ML20093E398

Request for Action Under 10CFR2.206 to Institute Proceeding to Modify,Suspend or Revoke CP Re Alleged Instances of Harassment & Intimidation of QC Inspectors & Numerous Violations of 10CFR50,App B

ML20093E398
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	06/27/1984
From:	Guild R GUILD, R., PALMETTO ALLIANCE
To:	Deyoung R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
References
NUDOCS 8407170537
Download: ML20093E398 (6)

Text

C

" - - - ~ _ _ ~~ --

y. ROBERT GUILD mwun c ow Post OFFICE BOX 12057 l

CHARLESTON. SOUTH CAROLINA 29412 e, June 27, 1984

..[,

" " ~ " , ~ '.[.1 Mr. Richard C. DeYoung

' " " {'O -'"h* . . .

Director Office of Inspection and Enforcemen 0 q"iwase..

BR EC" U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

This is a request for action on behalf of my client, Palmetto Alliance, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S2.206 with respect to the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, under construction b Duke Power Company, et. al. , in York County, South Carolina.y We ask that you institute a proceeding pursuant to 52.202 to modify, suspend, or reupke the Construction Permit for the -

Catawba f acility, ' institute appropriate civil and criminal en-forcement proceedings, and take such other action as may be

~

proper to address serious and repeated instances of harassment and intimidation of Quality Control inspectors at Catawba, numerous violations of the Commission's Quality Assurance Cri-teria of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, and the detrimental effects of such licensee conduct on the effectiveness of the Quality Assurance program for safe construction of the Catawba facility.

In a Partial Initial Decision of June 22, 1984, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ir. the Catawba oparating. license pro-ceeding rr ehed important and critical f actual conclusions as to the existence of harassment, retaliation and intimidation of a number of welding quality control inspectors intended to impede these inspectors in their implementation of the Quality Assurance program requirements at Catawba. Such harassment in-cluded the retaliatory treatment of senior welding quality control inspector supervisor G. E. Beau" Ross at the hands of such supervisory personnel as ~ corporate quality assurance manager George Grier and project QA manager Larry R. Davison. The Li-censing Board ifound that such retaliation' was attributable to Duke Power Company and was in response to Mr._ Ross and his crew? s

" strict adherence to QA procedures and expression of safety con-cerns." Id., slip op. pp. 150-161, at 159. The Board rejected Palmetto Alliance's argument that such conduct required a finding of violation of 10 C.F.R. : 550.7 on the grounds that Mr. Ross, apparently, was not engaged in " protected activities" within the meaning of that provision. We, of course, disagree. However, the Board does conclude that such conduct violates not only the 8407170537 840627 PDR ADOCK 05000413 .

( {- @ r},.

G PDR s

~ "

\.-

i ,

1 Richard C. DeYoung June 27, 1984

- page 2 spirit of that provision but reguirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B and other Commission authority. Id. The Board, further, concluded that at least five other improper cases of harassment of welding inspectors were proven by the evidence available in the proceeding. In each instance the conduct was found to have been intended to impede the inspector in his per-formance and to have been' either condoned or ineffectually treat-ed by Duke management. Id. Slip op. pp. 162-181.

The Catawba Licensing Board also reviewed the evidence of specific Quality Assurance program violations raised by many of these same welding inspectors who worked on Mr. Ross's crew.

In the f ace of a contrary Duke Power Company' internal "inves-tigation" and denials in the licensing proceeding the Licensing Board concluded that some forty-two individual violations of the 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B Ouality Assurance criteria wereestablishedbytheevidenceintpeCatawbaproceeding.

Yet, in the face of this solid confirmation of the long-i standing concerns ' by; present and former Catawba workers, the Palmetto Alliance, the Government Accountability Project, and others who have followed the Catawba case, the Licensing Board takes no effective action; and, instead, continues to follow the longstanding practice of licensing nuclear plants despite known serious problems. .The Board, for example, concludes that Duke need only revise its harassment policy some time within the next six months, Id., at p. 181; and that "the discrimin-atory actions against Mr. Ross, while blameworthy,~are not a basis for denying or conditioning the license application. We expect che airing of this matter in public hearing and in this decision will have a salutary affect on the Company's handling of similar matters in the future." Id. at p. 161. With re-spect to the forty.-th'ree Appendix B vI61ati6ns 'the Board ~appar-ently supports the Region II staff view that under a crabbed..

4 4

interpretation of the Commission's enforcement policy Duke Power Company, itself, deserves credit for having identified these violations even though the source is the harassed welding inspec-tors themselves. Id. at p. 126. Thus, in the face of this in-effectual Licensing Board response the duty to take all neces-l sary and proper remedial action rests squarely on your shoulders and requires your prompt action pursuant to E2.206 of the Com- '

mission's Rules in order to fully probe the significance of this serious misconduct by Duke Power Company and take needed remedial measures to insure that the full scope of Quality Assurance de-ficiencies are identified and corrected prior to operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station. While we believe that the record in the Catawba operating license proceeding provides ample need for enforcement action against Duke and such remedial measures as an independent audit and reinspection of safety systems at the W * #

v - -

-r: - -- - & - - , , ----- --

7 Richa d C. DeYoung June 7, 1984 page 3 facility we urge you to fully investigate the Quality Assurance and construction programs at Catawba, not just in welding as was the limited scope of the license proceeding consideration, but in all significant areas in order to assure that the public health and safety of those residing near the Catawba facility is fully protected.

If we may be of further assistance in pursuing this request for action please advise me at the office of the Palmetto Alliance set out below. By copy of this letter I am notifying Duke Power Company of this request.

( /

i ceiel *urs, i

==

Robert Guild Palmetto Alliance, Inc.

2135h Devine Street Columbia, S. C. 29205 803/254-8132 -

4 e

4 t

9 1

i

tr . .

l 1

, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

James L. Kelley, Chairman .

Dr. Richard F. Foster Dr. Paul W. Purdom

)

In the Matter'of ) Docket Hos. 50-413

. ) 50-414 DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. .

) x

) ASLEP No. 81-463-06 OL (Cat'awba Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2) ) *

.* )

~

PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION Acoearances J. Michael McGarry, III, Anne W. Cottincham, and Mark S. Calvert,

. Washington, D.C. , and Albert V. Carr, Jr., and Ronald L. Gibson.

Cha rlotte , North Ca rol ina , for Ine Applicants, Duke- Power Cotpany, et al.

• Robert Guild, Columbia, South Carolina, and John Clewett, Washington, D.C., for the Intervenor, Palmetto Alliance. =

Jesse L. Riley, Charlotte, North Carolina, for the Intervenor, Carolina Environmental Study Group.

• Georoe E. Johnson and. Bradley Jones for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff.

Richard P. Wilson for the State of South Carolina.

4 s

s , _ . _ , , _ . , _ _ , , . - , - ,- .- - *. - . . - ~ . , , -

\.

- 158 -

record was made. In Ross' case, an extensive record was made that could be a basis for firing, but Mr. Ross was not dealt with cor.pletely -

cpenly. ,

43. George Grier, who succeeded Mr. Wells as corporate pality assurance manager', wrote a lengthy confidential memorandum to the file about;a meeting he had with Mr. Ross while Ross' recourse on his rating was pending. The memorandum read in part as follows (Palmetto Ex. 33): '

The last area I discussed was in regards to the hearings. I explained to Beau that one of our big tasks would be to put the concerns expressed by welding inspectors into perspective.

The interver. ors will be characttrizing those concerns in the worst possjble9ight. We need to be clear on the significance of those concerns and in particular will have to be clear on the meaning of terms like " intimidation," " threats,"

" falsification" and " pressure to approve faulty workmanship."

These are words that are used in the concerns and could be used to describe very extreme circumstances.

The . Board views .the 'llusion to possible problems at a hearing in connection with Mr. Grier's counselling Mr. Ross about his performance as improp,er. .,ithough Mr. Grier denied any improper intent (Tr. 3834),

the Board thinks a reasonable person probably would interpret these comments as an attempt to influence future testimony in this proceedidg.

44. Based on our review of the testimony and exhibits, the setting in which events occurred, and the credibility of the witnesses, the Board finds that the 1981-1982 evaluation, the November 1982 interim evaluation,-and the 1982-83 evaluation of Mr. Ross, all at the '.' fair" or "2" level, were unfair and in retaliation for Mr. Ross' and his crew's e

S

' O . g*

5 .  ;

gt,' ~

- 159 -

strict adherence to QA procedures and expression cf safety concerns.27 The persons directly responsible for the discriminatory evaluations of Mr. Ross were Mr. Davison, .Mr. Allum (as to the interim and 1982-1983 .

s evaluations), and Mr. Grier (as to the 1982-1983 evaluation, which he should have overrruled). Mr. Grier and Mr. Davison occupy senior level supervisory positions. Therefore, these actions are fully attributable to the Duke Power Company.

45. In retrospect, Duke would b' ave been wise to listen to Mr. Ross

, and the cczplaints of his crew of welding, inspectors as they developed long prior to the .Tuk Fdtce Reviews. Instead, the company chose to let ,

the problem fester and ultimately to accuse Mr. Ross of being unsupportive of management and acting inappropriately in questioning I

management decisions. Duke corporate management has ' chosen to i

22 l Palme,tto asks us to find the Ross evaivations to be violations of j 10 C.F.R. 50, apparently meaning 10 C.F.R. 50.7. PFF 254. That provisipn prohibits discrimir.ation against an employee for engaging in certain " protected activities," as defined in section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. Since there is no clear =

evidence in the record indicating that Mr. Ross himself voiced concerns to the NRC prior to the evaluation in question, we find nn violation of 10 C.F.R. 50.7. But see Ros's, Tr. 6777 However, the

evaluations did constitute discrimination against Mr. Ross en i account of his voicing safety concerns. They therefore violated the spirit of section 50.7, if not its letter. In any event, a ,

retaliatory job evaluation against an employee for raising safety ,

concerns is inconsistent with the thrust of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B and the " reasonable assurance" detenninations that must be made under-10 C.F.R. 50.57(a)(3) and the.Callaway decision discussed at p. 20, above. Presumably, a pattern of such l evaluations, not shown here, could preclude the necessary determinations and result in. denial of an operatir.g license..

i

{ 4--- ^