such fun-damental responsibility is the duty to " advance correct and proper interpretations of applicable law to assist-the judge in making his decision." Houston Lighting and-Power Company'(South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-82-9, June ~18,1982 -(additional view ~of Commissioner Roberts at p. 1). This most basic obligation, which-leads to_an informed and predictable resolution =oflthe issues, furthers the efficiency of'the proceeding, and promotes the interests of all of.the-parties.= It 'i's '
part ' of the Intervenor's larger _ responsibility ' to.
" structure [its]' participation so that-it is meaningful, so~ that it alerts the agency to the intervenor's posi-( footnote ~ continued)'
. , 9 e
- h Applicants objected to the disclosure of such names pri-marily on the basis that employees' right to privacy should be protected. In its Memorandum and Order of February 9, 1983, the Board ordered that employees names be disclosed..
Prior to this date, and also as a result of the Order,-
Applicants gathered information from various employees in response to interrogatories Which asked if employees had concerns with workmanship. As a result of this effort, some employees inquired about the nature of this proceeding and their involvement therewith. This concern, coupled with What Applicants felt to be a breach of their employees' right to privacy, caused Applicants to draft and transmit the letters attached to the March 22 report.
The subject letters served one basic purpose' viz, to apprise employees of the status of discovery in- this licensing proceeding and of the fact that information con-cerning them had been released to a third party (Palmetto
( footnote continued from previous page) tion . . . . " Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.
NRDC, 435 U.S.-519, 553 (1978). Specifically, pleadings submitted by intervenors should disclose the authorities and evidence upon Which the.intervenors rely. Public Service Electric and Gas Co., et al. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-650, 14 NRC 43, 49-51 !
(1981). '
A submittal such ag'this one, Which is completely devoid of any supporting authority, cannot be said to meet this obligation. 'Further, to respond'to such a submittal places an undue burden on the Board and other parties to ferret out arguments, to conduct the initial.research and to provide the necessary legal authority.'See Salem, supra, 14 NRC at 50.-
i
Alliance) which might attempt to contact them. From the standpoint of maintaining good employee relations by keep-ing employees informed on matters that affected them, it was imperative that Applicants provide employees with this information. Certainly, employees have a right to know that their employer has been required to divulge personal information about them and to be informed of the probable consequences of that action. However, without setting forth any supporting basis,5 Palmetto Alliance apparently seeks to have the Board determine that the employer-employee relationship cannot exist in this case and that Applicants' contacts with employees must be matched by Palmetto's contact with employees. Such a position runs afoul of employer-employee case law and places-the Board-in the position of infringing upon Applicants' ability to conduct its business, a position which the law recognizes is untenable.6 L
5 See n. 4, supra.
6 See Portland General-Electric Company, et al. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), LBP-78-32, 8 NRC 413, 454 (1978),
wherein the Board, determining that the adverse en-vironmental impacts associated with an enlargement of a spent fuel pool would be negligible, stated:
We therefore believe that we' need not consider alternatives or the need for modification in_ any detail.: Indeed, in the opinion of this Board, not only is such consideration unnecessary, it is very' inadvisable,.since it infringes upon those very' prerogatives and duties of corporate management which we'should eschew usurping.
,- 3
}
At the most fundamental level, Applicants' right to communicate with their employees is guaranteed ui der the )
free speech protections of-the Federal Constitution. That-basic principle has been firmly established in labor rela-tions cases dealing with employer communic ~ations regarding~
unionization efforts.7 The courts have consistently re-cognized an employer's right to communicate its opinions on union activities to its employees. In NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 617 (1969), the Supreme Court declared that "an employer's free speech righttto,communi-cate his views to his employees is firmly established and cannot be infringed by a union or the [NLRB] .?'[ See also '
NLRB v. Proler International Corporation, 635 F.2d 351, 355 (5th Cir. 1981) (employer has constitutional
- right to i
express his opinions about a . union);/ and . Florida' Steel Corporation v. NLRB, 587 F.2d 735-(5th Cir'.~1979), which is discussed below at pp. 18-19. Under. the;1hbor laws, an employer's right to communicate with his employees is i
l conditioned only by statutory language that ' forbids any
?
+
7 A corporation's free speech rights are not limited to 4 the labor relations area. See First National Bank of '
Boston-v. Bellotti,-435 U.S.-765,.776, 784 (1978). f Applicants rely- upon . case authority in the labor relations area because the~ factual-issuas therein are most closely analogous to some of the issues raised in Palmetto Alliance's pleading. However, $pp'licant'slare-not ' to be viewed as stating that the Nation'al' Laborf Relations Act (NLRA) is controlling.- Further, Palmetto
~
Alliance is.notLin a position to invoke ths' panoply of-
. rights afforded unions and other parties under-the.NLRA.
)
- ~ + + e (
threat of reprisal or force, or promise of benefit by the employer. NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., supra; National Labor Relations Act $8( c), 29 U.S.C. 158(c). An employer may speak to groups of his employees so long as the speech contains no coercion, threat of reprisal, interference with a union election or deliberate misrepresentation. Union Carbide Corporation v. NLRB, 310 F.2d 844, 845 (6th Cir.
1962).
A review of the circumstances giving rise to Appli-4 cants' communications and a review of the letters 8 them-selves reveals that the improprieties referenced in the above-cited case law do not exist. Specifically, the subject letters do not coerce, threaten, interfere or deliberately misrepresent. Union Carbide Corporation v.
NLRB, supra, 310 F.2d at 845. Accordingly, such letters must be viewed as a proper-exercise of an employer's con-stitutional right to communicate with employees. In sum, Applicants must be permitted to inform employees of rele-' .
vant matters and, absent a showing of coercion, threat, interference, or deliberate misrepresentation (a showing not made in this case), must-be permitted to do so without resort to this Board for approval.
8 As noted in the March 22 report, Applicants' contact I with employees consisted of the letters. attached to the l report and discussions. Inasmuch as the discussions paralleled the letters, this pleading focuses upon the i letters now before the Board; the same arguments pertain l to the discussions.
i l
,5 0
e q
- 4 ' t
, , - 10,-
p, J
v APPLICANTS' COMMUNICATION WITH EMPLOYEES HAS NOT HAD A
" CHILLING EFFECT" m Palmetto Alliance alleges that remedial action is needed to undo what it refers to as the " chilling effect" of Applicants' letters. References to the alleged I
t
, " chilling effect" of an action typically imply that the
- 'bxerciseofanindividual'sFirstAmendmentrightshasbeen constrained. Since Palmetto Alliance did not elaborate on I ,what it meant by this term,9 Applicants have been obliged to ' interpret the " chilling effect" accusation as best they
,s - can, based upon common usage. Applicants infer that Pal-metto Alliance claims that these employees' exercise of their constitutionally-protected freedom of speech has been
" chilled" by the distribution of Applicants' letters. As i
I will be demonstrated below, Palmetto Alliance's application of' this terminology to the letters in question is nothing i
\ ADE more than an attempt to raise a constitutional question N simply by use of a " buzzword," and is inapplicable both -
legally and factually.
\
N 4
- <t *9 See n. 4, supra.
V 34 vy
Palmetto Alliance's assertion that the company's letters had a " chilling effect" is inappropriate, first of all, because First Amendment claims typically involve a challenge to a government action rather than an action by a private employer. It is obvious that the same level of constitutional scrutiny is not applicable in the present situation. See Central Hardware Co. v. NLRB, 407 U.S. 539, 547 (1972).
The applicability of the " chilling effect" line of cases is further diminished by virtue of the fact that no employee has come forward with such an allegationt rather, the claim is made by Palmetto Alliance, a party not in privity with Applicants' employees. See National Student Association, Inc. v. Hershey, 412 F..d 2 1103, 1119, n. 46 (D.C. Cir.1969) , wherein the Court, in addressing a First Amendment question such as that raised by Palmetto Alliance, stated that proper standing is determined by whether the plaintiff has at' stake a sufficient .
interest so as to create a case or controversy as to him. Thus, a chilling effect Which amounts to a justiciable injury confers standing to challenge the source of the chill on any person who plausibly' alleges that he is chilled. -
[ emphasis in original].
Palmetto Alliance does not contend that its rights have been chilled; rather, it asserts at p. 10.that "the~
written communications reported to have been sent by Duke- i to' present and former workers will ' serve to ' chill' and' l l
-i l
J l
l
- . . . - ,s,-,-- !
- 12,-
discourage their reporting . . .
(emphasis added).
Nevertheless, Applicants have addressed below the legal standards applicable to First Amendment cases in order to demonstrate that even 'if Duke's letters were judged 1by the more stringent standards 1 applicable to a government action, I it could only be concluded that Applicants' actions pro-duced noLchilling effect upon its workers' constitutional l rights.
The starting point for consideration of First Amend-ment claims is whether the claim presents a justiciable i case or controversy with the meaning of Article III of the ;
U.S. Constitution. It has been held that suits which I
allege constitutional injury in the form of a " chilling effect" may be "more readily justiciable than comparable suits not so affected within a First Amendment interest."10 This does not mean, however, that every policy,~ regulation or action alleged to have a chilling effect upon protected speech (or any other constitutionally protected ;right) is a justiciable controversy. Rather, federal courts typically make this determination on a case-by-case basis.ll ;
10 National Student Association, supra, 412.F.2d_at 1113. H See also Reed Enterprises v. Corcoran, 354 F.2d 519, '
ITT ToTU. Cir.-1965).
11 National' student Association, supra, '412 F.2d at'1115.
)
- -. ~ = - - -- -- . . ~ . . . . . _ . -
i-1
[ In-determining whether an alleged chilling effect upon l the exercise of First Amendment rights gives rise to a case
(-
4 or controversy, recent federal cases have applied certain
! specific criteria. First, as a threshold requirement, the
] plaintiff must plausibly allege that it is in_ fact vulner-1
! able to the asserted chilling effect. This requirement j apparently stems:from the principle that First Amendment a
1- questions must be presented in the context of a specific 1
I l live grievance rather than a hypothetical one. See United l
Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 89-90 (1947).
j once this showing has been made, the sufficiency of a given l chilling effect is gauged by considering, inter alia, the i
j following:
i l (1) the severity and scope of the alleged chil-
! ling effect on First knendment freedoms, i
(2) the likelihood of other opportunities to vindicate such First Amendment rights as may '
be infringed with reasonable promptness, and (3) the nature of the issues which a full adju-dication on the merits must resolve, and the need for factual referents in order properly
[ to define and narrow the issues.12 j - ;
12 National Student Association, supra, 412 F.2d at 1115.
, See also National Conference of Catholic Bishops v.
i Smite 7 T53 F.2d 535, 542 (D.C. Cir. 1981); National
. Treasury Employees Union v. Kurtz, 600 F.2d 984, 988-89 4 (D.C. Cir. 1979), Oklahoma Publishing Company v.. United-States, 515 F. Supp. 1255, 1258 (W.D. Okla. 1981);
Wilkes v. Internal Revenue Service Jacksonville-District, 509 F. Supp. 305, 310-312 (M.D. Fla. 1981),
wherein.these criteria were applied.
- 14.-
When these three considerations are applied to Pal-metto Alliance's claim of a " chilling effect" upon the First Amendment rights of Applicants' employees, it is obvious that Palmetto Alliance has failed to make the showing necessary to warrant the " remedial action" which it seeks. Indeed, Palmetto Alliance has not even addressed these (or any) legal criteria.13 Assuming, arguendo, that Palmetto Alliance has met the threshold burden of setting forth " plausible" allegations as to these employees' vulnerability to a chilling effect upon their freedom of speech (an assumption which Appli-cants maintain is unwarranted and which can only be made by the employees), an examination of the letters in question in the context of the three criteria set forth above clearly indicates that there has been no " chilling effect" upon the exercise of these individuals' rights. For example, the " severity and scope" of the chilling effect alleged to have been caused by E..ise letters must neces-sarily be minimal -- if not nonexistent -- since Palmetto ~
kiliance has failed to pinpoint a single specific injury to these employees' rights. Palmetto Alliance does not assert that any employees have been subjected to retaliatory action, or threats of such action, by Applicants; nor does it claim that the distribution of these letters has 13 See n. 4, supra.
actually prevented any employee from exercising protected
' rights. Instead, this allegation appears to be based on nothing more than Palmetto Alliance's surmise that these letters could deter " potential' cooperation" by employees.
Palmetto Alliance's failure to show that there has been a chilling effect in itself mandates dismissal of this claim.14 Application of the remaining criteria does nothing to advance Palmetto Alliance's argument. Assuming, for example, that the letters in question did predispose some 14 See Smith v. Price, 616 F.2d 1371, 1379-80 (5th Cir.
1980), wherein a police officer's claim that he had been dismissed because of unconstitutional. personnel regulations was dismissed as non-justiciable:
In the case of regulations governing speech or conduct, a threat of interference with rights of use plaintiff beyond that implied by the mere existence of the regulations must be shown.
,, United Public Workers v. Mitchell [ citation
- omitted). Officer Smith's challenge to the regulations which.we're not asserted as a. basis for his discharge is non-justiciable because he has suffered no injury from them beyond the mere fact that they exist; Smith has never claimed that he desired to engage in activity violative of those regulations.
See also National Treasury Employees Union, supra, Kurtz, 600 F.2d 984 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (Union's constitutional. challenge.to certain I.R.S. regulations prohibiting disclosure of certain information without-prior approval held.not'to present federal case or.
controversy because complaint did not allege that any employees had been subjected to adverse action or threats thereof, or prevented from exercising any right-due to the mere existence of the regulations.)
o i
employees to refrain from talking with Palmetto Alliance,15 there has been'no showing made that Palmetto Alliance lacks other effective means of communication with the employees.
Indeed, this Board, in its Memorandum and Order of April 6, 1983 refused to regulate Palmetto Alliance's communication with Applicants' employees. As for the third criterion, Palmetto Alliance has, as shown above, failed to base its allegations upon any " factual referent" or actual instance of a " chilling effect." An examination of the contacts made by Applicants reveals that the letters simply provided information to employees that their names had been dis-closed to Palmetto Alliance, over Applicants' objection, and that such action might result in their being contacted by Palmetto Alliance as part of the ongoing discovery in this proceeding. Inasmuch as the communications between Applicants and its employees were factually correct, neutral in tone, and disseminated to affected employees in a manner entirely consistent with other routine corporate communications, such must be viewed as reasonable and prudent action with no attendant chilling effect.
Support for the reasonableness of Applicants' contact is found in an examination of similar controversies arising in the area of labor law.16 In NLRB v. J.W. Mortell Com-15 An objective reading of these letters makes this supposition extremely implausible.
,1 .
gany, 440 F.2d 455 (7th Cir. 1971), the NLRB sent letters to employees seeking their cooperation in providing testi-many at a hearing to determine whether a union should be certified despite its rejection during an election. Their employer posted notices Which stated that the union had misrepresented the NLRB letter and pointed out that the employees were not obligated to provide information to NLRB attorneys before the hearing. The notices contain state-ments such as: "You are under no obligation to discuss the case with [a NLRB attorney] prior to the hearing. If you wish to discuss the matter with him, you are encouraged to do so." and " Feel free to [ meet with the attorney] or feel free to stay away. No one can legally pressure you either way." 440 F.2d at 460-61. The NLRB contended that these notices interfered with its investigation and efforts to obtain witnesses. The majority opinion did not address the question of the propriety of these notices, but the con-curring opinion concluded that the notices taken. as a whole were proper. The concurring judge found no basis to con-16 See NLRB v. Gissel, supra, 395 U.S. at 617, Which recognizes that Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Acts merely implements the First Amendment by requiring that the expression of 'any views, argument, or opinion' shall not be ' evidence of an unfair labor practice,' so long as such expression contains 'no threat of reprisal or j force of promise of benefit'- in violation of
$8(a)(1). .
1 l
- l
- 18.-
i clude that the employer had. interfered with the employees' right or that the NLRB attorneys were hampered in the pre-sentation of their case.
In Florida Steel Corporation v. NLRB, 587 F.2d 735 (5th Cir. 1979) at issue was an employer's letter.to employees.17 The Court, holding that the. letter was protected free speech, found'that the letter "shows no tendency to inter-fere with, restrain, or coerce the employees . . . Id. at 753. Significantly, the Court (quoting J.P. Stevens & Co. v. NLRB, 449 F.2d.595 (4th Cir.
1971)) stated:
It startles the conscience to deny an em-ployer -- no matter its historical infractions of the Act -- the right to.tell its employees the truth. Without conceding inappropriateness of the occasion or absence of cause here,-these considerations, even if present, cannot override the stubbornness of the facts. However unbefit-ting, verity can never amount to illegality. [Id.
at 752].
17 The pertinent part of the letter read as follows:
. . . In addition, if a National Labor Relations Board agent should drop in on.you, you may ask for an opportunity to obtain legal-counsel before you talk to him.
If you should want-some legal counsel, or just help in handling any of the situations described above, all you need to do is let your supervisor know. -He will put you in touch with someone who can help you. ~ [Id,. at 750] .
l
\
The Court went on to hold that:
l Whatever the employees might do about obtain-ing counsel or talking with a Board agent was entirely optional with them, and this was the clear meaning of the Company's letter. [Id. at 753].
- Applying the reasoning of the above cases, it is clear that the notice sent by Applicants to employees-is in no way coercive and does not hinder employees in the exercise of their right to cooperate with Palmetto Alliance.
Applicants' letters specifically apprised all employees that whether they talk with Palmetto Alliance "is solely your own business." Applicants' contact accurately re-flected the facts and Palmetto Alliance has not argued otherwise. Nor has there been any showing by Palmetto Alliance that the employees' receipt of such communication has hindered Palmetto Alliance's effort to obtain witnesses.
In sum, Applicants' actions cannot be said to have a chilling effect on this proceeding.
PALMETTO ALLIANCE'S SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR REMEDIAL RELIEF ARE UNWARRANTED Palmetto Alliance makes three requests for remedial relief: (1) that it be given an opportunity to meet with contacted employees to discuss its Quality Assurance con-tention and related discovery; (2) that a senior NRC official be permitted to meet onsite with construction and Quality Assurance workers to brief them on their rights and
. v responsibilities concerning-defects in workmanship _and that Palmetto Aliance representatives be permitted to attend; i (3) that the Board inform the contacted persons, in writ-ing, of their rights and responsibilities to give evidence and report defects and alert them to the protections of confidentiality. Underlying such requests is Palmetto Alliance's challenge to the propriety of the instant em-ployer/ employee contact and the alleged chilling effect the language of such contact has. For the reasons set forth in Sections I and II, supra, Applicants submit that such allegations are without merit. It also appears (although the argument is far from clear) that Palmetto Alliance's request for remedial relief is further premised upon Applicants' reference to Messrs. McAfee and Hoopingarner and to alleged omissions in the letters.
Palmetto Alliance alleges that Applicants' " fingering" of Messrs. Hoopingarner and McAfee as potential Palmetto Alliance witnesses on the issue of faulty workmanship has the potential for " embarrassment, harassment, and, perhaps, even physical reprisal." Palmetto Alliance appears to contend that, but for Applicants' letters, Messrs. McAfee and Hoopingarner would not be publicly associated with either the group intervening in opposition to the Catawba plant or their allegations raised with respect to faulty Quality Assurance practices. and construction. Palmetto
Alliance alleges that it was irresponsible for Applicants to identify the two named former employees. Given the ,
l seriousness of this charge, it is important at this time that the record properly reflect the level of notoriety voluntarily attained by Messrs. Hoopingarner and McAfee well prior to distribution of the letters. Based upon in-i formation in the public record, Palmetto Alliance's asser-tion that Applicants' letters have " fingered" Messrs.
Hoopingarner and McAfee by publicly associating them and
- their allegations with this proceeding is totally in error.
Indeed, given the state of the public record, such an i
assertion should itself be characterized as irresponsible.
1 As an attachment to this pleading Applicants have 1
provided copies of local newspaper articles, as well.as a l television transcript, which indicate the extensive local
! media coverage which Messrs. McAfee and Hoopingarner have actively sought and attained. Even a cursory examination of these documents makes clear that both the identities and allegations of these individuals regarding unsafe prac-tices, faulty workmanship and deficient Quality Assurance have been well documented in the local media since 1979.
Applicants note that the names and addresses (and, in the case of Mr. McAfee, home telephone number) of these two 4
former Duke employees appear in several of these local
. o .
~
- 22.-
I articles.18 In addition, both individuals submitted affi-davits alleging personal knowledge of such practices as
~
J part of Palmetto Alliance's original petition to intervene, which, of course, is a public document. Moreover, at the prehearing conference (in York, South Carolina) of January 1982, Messrs. Hoopingarner and McAfee were explicitly identified and their respective concerns over faulty workmanship were discussed. See Tr. 117-118. If any doubt remains, the following statement of counsel for Palmetto
, Alliance at the prehearing conference belies any claim that Applicants have brought Messrs. Hoopingarner and McAfee's names and allegations to the attention of the public for the first time:
Mr. Chairman, both of those individuals [ Messrs.
l Hoopingarner and McAfee] by formally submitting I
affidavits in support of the Palmetto Alliance contention obviously are willing to be publicly l associated with this specific part of the basis
, behind our quality assurance contention.
So, to that extent, they have already gone public with it, and their names should be associated
, with it at this point, although we don't feel that is part of our obligation to support a con-tention with that evidentiary-type information at this stage. [ emphasis added, Tr. 1183 Later in the transcript Palmetto A.111ance's counsel reiterated:
18 The Yorkville Enquirer of July 30, 1981, reflects that Mr. McAfee was actually soliciting telephone calls from individuals seeking more information concerning Palmetto Alliance's intervention.
. . i Both of the - people that I'have reference to are ready and able to testify about personal
-knowledge with respect to construction. defi-ciencies, and_they are champing at the bit to some degree to. explain in detail _what their concerns have been. [Tr. 120].
. . . I'm informed that both.[McAfee and Hoop-ingarner] have widely discussed their complaints with either NRC Staff or publicly, in a fashion that has been easily available to the Applicant, and, presumably, to.the Regulatory Staff.
[ emphasis added, Tr. 125].
In view of the widespread publicity Messrs. McAfee and Hoopingarner have already sought and received, Palmetto Alliance should not be permitted to allege that Applicants have disclosed their identity, " fingered" them or made their views public knowledge. It is clear that Applicants' letters did not reveal for the first time to Applicants' employees the identities, views, and concerns of these individuals and their active participation in this li-censing proceeding. With respect to the need for referring specifically to Messrs. Hoopingarner and McAfee, Applicants maintain that such was necessary to properly put into context for affected employees how the issue arose, the ,
nature of the issue and by whom they may be contacted.
Palmetto Alliance maintains that " Duke should be ,
l permitted no comfort or absolution from full responsibility for any harm to these courageous men which may result from this, at least irresponsible action." Applicants cannot I
i l
J
- 24,-
let this statement pass unanswered. In essence, Palmetto Alliance is suggesting that Applicants have not only countenanced, but also promoted, potential criminal activity. Applicants unequivocally deny such allegations.
More importantly, it is Applicants' position that such irresponsible comment on an extremely important issue should not be tolerated by this Board. Applicants request that the Board instruct Palmetto Alliance's counsel to refrain from such inflammatory language in the future. Cf.
Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP __, __ NRC __, (January 11, 1983) slip op. at pp. 14-15 (Intervenor reprimanded for contemptuous content of a pleading). Further, as the Board informed Palmetto Alliance during the March 31, 1983 con-ference call, if it feels that a basis exists to support such a damning accusation, relevant facts should be presented in affidavit form to the Board and protective action sought. Absent such a presentation of sworn testi-(
mony, this Board must not condone Palmetto Alliance's -
cavalier raising of extremely volatile allegations.
Palmetto Alliance further requests that affected employees be advised of their rights and responsibilities l with respect to reporting instances of faulty workmanship because of alleged omissions in Applicants' letters.
=
Palmetto Alliance asserts that Applicants " fail [ed] to provide a complete picture of worker rights and respon-sibilities," and makes reference to specific omissions.
Employee rights concerning confidentiality are governed by statute (42 U.S.C. $5851) and regulation (10 C.F.R. 50.7). Section 50.7(e) requires that a " Notice to Employees" b'e posted at various locations sufficient to permit employees protected by this section to observe a copy on the way to or from their place of work. Applicants assert that they have fully complied with such statutory and regulatory requirements, by posting the required notices at conspicuous points on the site. By so doing Applicants have provided their employees with a " complete picture of worker rights and responsibilities," including informing the employees of the protections afforded them when disclosing, inter alia, possible violations of NRC regulations. 10 CFR 50. 7 ( a) (1) (i) . NRC regulations clearly do not contemplate that a licensee must inform its .
~
employees of this protection whenever the employer dis-cusses ongoing litigation with its employees or sends out l
other routine communications. However, if the Board feels that additional notification of protection is necessary, Applicants of course have no objection to a Board-approved or Board-authorized notice. However, Applicants are of the view that the adequacy of notification (i.e., posting of l'
l L._- _ __
~
- 26,-
notices) is a matter within the jurisdiction of the NRC Staff. If the Staff feels that notice has been inadequate, or if the situation warrants, it can take appropriate steps.
With respect to the asserted duty to provide infor-
- mation concerning faulty workmanship, Applicants are aware of no statutory or regulatory requirement that construction i workers and Quality Assurance employees report any per-
) ceived deficiency directly to the NRC. However, Duke Power 1
! Company's internal corporate policy, implemented through a l recourse procedure, requests and encourages tha,t employees i
] notify their supervisors of defects or other problems at the plant of which they are aware. Given the fact that all i
i employees have been made aware of the employee recourse i'
procedure, that this procedure has been utilized routinely by Quality Assurance employees and others, and that.there i
l is no statutory or regulatory requirement for such em-ployees to report directly to the NRC, Palmetto Alliance's ,
request is without basis.19 -
! 19 During the March 31, 1983 conference call and in Palmetto Alliance's Request For Remedial Measures, i Palmetto Alliance has repeatedly stated that Appli-cants' employees have a legal " duty" to come forward with information concerning faulty workmanship. As stated above,_no such legal duty exists. Accordingly, Applicants request that the Board instruct Palmetto Alliance to refrain from misinforming any of Appli-cants' current or former employees in any contact that i' Palmetto Alliance'might have with them that they have a legal duty to come forward.
. .o' ,
- Lastly, the so-called " remedial measures" sough't by l Palmetto Alliance are in no way commensurate with the i alleged wrongdoing of which it complains. The specific j
) remedies requested are far in excess of those needed to correct any alleged wrongdoing. For example, Palmetto ,
Alliance has shown no colorable basis upon Which to justify f an order permitting it to come onto the Catawba plant site. {
i
! Applicants particularly object to this request because such !
action would interfere with ongoing construction.20 In I j sum, any need for additional " remedial measures" has been !
removed now that the Board has issued an order permitting ;
j Palmetto Alliance free access to Applicants' employees offsite.
i i
i i
e i t
i 20 In support of this specific request, Palmetto Alliance refers to the Zimmer proceeding. Applicants maintain that requests for remedial relief should be based upon the facts confronting the Board. Palmetto Alliance has made no showing that the facts in the Zimmer case parallel the facts in Catawba. In any event, as - ';
Palmetto Alliance itself acknowledges, the NRC Staff has'yet to grant the relief.being sought in Zimmer;-
rather, the NRC "is considering" whether.to permit intervenor. participation in'an on-site worker briefing.
l s
~
l .
l l
i III. Conclusion l
For the above stated reasons, Applicants respectfully request that Palmetto Alliance's Request For Remedial l
Measures be denied.
Respectfully submitted, GUJ/A g;neW.
e Michael McGarry,g II An CottIngham Dale E. Hollar DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9833 Albert V. Carr, Jr.
Ronald L. Gibson DUKE POWER COMPANY P.O. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 (704) 373-2570 Attorneys for Duke Power Company, et al.
April 8, 1983
4 C C, C, .M. E.~.E ? -
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA- '83 I22 Il I20lI4 I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- In the Matter of )
! )
j DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ~~
) Docket Nos. 50-413
) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )
Units I and 2) ) .
CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC7f i I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Response To Palmetto Alliance's ' Request For Remedial Measures In Light Of l Duke Power Company's Communication With Workers' " in the above 4
captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit j in the United States mail this 8th day of April, 1983.
James L. Kelley, Chairman George E. Johnson, Esq.
l Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Legal
- Board Panel Director l_ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i Commission Commission 4
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 1
1 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Albert V. Carr, Jr., Esq.
l Union Carbide Corporation Duke Power Company P.O. Box Y P.O. Box 33189
! Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 i
j Dr. Richard F. Foster Richard P. Wilson,.Esq.
- P.O. Box 4263 Assistant Attorney General Sunriver, Oregon 97702 State of South Carolina
- . P.O. Box 11549 Chairman Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Robert Guild, Esq.
i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Attorney-at-Law
! Commission. P.O. Box 12097
-Washington, D.C. 20555 Charleston, South Carolina 29412 l Chairman Palmetto Alliance i Atomic Safety and Licensing- 2135 1/2 Devine Street
[ Appeal Board Columbia, South Carolina - 29205 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i
Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Jesse L. Riley Scott Stucky 854 Henley Place Docketing and Service Section Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Henry A. Presler Washington, D.C. 20555 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Environmental Coalition 943 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Carole F. Kagan, Attorney Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
/
s/' fl $ ,
. Michael McGarry III V
-itr a le y= II wf eM, l'J /1
.-t- p *1 u m :y ;I c vcnis) l~*" *
[ *;. >. -
1; ~n -? -t e *s <r% *3
/ :qrtt ,r" *-
'd 4' (3 !! *,,a si >;
g.a [' .
r.J .%y3 .P. .:. .'. ' ' .%p,,, E.GC l"i. . ?- d
- G.:. ! G,."l'.f 3.rJ*]*u *JL " Q h .)g 1'**.g .v.;.t.%;..b.
rs ,;g,r...r;;*,W Th:rncrr.!xrsof the RwiilillCty *
~
kA.acsi :r: u!J te c ,stunten:cJ Ior We, the people, doa't r:ced the
- k. wel:lt.:: rec::s to listcn to the G yggt Cg];yggjgg u&s! W [ower comparn:: need .
W 'c wc(truin;; tl.c prepur.ed im. U:erinkcs toprt<!nce nare ItON Mel17E crease the avera;;c per::cn' pows r,in-rmancn2 to D.vc 1.yle Becievard -
21G1 India !!cak Road s depend-
- sd Frer Cwun 4tw:d. ~1 isis sia.sws llock Ih!! ence on centralized ciertricity, in- .
- r.t tlny care haw people feel and crear.e tlnir own profits, end to a.1 Ocy are cunctracd about U:s su bc.r.g of tae people most di- Q gg*** WT u !~
[wn'oNottagi CE Q increase the social and palitical ccn-trol they excrt on the people.
ii mhh[y;~b ccccps.
,,;y, n., a pu guoggg;;t g,3gg~ . ,
rctly affecte.l.141 u , hu;>c that this As F.C...Q.Cf 'O# h REtEAANE LOTS , t The Hock I!ill City Coun:!! will watarn will cor.tinue well into th3 trMrM1HE 5:o'n .
, tart
- -Q CF OGE't ..m makea decisionin the near fatt:re on 5.-
/*
24 .
e
) ~y ~
whether to purchase a part!on of the Scr:ral tr>:nths have pa:::.cd since .,.
S Catawba Nuclear Station. Ecfore T.rst lx:ccine concernal cbout the
- ;.tets cf the cortaructir,n of the
~
'G]f v.
g( ' .*, O y l Uns happens, the peop:e of this area shoidd be informed ataut 0.c ris!:s
,f /
/ /-
8 ttawha l'!xt:ar Station. ?.17 con *
- . r.nd I,enefits from this actlr.n. Atter
- /
// '
r /
,:n grcws c:Js day as(oestr.n.t!ern the p:vple have beca truthfully edu ~
- Nra.ca a:vi t!.c day Cntanlia be- ([;-J. i,/*!
, l ,,
( '. .
cated concerning tids matt (r, they -
ene:: radk, active laches closer. 1. \. t. ;
-- ,,,... .d,- wl!!I,e able ta n.ake a r(asonatic de-
\
An acciasit at Catawi,a c:,uld /[<f%/py. +
cision and help their elected officials
- L.ke this ity an us.in!.nhitable A, P Q.
f
.r E ';cestr - e y
' h ' .- do the same.
La6L town. However, the people of *
- i.e ro:ntn.in!;y are still mir,irw f T.'it: -
ig p4,'l isv.ot 1otEt / ,- / We hear n lot about the ** benefits" and veiy little truth about the hen!!h
, iT GETouror ', , ,:, , , ,,.
b.wJ. r:dc rd,ar.d lied to mbaut uac .,
rit:1.s (cr us used future g'tccrr.tions Q: cts of nacicar g.oncr. 'g~.' M tagl))M
.- g ' ~" * -%'
-~ j e- -
% -* . or about the ca.crgy altern;stivts t ' .f ~
3 .e recer.t a-ci:icnt at 'Ihree Mile # 't
- which already are superior to nucle-
- l ar power.
d%I m uld cenvince the snajority
$.e perple cf timian:;trs of nucle-a '" , F ., j
/ b[ih! { "Hac people must be educt.ted s,ith f ,j g - f. , --*
l pcusr lf u. eft.rts abcut thc acci- ih
- 1. . regard for the facts, rather than re-
.. t.
gant for the profits of the rower
' wtre rc.:dily nvailab!c. Few '
- g le rectit. trr,t t!.cre w .s r.o hw $ V , *.
companics. It is rny opiaien that so-f; L ~ f', '% 8 e # -
- r.t:.tica in place to sewasure ptr.ite compo4tien of the rai!io-
- .: -- . . g,h 1.
J)
- J* '.
Ir.r encr;;y and other rer. cur.b:c re-sources would produce more cm- ,.
avz steans whic:: was vented into ,b .k.{ / k ,; g ,;, , ployment, snore social equity, anel a tt:ncsphere. 'the only isv:tru-present were s'mple therm -
/EgP{M., p. '. '
,s .
sp
, more humane sockty Uun the build-ing of nukes which still itive poi-
.. ** :,e. )a .
sanouslevel: of r:u!ivactivitysever-in b'e.:escent dorieneters which re venin:a radiation, hat can-
'l,- g / .
' g( p al centuries after their pra;.o::ed 33 *
- ) %,j, )
A .'",
1 &tm;;u!:.h 14tacen dilittent ([ ,,. f.
,r] ,,,,, Yp year life" spans.
Several centuries is a long time banrJ r!ernent. Y -
7ndHC's caren !n the field, Dr. _.-
"" N, htd d' .
- R&NP compared to the Iwo years I werked en Brcdsky, lists 21 radioactive ' 'd7,'l',4, *8 at Use Catswha Nuclear Statiaa. It
- ba'cais prialuced in the fission ma radiction at v,rtel by the t,0dy was during this time that I ix:ame v.s in a m: clear reactor. Dr. could be saensured by the simple especially !!he that of our ouwn convinced that the Catawba lh:c car country which plan::to depend on nu- Stationshouhlact beImi;t,and mah b *,.y ratimatc; th..t the r::sca in- th::rmo lumiswscent dos!nwters,
, .I ah;n is:. a..n pri.Jocts pa:::: by W,cicre, uno,1 c.! the radiadoa ex- cienr ener:'y to a r.trater catent, are le::s convinecd U:at I wanted a r. le
% claus of w :n p:v!nce desa::cs pacute t.t U.e time of the accident lendind to the centralis.ction of politi- for a neighbor.
cal, social, asul cco1ornic power. As
- n.:.s greiter than thcamount of could not be measured. a result, this is Icsoening the ability brnal ;;.anm.: r:.diation absorbed - Ron AleMee if the citizesis in the conununity to 2161 India Hoc.h Road Oas tedy. On!y the external gam- Large centrallred technologies, control their futum.
Rack Hi!!
.e O , g 9 ,
TRANSCRIPT OF SEGMENT FROM KNOW NUKES WLOS TV - APRIL 1982 Aerial shots of Catawba in ANNOUNCER: About 20 miles to the south background . Duke has nearly completed another huge nuclear power plant called the Catawba Nuclear Station. Protestors
'are gearing up to fight this plant's operation, aiming at problems they've,found'in its construction.
Background shows shots of RON MCAFEE: What disturbed me was that I the reactor building was trained by one set of procedures and then I was told to ignore the procedures.
Inside shotscof thecreactor ANNOUNCER Ron McAfee was a Quality Control building Inspector for Duke Power Company for two years - in the late 70s.
He says Duke, supervisors let shoddy workmanship at Catawba go by in the reactork electrical system.
Background shots of RON MCAFEE: It's when I found something that Catawba construction was wrong that they didn't correct but they told me to s.ign .ny name any way - that's bothering me.
I could no longer work at a plant like this because I had become educated about the problems with this technology and the dangers and I could not morally do it any longer.
Inside the reactor ANNOUNCER: Mr:Afee has joined a local citizens building protest to keep Catawba from generating electricity. He intends to tell what he knows to the Nuclear' Regulatory Commission which must license the plant before :
it can operate. But Duke officials answer the charges saying the construction at Catawba is the best.
9 jcb 4-1-83
iCatawba Nuclear Plant .
en.s 4
z
- O[n.[.onents e
n Ra.ise. .Iss.u..,e,s.;. .
1
.5Before Licensing B6151 By J ACK HORAN ricultural centE. wv the first
- ' " " * " public skirmiah over as crating i
. YORK. S.C. - Opponenu of license for the $2.7 billion 5,last. :
the Catawba nuclear plant sought Kelley said the board will decule next month which. If any, of the
. Tuesday to convince a federal 16-
. censing board to accept up to 74 74 sasues will be .;gued at licew
.ilegal arguments against the plant, ing hearings in ear!y 1983.
O . incl tur os.e that would require The contentions are being put c Charlotte be included La expancec forth by three citizens groups -
. accident evacuation p!ana, the Charlo*te Mecklenburg Eesi-C) 3 " Charlotte is very close to the ronmental Coalition. Carchna En.
tacility." said Columbia lawyer vironmental Study Group and the y*3ob Guild, who represents the Palmetto Alhance.
"'" 5. anti-nuclear Palmetto A1 hance.ar. One Mtention offered b the
. Sunng that, consequently, the gov. ,, g
~~ - Ternment required 10 mile evacua- s of My worMP '
and unsafe working cooditions at n:, e .-
[Cataw cek Cocnty. S.C., tw plant. Tky were bagist by C'- -9
.ls 19 mine.s southwest of down. former Duke workers ha -
- ~--~ M ' ' town Charlotte and about 10 miles of York. and Noh t- .. c c. .
- frmo the city hmita. MCAI
% nga mt H4! Nu botn of
- ;W ;.- The Duke Power Co.-owned whom are members of the Pa'm-4~ p,lant le scheduled to start up in etto A!!!ance and wee present at
. . , . 1964. Duke attnrney Mke Me, Tuesday s session.
p..b~(f_Q-". ,} Garry told the Nuclear Regulatory "i - -Commission (NRC) 1; censing When their allegataocs were
- Iboerd that the agency's emer. erought up during toe discussaans.
.pency regulations take into ac. NRC Lawyer E4 Xetchen told the
. l count large population senters tward that if "they base spec:facs.
~ i.near a nuclear plant. they should come forward nght p "There is no special circum- now and 31ve it to our inspectaoo C htance to go beyoed the EPZ, people . . . we need enore thaa (grwig. q Plannmg Zooe) re- s e+y generahzed accusanoca."
,~ a Guild rW that both mea
- !quirement."
. Licenalng McGarry aasd. have discussed their comolaints board chairman c3ames Kelley said even !! the with NRC personnei.
- Joard abound turn down the pro- Attending the hearing was
- posed Palmetto Albance coeten- Peter Van Doorn . NRC inspector
., , *;Ooa, the group could request a assigned to Catawba. who sad.
- walver under specsa! NRC rules to
- We're aware of their concerns.
- teclude Cnariotte. It's not something new to us .. .at 7,7
~.E . ;
s The NRC hearing, attended by this point we have found so prob-
'~d' about 35 people at the county as- lems."
e a. -i-a.
6 M
Gilliland said 'the NitC reiuired l
that Duks "havs a handle on pro-NRC l' tA*J v6 and keeping their drawings up to date."
~
"If you've got a blueprint ' going a .
Catawba P1 ant I cc,ta1n .ay and a change is made. .
Ratin s don't sur rise F fo their drawing has got to reflect it." -
You need to remember that ?
eIow average ;
- b. low a..,ag. doesn.t m.an it.s .
disaster,"Gilliland added. By JENNIFER WOODS major problem he observed while I UyJENNIFEllWOODS l llenry said Duke has made efforts Evening IIerald staff writer working at Catawba. -
to step up inspection of defective i YORK - Ron hicAfee,25, of itoute " Workers, engince,rs and manage-and DET11ItUDOWSKE l Evening IIerald staff writers materials - like pipes and fittings . 1. York was a proponent of nuclear ment f ad the attitude if we don't
- ROCK lilLI, - The Catwaba with scratches - and to improve 'l power when he started work as Duke do it right, the inspectors can catch
', Nuclear Plant gat a "below . handling and storage of materials at l Power safety inspector in hfarch, - it. And then maybe we'll have to do it I877-cverage" rating on construction, the Catawba plant. . over and work longer," McAfee clong with !! other nuclear plants Units one and two of the Catawba hicAfee quit his job as a " certified said.
under construction, in a national plant received a construction license electrical quality control inspector" McAfee said he thought many of from the NitCin August 1975. In March,1979, and by then had the workers weren't concerned
. report to be released tomorrow or I
- "We are not aware of any major become an opponent of nuclear , about construction costs, "because Wedne: day, according to a regional .I **3
official of the Nuclear Itegulatory they didn't buy power from Duke."
! l issues quick toatcorrect this time. Duke was the situation," - pretty P "hty concerns were over the way **Some 'of them were shipped in I' Commission. Catawba was built and my concern Duke cificials respomled that they ' Gillilandsaid. from 100 miles away,"he said. '
tre aware of the. rating and have over nuclear technology," McAfee McAfee has a bachelor's degree sa1d this morning.
corrected problems pointed out by flock 11111 City Councihnan Doug . from Gardner-Wetib and studied
'Echols said this morning the report ,,I'm not a bit surprised at the Biblical literature at Vanderbilt the NItC.
The report was part of a nation. I would probably not affect Rock ' . NRC imdings," McAfee said about University, llill's decision to buy a share in a .. reports that Catawba nuclear reac-wide " report card" the NRC decided to issue after the 1979 nuclear acci. I reactor at the Catawba plant. tor units I and 2 were rated "below "We would certainly hope any con- average"in a nationalstudy done by dent at Three Mile Island in Penn- i meNRC.
rytvania. Of plants under construc- a struction deficiencies continue to be ,
addressed in accordance with the McAfee described his job as tion,12 were graded below average, l ,, inspecting the structural com-65 as average and do units above ,
NitC." Echols said. .- .
I tverage. ! Rock Ilill, along with 9 other South Ponents of the nuclear safety equip.
Carolina cities formed the Piedmont Duke's problems were detailed in Checking hangers that hold elec-a report based on a study' done at Muncipal Power Agency, to buy a Catawba between September 1979 quarter of a reactor at the Catawba . trical cables that control the move- ,
through August 1980. It cited pro. station. Ilock llill has contracted to ment and operation of electrical blems in Duke's " quality assurance get 28 percent of the PMPA power. e9uipment in the reactor was part of (safety inspection) program " Joe Almost one-third of operating power ' .M#Afee's job. .
Gilliland of the NitC regional office ,,Some of them were braced in the in Atlanta said today. plants below normal.in the nation were classified,'
wrong l, direction from what the The report was released Sunday - blueprints said," McAfee said. I Gilliland said Duke was nottled of
'the report in February of this year. by Critical Mass, italph Nader's "So they changed the blueprints.
anti nuclear group. l,. It ended up the workers were design- .
Ins the ptant ',' McAfee said.
Wayrie llenry, quality assurance The report ranks 21 of the coun. .
manager for Duke Power, said this i
try's 72 licensed power reactors as , McAfee said " apathy" was the morning,"We did receive the report
' "below average." Fifteen reactors ,
that said we're below average. We < received "above averag'e" ratings a
responded held meetings to them with (the NRC) them..." and"nd k the other 36 were classified as average." '
8 "We have corrected the problems. The repo'rt cited examples of poor '
. All the specific findings have been operator training, inadvertent ,
cleared,"llenry said. 1~'
l Construction management and p See N-plant, page 14 ,
I quality control, the NRC said, were l the source of Duke's problems. , ,
(
~ _ _ _ - __ _ -_______ -
n .
i j
. Catawba Nuclear Q(.
h Ucense opposed
.p : ,_ lac. hsetuded af5dadts dped IMJ'6: - Four utsarns' organian; todude: by the following peopie sv.
-The cumulatiw biolog6 cal
. g W - (Aces with en simninee tal.
economic and woewsbie effects of redantson produwd hve witMn the enstrontmental prem a- protectaon snoe and the sut.
^
- es eg> ense m ts announced by the entire vaansum fuel rotmdeng cosmemanity;.
(be) are Chng papers to cydr fHin wd ,tas ,rus, the Anne Spens Goae. Fort f*
- D t :
'.f1 lega!)y 6nterwee m the opet- nucient teactoss.
attag herese of Duhe Power . Substandard workman.
HEE; Mary F. Fnvenen. Fort i
f SED No&an R. lloopin Car.
h 3 -i Company's Catasta Nuclear ship and poor quakty ventrol ' net, fl. On,eti Rah S. I in safety related areas of the C - Stauon. law. Rock 1911: Asce s..
=M[ff Spoicep opia for North plaat # A number of former
- gg; McAfee. Oowet Wilham R.
g.7c., . Camhna\ Caridma Endron. f> uke Pnmer Compen) con- McAf,e. York ares and I C-n?t rnental %+tv Grupp. The structmein markers.orturbng a kaan it. .%#neth of Ye.et.
- l
- 9. Chartutteiklechirebueg Ende- : *'.4Ged Quakt) Contml in- .
l d namental (baktson asid The spsesor a, d ones e Pat.netto Liwer> Alisamer and Alhaper nwenher ran York. , - -
I ul%s', .
so 8ste h c. .na s e.imrtin os., som,amed of ,. '
.% . A!have toy that many of mane deScicones in plant
,S, their membres and farmnbes construet6en asd compen) ~
~ l w sithin the tenenue emer. poussere to appsove faulty r- '
f :7.* m @pene) planning snee su'* workmanshipj
- q ..
i
-The abasty of State and '. * ? l f
pn %. p,.;M .
, , tvundmg t-dt nuclear reactort. thelocaltwo 114f>
agencves mess!
to impkment 2
l'T4 *h, A remadent ofSusan York Semith.
and energrocy egneuation pleas
'" . En, .. J ' . ' - r . . .-
M$' ,'f n . @i. . v. ' . .~
of two. In Rock 151. Fast 15E. and '~~- :.. "' f. . b ;.
,,^ :f ,.4 tD-esplained =*r she ==* n=b-a.rt. as v.a as caso t.ds' f. . - -G -: J'" - / . .-
c Chms her afndent with the. and Hedtsp. U.S.A.. an of . r4.8II.8 J.T88# 4 0..;.'l.'* v ':, M;. . r~ ' '
5 / . Petation Int lateeweLion Aled ...which ase in the EFZ Fed 6 72-a3jf-:. . - 4 . .; :t r. r . . ff;' i r?.&g#'.c 3 . s :F. . &
S: ::H6 -
- yJ7 /Cby the Patenetto Alkancel%
Power Cosepony erals law
- - sequses the toe of .
.~.'J ; f?
'- . J ' ., -a- r_.f,N.9;@{ #frgQ-;",.S t . f.:; " [(
(['W;M
.' Q;.-- would " Duke not how' to ho&d ,a esse =maa plans.%
-The abitty of the thin.
- ..-: . .. ;g N hennag if.se one. .
..--eassed nrgal .guestion->abeeGwall design to wechstand the .d'. cg-. .:g .. . .. ; g*.ra; f ,:. w /- M 9 2 . @.*:.3 . Q -
mk p.r,,"w$r o.t:g ,
s.; pubhcR the plant. .y We how a sam.hef*.l .. ressume U. "' ' 4 .e that.c.
' '..y%...N. .-M.< .c~could
%.c:-o.-L.n DI.M,. .W..M.~,.'1.[~
' v; he m.h.
o! toouse to see that ase . csosted hi--af arww mess.
ret .;'
M %stal to the bralth and sefetyident.
" .~
' *'N i-. E- :k. E f '. O ".~.$' D
~ .
?. 7 -
.-Duke Power % Emilter to '
-? . , ;;.,
W$'_of the people an Yost and _- - consedre -the.poseWbty of . . .., .,
,.,,,"[.
' Q. Mecklenburg Cowstass. '
' ' ' ~
"' . v.
-1 ~
"It's anno unter in let -Cansnnancial 9"inett dous. Q4.:
~
H empshitty of: . 2, . .
- 7 ' ;;
. d J - C' Duke douanPowe an 6n==<t tan 6 densmalkone these auof . Duke Power cosapsey to .'3',... . \e1?.'j g ,?.' y.s Q ; N y. .
& Q? . . ' ,
~*
.:% .V.#~.WWD ?;,?..,3,t"%j:"M
. .C
- M:C'>ctear ptant* and then ask Soc.- cope wtth a estypiseg amo.
W ": ~. - -
C_.f. ~ , . ?---
~ Y$ %
, .4 1[- .q'srf'. ;;M.y.g,5;:ig ,- ' p3% .
a bcesse su oprtste ' thets.' ':- :-dust ' such . . as : These -' . &&ie,' . ,, y. .;*.-i,%gT g f e y - Q.,0.
ko*.'T:;' 'p .. The NRC se not ganag .to turn dosm their gMa .nstand. > M:':k -5 c '
bl-g:.7 and, en fact. newr has turned % -Th.e oisPeemihakty
= cm wn. 4 the% m . , : . gg;g,,,;.y;nd.gq@73.,3 e
- 3. c
% ~ .e,e otherdo b.t tet,e.o.s e, ,
becomlag a **3enspeeary"a *7@w;ggM:<gg.xw ;f .p g;;
. .@'Mi C-nueveer operstnag bees.
ses r. w . neer e h taa' ant AFP. (away frees ssectort 1acSty W ee- the @ c
._ . , ."f . . .&Jg.*v. 'g' gr.h.p@h .
y 4: contnbutwre m pa6nskog out,.1torner Coenpanyb ether omsesor;-QA . se J.y;,:;.,,@,iyqg,py@ggfAygyy;
- y fs W.
- ML, y. y S
.@t 5" unsafe conditsees and we w. :. actors theselrrdecf** mag the .4 u-4 :~5 d*- /.M,
- 1,2atN:.* trod to do our best.** needed hur the plan 1Y ' I ' *~ ~# " - *"37 t'*-M;~ .gceW '* "q
STY - M. . ..M.'e .E.- .
,p . .
a ownierL .... 'm - ' c* . L ,y_.. # ,. Qyf .
g -@g.-..>h.f
(.-
T.? 3' 't M' dh. w . g@ 4 n r Q MB t All four nf the seteewomg O- -
. r,- -
on demat.oe.. and fund rassang The P'tition'l* 18'8e"*'
offaniz:a.iui. aae dependsag nica by. ratanetto Albance.-- -
g .?_ 6.Q'.@R..:w.'2..gg M cF6- G.s+,.
eio-it. ta numan the peo.. .. & p : 5 /. U . J.
y-: 7 4. 1.,.0m:o@r-=$...c.67chu.e .. .,ng.
F a%g.. /e;- yci .e.cn cousd be 3 ems
. .~- 1.p..: -A..
- q. u -u .; .m. ...x,s.u.. ;: . .::w-
. p un --
s cp.s -
jh., Ak, e
.Q M. .3 .; b.p,-q '[em *M pmew
. V7.- amas from a Goal dramaa=.
m ,v.r.p.1--:h-3.g.
~ !.g. AeC:{y.p,,.7Q'
,T ',
3 por moor snfucinataca ese-
' v t t e.c m .
. %g-p%
g .y 2,.
Le, n,nr> pe,4,r.
-- :W* u nchel Leme. sgg. .y . ; %^r , pW -
24.233.,-sm.nno C -
- e 5@ r wu.e.to34s4 sg n .
M:! gs @ NTWW 1 g'?.
-thdW.}gy;:.3-5*t'Q:
e sa-gQ p. g %' T ; M A, .'"m .f y;;;7,,,
~
y c/1 ,
v c.
y , , ,'
- Q i.* 3:p.@$T M %tr ., ii4;
..w. v;*m-. p* i g.dy,6.-e.g . y yQ.m cg )v,e T-
- q$j " d *l,,., g3, ing,,w.oneg -
y;M.y E
,4 ,,,g,u,at,on.
nt,.d to re
..+,e c.'- 7; -.~.~< c. .f ,.$.:5..:.s. r.m.0s.t o.f
,>9, .
- a. m. **
see
& M W ea E M ig We.L e &, d. R aif @
iI-si Nb
__ _ ff}f- h kNb NN N
N
~
M/cdA W 6'~- ($etW @
j, w +: . '. a .. s . w - , c n * --
C um. -. - - - . . . . . ,
- r~ v. ~~ ~ ' ~ -
4 .
- m .
- ..
_....A~_ '- r ,
.* _rA .-
- zgg 4d ., N -'
- - #8'
- 3.WWITD WW5-wMcN;Q.d ..
,5 @s
% .4 Yy N p;,, 4 ,c i
~. .
Y ' W Y.. k.h h .~ . .
fr -.
S-. ' ,e.
f.W} ~, .-n; P ~~[ -
- - C'$ $ DRh: . '. . ^^"- '
z~. cr= ~ -ww.w . . . - .
'i. .$[.yN,a.Y.k Ri Q, l h[in .
, x. w~r: m u.c.- .. a 3 wy - 2- >;-
=~ '. 4 - . .
E
.0 .N'j .Ik ,
.;, g X*'-h . - $ .O .k *
- ^ & $ k y- & Q
. ._ Z
,Yi-f'?tf'Sh N -~% C-~uQi $ $:.*& g 2 & T [ [l $ E @ 'E.' Q j IKMOCf'5N55.$$
u ;~g*<O 2-- s . C. . .
r -- - - me 3 y
MMy%.g.g;."g.
' g Q ig-vr . -- .
.-.7:-g_ga, 4.Q. f &
N ' "/ A5h
- 9. . , ,,q .,
w3 .Jb t - - - - . - .
yN d.2.D b # @p gy.Mb.:
wggN M'~ .gmiann?m WPM W_$q m-4:: m2 ,J8 J @ ~'.-E =:
2 . .. w
-- -:-mmq
[. . I
?e&
&42%.%.ys h y& -
Y U$ Q? h b h& !h u,. o n. w ra. p.
-r CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION UNDER CONSTRUCTION I
ld Palmetto Alliance' opposes licensing for the plant
.m
'HKe::oes f.m d suppor t.m ..N..RC,s Crlt1CISm:0:: CalaW 3a COESIrUC310 By JENNIFER WOODS P ~ = - - y*,4g w - -- A In an interview this month, Mi- tion Inakes it subject to
~b ' 4% chael Lowe, a spokesman for the workmanship."
Evening Herald staff writer' Lowe said one of the allia ROCK HILL - A Nuclear Regu- t t group, said it regularly intervenes in A.- Pr the licensing of nuclear power plants main objections is to the thir mtory Commission report released 7 y contatunent buildings at Cata onday that criticizes construction f the Catawba Nuclear plant sup- C p,$ 6 ,f .m l g .,
and in requests ior utility rate hikes.
It participates in legislative lob-j bying and promotes renewable "Most plants have thick ,
Duke Fas designed the McGuir ports a South Carohna anti-nuclear ,g, rroup's claim of poor worksmanship y,,'j; k t. ,7 -t i Q- *J energy resources, such as solar pow. Catawba plants with thin waE 2n ice-cooler (surro"nding the er, in South Carchna.
at the site northwest of Rock Hill. Z '."" 1 W .- .,'# t s; - Ron McAfee cf Route 1 York, and ter building) to keep steam pro The gmup, Palmetto Alliance, a tp a down, in case of at accident.
statewide environmental organiza-don based in Columbia, dedicated to q~
gW
},-
McAfee
{ Nolan Hoopingarner II of Route 5, Clover, are active members of Pal- "But we have seen accident exceeded the containment (c; the " promotion of renewable non-nu-metto Alliance and are intervenors in the proceedings f or Catawba's op- ty) at Catawha " Lowe said.
clear energy forms" is intervening biHion Catawba station in August '
- Nuclear waste: "We will in the operating license proceedmgs 1975 applied for an operating license crating license.
Hoopingarner and McAfee are any attempt to store any wg for the Catawba plant. Members for the plant this year. Catawba from any other pla want a hearing to oppose the The Palmetto Alliance filed a peti- both former Duke employees who say they observed deficiencies in the Duke system," Lowe said tion protesting the proposed oper-
~
licensing. - Health and emtronmenta The nationwide NRC report rated sting license in July. plant construction and problems in
" Substandard workmanship and construction management at theCa- ards: "'Be hazards of radiati units 1 and :' of the Catawba plant off by this plant are not min:
"below average" in construction, poor quality control strongly suggest tawba plant. Lowe says the Pal-metto Alliance will use testimony lowe sali citing problems in construction that actual plant construction is sub- " That's only part of the si management, quality control and stantially below MRC standards in from McAfee and Hoopingarner and others to protest the Catawba oper- there are radiation hazards fr:
lhe handling of construction many safety related areas," says mining of fuel through trare materials, the petition. ating license on the following grounds, tion to its handhngin fmal dis; Palmetto Alliance, organized in - Construction: " Nuclear con- - Economics: Lowe says t Duke ofhetals said Monday they tawba plant may be violating were aware of the rat ng and have 1979 and claimmg a mailing hst of struction is very enacting work,"
about 3,500 people mside and outside lae said this mormng. al antitrust laws by giving corrected most of the problems stud- Power Company a monopoly <
ied by the NRC. the state, is dedicated to "public "Everythmg has to be dor.e to per.
education and organizing against lection. A weld has to be perfect, eratmg power and const:
Duke Power Co., which w as grant-the nuclear industry." and the tedious nature of construc- capital.
ed a construction heense for the C.7
g.
u y
THE CHARLOTTE OBSEEv'II. FEL. Aug.32.1980 E !
1 Complaining ;
N-Worker ,
Is Suspended ;
By JACK HORAN
)
A construction worker at the
- uncompleted Catawba nuclear plant who has charged unsafe working conditions exist at the plant has been suspended by Duke Power Co. for falling: to follow or. ;
ders.
Nolan Hoopingarner. 29. denies be disobeyed his foreman and j claims he is being harassed. He !
said Duke managers, who sus- l' pended him Aug.11 wanted to Fet him off the site before the ar- '
rwal of a tourir.g utility group. j ws Deke' spokesman fra Kaplan i disputed the charge. Kaplan said construction and line superinten-dents from several S.C. rural co- i
, operatives toured the plant Thurs. (
day but Hoopingarner's suspen. l soon had nothing to do with the s isit.
Kaplan said Duke officials are investigating the complaint agaiew Hoopingarner, who lives in Closer.
Hoopingarner, ernployed since '
- 1977, has complained that scaf.
f olding was improperly built, that {
-- live electrical cables have been -
left lying on the floor unprotected and that a welder m.de improper .
welds.
Duke's safety committee found Hoomngarner's complaints inval-ic. The S.C. Occupational Safety and Health Administration iOSH A)in Columbia conducted so inspect >on at Catawba as a result of Hoopingsmer's complaint but an USH A officia; uic in June that ins estigators founc no violations Hoopingarner said the Nuclear Regulatory Commiwon (NRC) in Atlanta informee him Monday that the w eieer den.ec makar.g in.
correct welds. NRC insestigators couldn't be reached for comment.
Hoopingarner said he filed a complaint Wednesday with the l'.S Department of Labor, con-tending Duke cascriminated assinst him because he filed safe-ty complaints.
a ^ _ ab -
b '. * *
- boM ' *
. 3' I
- The ChoricMe News,NrsdOY, May 15.1980 '13A
.. r .
Carpenter caarges wor ( sr:e unsare
- I R at Du(e s LaTawba nuc ear sta: ion Atlanta said an NitC inspector include lack of handrails around By CATHY STEELE ROCIIE Ioured Ihe site to check th( allega- scal!olding. exposed electrical en si.m m w cable and improper welding.
tions, but referred the complaint A carpenter at Duke Power to OSHA. because it was related Co.'s Catawba Nuclear Station, to construction safety, not the She said i.andrails are not re.
under construction on Lake safety of the nuclear plant. quired if safety belts or nets are Wylie.18 miles south of Char. pr y ded and that Hoopingarner's lotte, has charged the work site is Hoop ngarrier made his com-
- m afe. plaint to OSHA by telephone May hther allegations were also inv41 0 deging nine safuy violations.
Nolan Hoopingarner II first OSHA public information director Although OSHA has not investi-complained to Duke. then con- Jim Knight said. gated the latest complaints.
tacted the federal Nuclear Regula- Knight said the agency found two tory Commission (NRC) and the Because none involved immi, serious and 23 non serious viola-S.C. Occupational Safety and nent danger to workers. OSHA tions at the Catawba construction Health Adminstration (OSHA). listed the charges on a complaint site last Septembcr during its form and mailed it to Hoopingarn- most recent inspection.
Duke spokeswoman er for his signature. Knight said Howard said Hoopingarner,Angies con- the form has not been returned OSHA sought to fine Duke 31.-
cerns were reviewed by Duke and and the agency can take no action 260 for those violations. Knight the company found no safety vio- until it is* said Duke contested the citation lations at the site. in York County. Hoopingarner could not be and attorneys are nearing set-S.C. reached for comment teday. tiement of the issue without a NRC spokesman Ken Clark in Ms. Howard said his allegations hearing.
w
~
ce e<orz, e,s,e,,, 1,,,,,
TX-Inspect 01- g. l Criticizes l Du1.1e al'1t shell were poured during heavy rain, contrey to guidelines.
Davison said concrete inspectors oww siew one wne ae m check all pourings. McAfee was an /,
ROCK HILL - A former quality See EX. INSPECTOR Pg. :C, C1. 6 ~'
4/
control inspector at the Catawba Nuclear Station has accused Duke - - -
Power Co. of tolerating careless workmanship that could affect the '
future safety of the plant.
EX HS E Ol' '
Spokesmen for Duke, which is . * *
- building the plant on Lake Wylie 19 miles southwest of Chario'tte.
[}flCl[@$
- denied the accusation. , ,
Ron McAfee, the former employ.
ee. said the two years he spent at the Catawba plant site, including k1db .MNt nine months as an inspector. con- Continued from Page IC
.vinced him the company has been ,
guilty of " ignoring and deliberately electrical inspector responsible for violating regulations having to do the correct installation of electrical with design and safety consider- support systems. As such. Davison ations." said. McAfee lacked the qua!! fica.
McAfee. 23. claimed that apa, tions to criticlzt concrete work.
thetic workers often ignored de. o Blueprints were changed to sign and safety measures and that, allow'for construction errors.
as an inspector, he was discour- Engineering plans allow a cer.
aged from reporting irregularities. tain degree of flexibility. Davison Duke officials said the Catawba said. Sometimes in correcting a plant meets all federal building mistake, he added. designs are re-codes and guidelines. They said . vised after being reviewed by any irregularities are caught by in. ." technical people in the field" and spectors. .
py the plant's Quality Assurance "I can assure you that this plant Department.
is built in accordance with all ap. e Identifying markers on the plicable regulations." said Larry heads of anchor bolts used to sup.
Davison. a senior quality control port electrical cables were often i engineer at the plant. "Our pro. indistinguishable.
gram is designed to catch and "cor. Beam said that to his knowledge rect anything that goes wrong. there are no markings on the bolt Davison and project manager heads and their size is documented Douglas Beam called McAfee an in, on paper. Davison said McAfee experienced inspector who nuer was not trained to test anchor bolt i voiced objections during his em, Installations. McAfee contends checking the bolts was one of his ployment at the plant.
McAfee voluntarily left his job prime responsibilities.
in February. A Duke spokesman e Leaks in the roof of the cen-said Thursday that McAfee said at tral control room may have re
- the time he had "had it with Duke suited in some damage to impor-
- tant equipment.
- Power McAfe"'e went to work at Sunbelt Davison acknowledged that rain
- Solar and Wood Energy Inc. at had ente.ed the control room. but Rock Hill and has become active in said no damage was done to tn6 efforts to form an anti nuclear alli- . . equipment.
ance. To McAfee's final charge that McAfee, who started as a labor. , there is a general waste of man-er at the plant in 1977, went power and materials at the site, through Duke's own inspector, Davison responded. "I disagree training program before receiving with that 100 percent."
certification as an inspector. The 3
- program included four months of !on-the job training and a 17 hour1.967593e-4 days <br />0.00472 hours <br />2.810847e-5 weeks <br />6.4685e-6 months <br /> l certification course. In a class of four. McAfee had the highest score i on his certification test. Duke offi, cials said."
In a letter to the anti nuclear Carolina Coalition to Stop Nuclear Power. McAfee listed five prob-lems with the plant.
The following are McAfee's charges and Duke's responses:
S.
^
e/
l Greensboro Daily News, Friday, Oct. 26,1979 D3 Duke Accused Of Allowing-Careless Work At New Plant ROCK HILL, S.C. (AP) - A former Duke's own inspector training program Davison said concrete inspectors quahty controlinspector at the Catawba before receiving certification as an in- check all pourings. McAfee was an Nuclear Station has accused Duke Pow- spector. The rogram included four electrical inspector responsible for the er Co. of tolerating careless workman- months on-the- ob training and a 17-hour correct instaHation of electrical support ~
ship that could affect the future safety certification course. In a class of four, systems. As such, Davisor tald McAfee of the plant. McAfee had the highest score on his cer- lacked the quahfications to criticize con-Spokesmen for Duke, which is build, tification test, Duke officials said. crete work.
ing the plant on Lake Wylie, denied the In a letter to the Carolina Coalition to e Blueprints were changed to reflect accusation. Stop Nuclear Power, McAfee listed Sve construction errors.
Ron McAfee, the former employee, problems with the plant. .
Engineering plans allow a certam de-said the two years be spent at the nu- The following are McAfee's charges gree of flexibihty, Davison said. Some-clear facility, including nine months as and Duke's responses: times, in correctmg a mistake, he added,
.! an inspector, convinced him the cornpa- designs are revised after bein reviewed S Portions'of a concrete outer reae- by " technical people in the fi " and by ny has been ty of " ignoring and de-tion shell were Poured during heavy the plant's Quality Assurance Depart-liberately vio ting regulations having to rain.
do with design and safety considera- ment.
tions."
McAfee,23, of Rock Hill, claimed that often apathetic workers ignored design and stnet safety measures and that, as an inspector, he was discouraged from reportmg irregularities.
Duke officials said the Catawba plant meets all codes and guidehnes. They said any irregularities are caught by in- **
spectors.
"I can assure you that tha plant is . e.V' built in accordance with all applicable UVE '
regulations," said Larry Davison, a sen-for quality control engineer at the lant.
"Our program is designed to ca and correct annything that goes wrong."
Davison and ject manager Douglas / ff#I ..
Beam called h cAfee an inexpen'enced inspector who never voiced objections ,
dunng his employment at the plant.
McAfee, who began . working at the plant in 1977 as a laborer, went through l
l r
i 1
)
- s. ' u >
s n
-a ._
~
Juke Power Guilty of ' Violating Regulations' .
ItOCK illLL,5.C. AP) - program is designed to catch voiced objections during his job training and a 17-hour cables ~
Power, McAfeewere liste often Duk2 PIwer Co, is g,(uilty of and , correct annything that employmentcertification at the plant. course. Dukc of- problems with the plant.
The following are McAlce's Indistinguishable..
' ignoring and deliberately goes wrong." McAfee was tralned as an ficials said McAfee had the Although McAfee says
'loliting regulations having Davison and project inspector by Duke after he highest score on his certifica. charges and Duke's checking the bolts was one of responses:
a do with design and safety manager Douglas Beam was hired as a laborer. 'Ihe tion test in a class of four. -Portions of a concrete his prime responsibilities, in a letter to the Carolina
- n.sid:rctions" at its called McAfee an inexperien- Inspector training program Coalition- to Stop Nuclear outer reaction shell were Davison said he was not ht::wb3 Nuclear Station, ced inspector who never# includes four months on-the- poured during heavy rain. trained to test anchor bolt in-says o irrmer quality control,r stallations. licam says to his Davison said co'ncrete in-nspector. spectors check all pourings knowledge there are no Iton McAfeeg the former and that McAlce, ms an elec. markings on the bolt heads empl:yce, says the utility has , ;trical inspector, lacked the and their size is documented diersted careless , qualifications to criticize on paper.
prorkmanship that could put ' concrete work. - Leaks in the roof of the Iutrr2 safety of the plant, . -Illueprints were changed central control room may now under , construction on to reflect construction have resulted in som.c Lake Wylle, in jeopardy. damage to important equip-errors.
The ch:rges were denied Engineering plans allow a - ment.
Davison acknowledged that by Dukt. certain degree of flexibility, McAfee, 23, of Ilock 11111, Davison said. Sometimes, in rain had entered the control worked et the facility twol correcting a mistake, he ad. room, but said no damage gears, including nine months ded, designs are revised af ter we rione to the equipment.
os en inspector. Ile said he To McAfee's final charge being reviewed by ': technical that there is a general wastc if tin found that workers people in the field" and by Gnored design and safety theplant's Quality Assurance of manpower and materla' meisures, but that he wAs Department, at the site, Davison respon)
Escourrged from reporting - Identifying mark'erk on ded, "I disagree with tha; Irreg liritics. , the heads of anchor bolts 100 percent." .
But Duka officials said any .
Irregultrities are caught by inspectors and that all codes and guidelines are followed.
"I cIn cssure you that this :
plant is built in accordance
- with cli cpplicable regula-tions," s:Id Larry Davison, a .
sentar quality control . ~
engineer tt the plant. "Our
%^ ll m :.cf
. i o,. . .
x..
9 e k e .: - - .
..T
- j. iwo Duke officials
- ~
if
';;t.
u 4 j deny accusations '
." I of careless work
[ respons!bilities. Continued from page 1 .
) - thatleaks in the roof of the cere k',. tral control room may have resulted
.* .. in some damage to important equp-I. ment. He says beaters 'were liv
'. stalled to dry out the equipment.
. ,I had entered the ccotrol room, but(Davison acbowle 1( said equi no damage had beendone to the J .f .merpment.)that the,re is a general waste of
- . ;- f tawbaStation McAfeesaysworkerspawer and materials at
- ft are bored and as a result, often *
!. 1 apathetic.
p
.(. cent," Davison says.)("I disagree with that 100 per-
, McAfee claims inspectors ar
,s . g suaded from reporting errors.e dis-Such
- findings are made on Non-Conform-i lag Item (NCI) reports.
4 ( "We were told once w r i .< NCI," McAfee says, einitiatedan'
.[ about $700 worth of "there was paperwork in-
{ volved. For obvious reasont ..we .
were discouraged 'from writing these."
'.. t.
Beam disagrees. -
"We have written over 6
.' }, (NCIs)," the project manager ys. sa,000
).
I "I don't call that ' discouraging '
r '
don't think we ever discourage rit-w. I .
- , ing legitimate NCIs."
A McAfee works for Sunbelt Solar
.' and Wood Energy in Rock Hill.
('s. g.
,. r..
A .
D 9 ,' . , .s y ,,, '
. ANS -
n dq Y.Y
?. .
~
b . $hi}iF.W.! '..-
g .s
. s t .y .
q
U'-
- my m
- b@@p/ m,. p RC nka wo -
T ,A > a.."iL .
i -
\
h a
y 5
carelessness atT-plant Djr JIM MOctRHL
'u leaving in March because he'd "had tain degree of flexibulty, Davison 1 Evming Ilwald suff writts- it with nuclear power." says. Someumes, la correcting mia..
i i ROOC 11111 'A former iuality l , While describing some of the takes, he adds, <ta=1gns are revised controlinspector at the Catawba Nu- things he criticizes as relatively mi- after being reviewed by "M=L =1 l
. clezr Stauon, under construction on nor, McAfee says he was disturbed people la the flek!" and by the i
12ke Wylle, has accused Duke Pow- .
to see them in a nuclear plant. plant's Quality Assurance i er Canpany - the plant's builder'- "When you are working with a nu- department.)
f cd tolerating canelens workmanahlp clear power plant, a minor problem -thatidentifying markings onthe i that could affect the futura safety pf can twcome a major problem later heads of anchor bolts, used to sup.
, W plant.
on." port electrical cables, were often in- -
Duke spokesmen deny the j distinguishable. "'lhough the pmb-I s,ccusadons. . Now an anti-nuclear activist, tem was serious," McAfee says,"no Ron McAfee says the two years he McAf,ee detalls neveralcharges in a enduring allempt was made to coc. ,
. spent at the nuclear facility - In. *
! letter written for use by Une Carolina rect IL" -
ciuding nine months as an inspector CoallUon to Stop Nuclear Power. (Deam says to his knowledge, 1 - convinced him that the company , 'Ihe letter is intended as resource there are no markings on the bolt has been guilty of " Ignoring and do- mater;al for the coalition, made up, heads and their size is documented .
liberately violating regulations har- .. of the imague of Women Voters, the on paper. Davison says McAfee was ing to do with dealgn and gaiety S!crra Glub, the lawyer's Guild, en . not trained to test anchor bolts in-cmsiderations." r, vironmental groups and other stallaUons; McAfee contends check-McAfee, 23, of Rock 11111, claims F7 '
t., 4 organizations.
- Ing the bc.lts was one of his prime cites >epathetic workers ignore de- 3 j In the I Sec TWO DUKE, page 14
- 8 e algns and strict safety measures and
- ,' problems,etter,
- McAfee llats five ,
Unt as an inspector he was " dis- RON McAFEE - that portions of the concreta couraged" frym reporting many Anil nuclear activist outer reactor shells were poured Irregularities. * . . during heavy rain and that "precau. -Duk0 tO meet public - .
~~O O an ainexperienced" inspector who tions were rarely taken to masure ROCK 'UIL- A Duka h 4 Duke Power Company officials never voiced objecUons during his that the extra water did not weaken Company representauve wUl talk C
l deny McAfee's allegauons and say time at the planL the cos: crete." about energy conservation and h
- the Catawha plant meets all codes, McAfee, who began working at the . (Davison says concrete inspectors nuclear power plants at 7:30 plant in 1971 as a laborer, went check all pourings and that McAfee tonight at the Oratorv*s Pope N f guidelines and dealgn requirements.
Any irregularits, they say, are. through Duke's own inspector-train- - an electrical Inspector respon- J:hn Center on Orchard lane. P N' h
caught by quallfled inspectors.
- Ing program before receiving certl. alble fer the correct installaUon of Mary Cartwright of Duke's .
"I can assure you that this plant la fication as an inspector. *lhe pro- electrical support systems-lacked pubtle relation's office will dis- )
built in accordance with all appil- gram included four months on-the- tie qt ,llfications to criticize con- cuss " Technical Ways to Con- a c ble regulations," says 1.arry job training and a 17. hour certifica- crete work.)
Davison, a senior quality control en- tion course. In a class of four, -that blueprints were changed to acrve Energy" and " Questions About Nuclear Power Plants."
- ,,,,n f
T g gineer at the plant. "Our program is McAfee had the highest score on his reflect construction e: Tors. When ' Die mecung, widch is open to !
designed to catch and correct any- certification tests, Duke officials this happened, says McAfee, "de- the pubhe, is W by b !
l Udng that goes wrong." say. , algn engineering considerations be- American Association of Univer- '
Davison, along with project man- After being cert!Iled, he worked came secondary." alty Women.
4 ij ager Douglas Beam, calls McAfee an inspector for five months before (Engineering plans allow a cer. }. g
' 4 r
, ~ q~...*...g,.*,,
.w * 's
- .r
,, / e,
,.8 e*.
, . . g . , . . . . .
D 4
.' '8
[ ;* * *
- f(I, .
, j,6f 4, * #[j',,h*.[I h*f
, 8 9y , e
.}.Q -[?h* .).,g.,,[f. ',' . *,,.,.,g "t .3 M* ,k[rM. . . *ge j ,, .:" . . . ,
..' . .a .. , . . .. . . . .
_ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ J _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __