ML20093N234
| ML20093N234 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1984 |
| From: | Mcdermott J GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341C576 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 8408010237 | |
| Download: ML20093N234 (35) | |
Text
7
.o.
?
AFFIDAVIT My name is James L. McDermott.
I am submitting this affidavit freely and voluntarily to Mr. Thomas Devine, who has identified himself to me as the legal director of the Government Accountability Proj ect and who serves as my attorney for dis-closures to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I have instructed
. Mr. -Devine to add my name to the petition submitted by Mr.-Timothy O'Neill on July 27, 1984 with Mr. O'Neill's q
permission..which1he has supplied.
This affidavit is in support of the joint petition.
My own. case provides a clear illustra-tion'of.the need.both for reinspections and systematic retrain-ing of all personnel at Diablo Canyon.
On Saturday, July 28, I was laid off from my j ob as a iwelder for Pullmaa Power Products at Diablo Canyon, two days
-after.I refused to sign three statements certifying my participa-
' tion-in' retraining programs on various matters.
I refused because'I would have been engaging in a false statement if I had signed.
Inlone case, I was asked along with others to sign a 3/1 f.4 cetrotron ni faricofario) H & 04Writte0 W46 C& Erd mar Wo 4vd o %g blank f a
To show how badly things have deteriorated, 15 other_ employees signed the form.
Since January 1984 I have been a witness in the ongoing Nuclear. Regulatory Commission (NRC) ' investigation at Diablo Canyon.
During that time I have submitted five affidavits and 8408010237 840730 PDR ADOCK 05000275 I.p' f 6 O
/
~
{
[.
0 01'-
_2_
9 met with the NRC on three occasions, including twice with the Office of-Investigations (OI).
Earlier this month I settled a Department ~of Labor lawsuit which had charged retaliation in an earlier layoff.
I was a confidential witness, until the NRC technical staff blew my cover by turning over a copy of my affidavit to Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E).
Although my name c
.was whited-out, the' issues in my statement were traceable back to me since I had challenged the same violations on-site.
PG&E promptly published my name in a licensing brief. With my cover already blown, there was no reason to hold back and my wife began serving as a public spokesperson for the Consumers in Defense -of Energy-Safety (CODES).
PG&E claimed'that my continued employment.at Diablo Canyon helped rebut charges of harassment.for NRC whistleblowers.
PG&E's licensing brief is
-enclosed as Exhibit 1.
The events surrounding my layoff began last Thursday, July 25, when four handouts were distributed to personnel in the shop..Each. handout was for retraining through the " Steps to Prevent Recurrence" (STPR) corrective action program.
We were all supposed to sign that.we had been retrained on each problem, after studying each handout.
I' signed one of the forms but I had to refuse to sign three others.
The other three STPR forms involved problems with -- 1) flowmeters to control the release of gas in Gas Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW);
- 2) falsified trace-41
~
ability records for certain plates; and 3) cutting of crushable bumpers.
YS f
(
[e
' a The STPR on flowmeters contained the crudest falsification.
T.t is enclosed as Exhibit 2.
In esser ce we were asked to sign a form certifying our attendance in a retraining program that nfforallthespaces was never conducted.
The form was describing the retraining, including " Nature of Instruction",
"Date", " Time", and " Instructor".
Further, our signatures certified that we had participated in discussions and reviewed additional information.
The discussions never occurred and the referenced information was not included in the handout.
Fifteen people signed anyway.
I talked with several people about why they signed'a blank check.
As one explained, he didn't want to have trouble.
This phoney retraining program concerned a generic deficiency highly significant to plant safety.
The flow of gas keeps out undesirah.lk" atmosphere during the welding process.
Too much or too little gas can lead to unacceptable quality such as oxidatien -
Eh,bNc acking, embrittlement and excessive cost.
The fraudulent retraining program means that the shoddy welding probably will continue for the thirteenth year in a row.
The STPR on traceability of plates concerned falsified purchase order identification records.
It is enclosed as Exhibit 3.
I could not sign the form, because the referenced procedures and quality assurance (QA) records were not included.
I had raised this same issue near the end of June with the productionforeman.fpr>aidthatmaybeIshouldremovethe He s Before that happened, f'r seR. Feem w e. P u T G.,
phoney Purchase Orde1 l
however, a QC 7b
$4
QDf '
A',
inspector identified the problem and wrote a Deficient Condi-tion Notice (DCN).
The inspector suffered severe harassment for writing 1the report, including a public dressing down from the craft superintendent and construction workers who shook their fist's in his face.
Based on his experience, I believe that my initiative in raising the same.tssue to a foreman helped lead to my-layoff.
.The. third STPR concerned the improper cutting of crush-able bumpers, which are thin-gauged tubing welded to resemble square honeycombs.
They are used to absorb the impact in the
= event of a ruptured pipe.
The STPR is enclosed as Exhibit 4.
I~could not sign this form, because the referenced procedure
.was not attached.
The training continues to be inadequate on a generic basis.
For example, the recent " training" on harassment basically was to pass out a memo saying that we could be disciplined up to term-ination if'we harassed.QC.
The memo itself was a signal that management.was pulling its punches:
harassment would not neces-sarily. cost a worker his job if he were caught.
There were not any classes, or even. discussions about a problem that has been
~ getting out of control.
In other cases the handouts were inadequate as retraining documents, because the craft workers had never been trained Esufficiently the first time to understand the terms in the QA reports.
I know, because various welders asked me what the documents meant.
They came, because I was a former QC inspector.
db4 r
l.,
4-
" D,y.\\
a
(
On Thursday, July 26th,after reviewing the STPR handouts,
.I sought out the QC inspector.
I told him this was bull, because we would be signing for documents and events that were not there.
He agreed and saio he would notify the Resident Inspector.
At.the,end of the shift, the foreman asked me.to sign the STPR forms.
I refused on three out of four.
He asked me to e
point out to him what was the matter, which I did.
He said he saw my point and agreed with me that a good training program should have begun 13 years ago.
L Despite his agreement with my criticisms, the foreman said that the superintendent would still want me to sign.
He also said that maybe we should. fill in the blanks on the training form for-flowmeters.
I said maybe we shouldn't.
I believe that raising this problem of false statements internally, refusing
.to participate, and refusing to cooperate with a coverup contributed to.my layoff.
-On Friday the QC inspector told the NRC's Resident Inspector,
. Mavin Mendonca, of the'STPR problems.
y p-i e
On Friday Tim O'Neill also filed his petition and held a press conference.
Tim is a friend of mine, which was well-known
\\sp s V,
m.
m
,g
_ - _..- - _ _ _ _ _ __ hF '
w on-site.
We ate lunch together regularly, where in plain view I often reviewed or helped him to prepare reports of QA viola-tions.
We ate lunch together on Tuesday, July 24, the day Tim resigned.
I believe that my layoff the day after his press
-conference in part was further retaliation due to guilt by association.
On Saturday, July 28 I was laid off, along with one other welder out of around 15 in our shop.
The other employee was a traveler -- a member from another local outside of this union's
_ urisdiction, with a travel card.
Although it is not a formal j
rule, travelers usually are laid-off first.
In fact, another brother said to me that he should of been laid off because he was a travelcard holder and that I was a local member.
I believe that my layoff was retaliatory for three reasote:
1)
The time lag was two days after I refused to sign three' false statements and one day after my friend Tim went
.public on a series'of QA violations includin6 some which I had openly helped him to prepare at the job site.
2)
Over half the rest of the crew were travelers.'
3)
Two of the travelers were welders hired about two weeks earlier.
They had only passed the-basic gate, or entry, test.
By contrast, I had been certified to unlimited thickness after passing the heavy wall test.
In
' fact, I had just trained these two welders, to replace me as it turned out.
When'I was laid off the foreman said that it was not just his decision; that management also was involved.
He denied that gg L
there were any " politics" involved, however., A Bechtel supervisor told me that he was sorry to see me go, because I never missed anytime, was always working and was better qualified as a welder than those who kept their jobs. He said that didn't make sense from an economic standpoint. He added that he had made the same point to Pullman and Bechtel management, without any success.
I am familiar with the conclusions in the 1977 Nuclear Services Corporation (NSC) audit about a quality assurance breakdown. I can state without question that it is continuing without letup. If there has been corrective action, the effects have been invisible. 'The QA breakdown continues, because those of us who try to uphold the NRC laws are either ignored; harassed until they resign as with Tim; or laid-off like myself.
I am joining Tim's petition, because the NRC must crack down to restore respect for its rules at Diablo Canyon. If the Commission licenses the plant instead, it will be a clear message that the Atomic Energy Act no longer is worth the paper it is written on.
I have read the above 7 page affidavit, and it is true, accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.
4
,M James L. McDermott ln'gg' y"y '"'^ "~JajA
~
? A_Af D 'I k ub, b'
a
]g d
c_.Wd.k_
t j
t w} % *v., n 1% U _ k iniir,
- tmia, m
& W t;e p w a.r. a some.
,.u2.2 eWur, en N.it!.e : bamcr.t, 4
ANCHAst 3. Ngour W W to me M A em N some il 7
miles $ my head sad secol seet SAN Lues oeismo couNrv W come,e, men sees,,,3,g gg,,,,
V \\ 'J m} \\. ';f l pf. sm, f
f e\\
i em. es.
new, S.,
e i
P
- NN N.
_ _ es.r* e rr m s s- *~ ag.mo a.s e
h-
pc w.
t f '[. f> I '
I.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC' SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 3
4 5
)
In the Matter of
)
6
)
Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
50-323 0.L.
7 (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
)
8 Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
9 10 APPLICANT'S REPLY TO JOINT INTERVENORS'
'?
g MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 12 The Joint Intervenors, by motion daced June 11, 13 1984, have sought a protective order for Exhibits 3, 4, 7,
14 and 10 which were submitted in support of their reply to 15 PGandE and Staff responses to the Joint Intervenors' latest 16 motion to reopen.
17 Neither the Staff nor PGandE were served copies of 18 those exhibits, and the Joint Intervenors by their motion 19 have requested that access to the substance of the exhibits 20 be denied to the Staff and PGandE (JI motion pp. 5-6).
It 21 is PGandE's understanding that this Board has received auch 22 exhibits but in an edited form with the names of affiants 23 and other identifying material removed.
On receipt of the 24 motion for a protective order, this Board issued an order 25 26 c////[o ^/57 %.
--) l fdt]'-VY JJ O s
s a
requesting response to the motion and certain questions by June 19, 1984.1 I.
DISCUSSION 3
Joint Intervenors' motion for a protective order 4
-5 is predicated on two points.
The first is that the informa-tion given in each subject exhibit is conditioned by the 6
affiant that it not be released to the Staff or the Appli-7 Cant.
The second is that the withholding of the substance f the exhibits is necessary to protect the anonymity of the 9
affiants.2 10 11 12 IThe order' requested Staff and PGandE to answer the following:
(1) 14 What documents were served on the applicant and the staff as joint intervenors' reply?
15 (2)
If the same documents, in the same form, as those served on the Appeal Board were received by the 16 applicant and the staff, is there any need for a protective order?
(3)
-18 Is the Commission's policy statement of August 5, 1983, 48 Fed. Reg. 36,358, applicable to joint intervenors' 19 request for a protective order?- If so, with what result?
20
- (4)
If the commission's policy statement is not applicable,
.21 is the protective order ~ sought by joint intervenors appropriate in the circumstances presented?
22 (5)
If the protective' order soughr. by joint intervenors is not appropriate, is a less encomcassing order suitable?
2 24 Although ' Joint Intervenors
<-? aim the informers
. privilege, this Board has previously acknowledged that the 25 privilege may be claimed only by the government.
Ilouston (Footnote Continued) 26.
s C
4 Joint.Intervenors seek to reopen the record based in part on new affidavits, the substance of which they seek 2
to keep'from Applicant. ' Fundamental to the acceptance of 3
such affidavits as evidence upon which this Board may rely 4
5 is the underlying truthfulness and veracity of the affiants
=6 and the factual basis for establishing that the affiants 7
p ssess the necessary expertise to offer opinion testimony.
8 By the requested terms of their motion for a protective g
order, Joint Intervenors attempt to restrict this Board in 10 its function by not allowing the subst.ance of the affidavits 11 from seeing the light of day.
Such a process, if allowed, 12 w uld be extremely prejudicial to Applicant and approaches a
-h a senda.3 13 a
14 (Footnote Continued) 15 Lighting and Power Company (South Texas Project Units 1 and
- 2), ALAB-639 p 13 NRC 469, (1981), footnote 26 at 478.
See 3
Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S.
53, 59 (1957).
In this 77 case, rather than advancing the interest of the government in its investigction of the truth, Joint Intervenors seek to 18 use the privilege to thwart such investigation.
3 19 With this unexamined evidence, Joint Intervenors claim that a " cloud"-hangs over the adequacy of the safety-related 20 design and construction at Diablo Canyon citing Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2)
ALAB 770.
21 That case is distinguishable from the instant proceeding.
First, the " cloud" there was not 22 unsubstantiated claims which had not even been examined, but rather the Licensing Board!s findings made after hearing and 23 Staff determinations over a period of years.
In this case, Joint Intervenors seek to manufacture a " cloud" with 24 anonymous affidavits which they refuse to expose to Applicant or Staff.
The uncertainty that existed in Byron 25 was that which was the result of findings, not merely (Footnote Continued) 26 r'
=.
+
9 y
's to,the first point, every citizen has an 2
. bligation to provide evidence, when necessary, to further
- the system'of justice. : Consumers Power Company (Midland 3
Plant, Units 1 and 2) ALAB 764, Slip Opinion March 30, 1984.
4 5
H uston Lighting and Power Company (South Texas Project, qg Units 1 and 2)'ALAB 639, 13 NRC 469, 473 (1981).
Wright v.
Jeep Corp., 547 F.Supp. 871, 875 (E.D. Mich. 1982).
See 7
Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S.
665, 688 (1972), Roviaro v.
8
' United-States,'353 U.S.
53, 59 (1957).
Since every citizen 9
10 has-such a duty which. arises from his citizenship, he 11 cann t, on his own, condition his civic obligation.
- Thus, affiants cannot tell this Board that they will give it
' :pJ 12 information nly if_the Board agrees, contrary to
'13
~14 15 l16
.(Footnote Continued) 37 unsubstantiated allegations in support of a motion to 1 18 re Pen.
Secon1, this is not a case where there has not yet been a' hearing on the Applicant's verification program as was the case ~in Byron.
Here, an extensive hearing on Design 1,
-Quality Assurance and the adequacy of the verification 20 Program which was' established pursuant to Commission order, has already been held.
In Byron, Applicant argued that a 21 hearing was not necessary even while the verification program was not complete.
The Appeal Board remanded the i
'. 22 case to take evidence on the completed verification program.
- Here the' verification program has been completed and has
. 23 been already subjected to hearing.
Finally, in Byron, the Appeal Board found a hearing was necessary because one of j4 the principle deficiencies that existed was the established
. absence of adequate certification procedures for quality
-control-personnel.
Such' fundamental absence of proper 25
-certification is not present here.
26 a
A
o.
requirements of law, not to relay it to a party whose rights h
r duties are being litigated.4 2
3 As to the second point, Joint Intervenors claim
'4 that because of inadequate editing of prior affidavits by 5
the NRC Staff, Applicant-was able to identify three of the an nym us allegers.
As to these three allegers, they claim 6
in an unsupported allegation that, "Since February 16, all 7
three individuals have been laid off or suffered harassment 8
on-site" (6/7/84 Devine Aff. at 3).
Curiously, the docu-9 10 ments executed by the anonymous allegers which disclosed 11 identifying material were not released to Applicant until April 26, 1984.
No person was laid off or harassed as a g
result-of hic allegations (Exhibit 1, attached).
As a part 13 f n rmal reductions of force, two of the three were laid 14 15 ff earlier this year, but each was rehired by April 9, 16 1984, prior to the date of release of the affidavits to 17' Applicant.
All three are currently employed at the site, 18 and there have been no reports of harassment by any of these individuals from any source whatsoever.
Consequently the 19 20 21 4While GAP and Joint Intervenors may consider themselves as chartered to ensure that the NRC satisfies its 22 statutory duties, they cannot sua sponte substitute 23 themselves for the governmentaT"liody which Congress charged with the duty to regulate, investigate, and license nuclear Power plants.
Consequently, the investigative arm of the 24 Commission, its staff, cannot be deprived of the substantive information contained in Exhibits 4, 5,
7, and 10 or the 25 names of the informers.
26
{}7.
~
i h_:.
pivotal grounds for the request for the protective order are based, at best,.a misleading affidavit.5 AS acknowledged'by ~this Board in the case of 3
Consumers Power Company ~ (Midland Units 1 and 2) ALAB-764, 4
5 supra., the informer protection axtends only to the identity f the informer and not to the substance of the information 6
provided.6 See Roviaro v. United States, supra, at 60.
7
. Applicant has no other means,of access to the allegations which are contained in Exhibits 3, 4,
7, and 10.
10 It is the substance of-those allegations and not the identi-11 ty of the allegers which is of importance to Applicant, Staff, and this Board.
2 n
f' 13
' 14
- 15 5This pivotal allegation should give the Board cause to 16 questi n the veracity and forthrightness of Joint
.Intervenors' allegations.
While the~ allegation'in the 17 affidavit is that the three individuals were either laid off or suffered harassment since February 16, 1984, it is clear
. 18 that the layoffs were not'related to their affidavits and that the individuals involved were even reemployed prior to
.the release of their affidavits.
It is also clear.that II V
there is an absence of harassment as a result of their allegations. -Given such inclination to stretch the facts, 20 this Board must scrutinize all claims of Joint Intervenors.
21
-6As in the Consumers Power case ALAB 764 supra., there-is no issue of privilege involved here.
Any confidentiality 22 that'may have existed between Thomas Devine, affiant, and the' anonymous allegers was clearly breached when disclosure
. 23
.was made to Joint Intervenors and their counsel.
While Thomas'Devine~has acted, in other matters, on behalf of 24 Mothers for Peace, one of.the Joint Intervenors, he is not counsel of record on behalf of all Joint Intervenors in this
. 25 action.
'l I
h 26 i
l\\.
Accordingly, shou.d.the Board be able to determine qualification of the affidavits, the Board should release Y
^*
3 protective order.
II.
5 RESPONSE TO BOARD' CERTIFIED QUESTIONS A.
As indicated above, PGandE did not receive 6
. Exhibits 3, 4, 7, and 10 with Joint Intervenors' reply.
If, y
in; fact, it is the case that this Board received the exhib-9 its without the names or other identifying material as
.g edited by anonymous allegers, it would appear that consis-g tent with protection of informers' interest, this Board
.g could release the substance of the exhibits to the Staff and Applicant, and no protective order would be necessary.
13 B.
Applicant does not see that the Commission g
Policy statement o'f August 5,1983 (48 Fed. Reg. 36358),
15 16 applies since the subject information is not in the pos-y l session of or originated by the Staff in its ongoing inves-tigation or inspection, c
18 C.
g The protective order sought by Joint g
.Intervenors far exceeds what is required to protect the interest.of the anonymous informants and if granted as requested.would prejudice Applicant and Staff and interfere g
with the Board's obligation to ascertain the truth of the matters placed before it.
E.
As acknowledged by the Board in consumer Power Co. (Midland Units 1 and 2) ALAB 764 supra., a t
protective order which provides for deletion of names and y
ther identifying material is appropriate for protection of 2
inf rmers interests.
3 Applicant would suggest, however, that the Board 4
should be presented with unedited versions of the Exhibits 5
h camera so that it can ascertain that the affidavits are, 6
in fact, of persons other than those who have previously 7
provided affidavits.
Thereafter, upon qualificatien of the 8
affidavits, the Board should determine if the edited version 9
10 protects the informers identity or whether, on weighing of the interests of the parties, a further modification should 11 be made prior to release to Staff and the Applicant.
2 Alternatively, i'f the Board determines that the affidavits 13 14 cannot be accepted, then they should be rejected outright.
15 Applicant would like to point out that while Joint 16
_Interven rs are seeking extraordinary relief from this Board, they do not approach the Board with altogether " clean g
hands."
The allegations they submit, beyond being repeti-18 19 tious, have been tort:.ously dragged through the licensing 20
-21 If Exhibits 4, 5, 7,,and 10 contain new materials, 22 obviously Applicant should be afforded the opportunity to 23 respond since they constitute a new motion and not a reply to Applicant's prior response to Joint Intervenors Motion to Re pen.
Applicant is in the process of responding, inter
(
24 alia, to the new material contained in the June 11, 1984, 25
'9Ieply" of Joint Intervenors and will submit its responses to the Board by June 29, 1984.
26 u
[
p process over in excess of six months time.
Affiant i
1 Thomaa Devine has stated under oath that "for the previous l
2 seven m nths," he has "been conducting an investigation of 3
alleged illegal or improper practices at the Diablo Canyon 4
nuclear-powerplant" (6/7/84 Devine Aff, at 1).
It is not c,
5 inc neeivable that Joint Intervenors and their associated 6
representatives would continue this pattern of conduct over 7
the next several months <3ven though they have been inves-l g
tigating the matter for over at least six months.
Applicant 9
would submit, therefore, that if Joint Intervonors sock 10 31 equity, they must do equity.
That should certainly extend t
Providing the substance of their claims.
j 12 III. CONCM SION 13 APP icant submits that consistent with due process l
14 15 and in the interest of fair play and justice, it is vitally 16 necessary that it have access,to the substance Exhibits 3, 17 4,
7, and 10.
Applicant requests that Exhibits 3, 4,
7, and r
18 20 21 22 23 1
24 25 26,
10 be released to Staff and Applicant, or alternatively be i
2 reje ted by the Board if they fail to meet minimal i
requirements for affidavits.
3 4
Re8Pectfully submitted, 5
0 R
OHLBACH Pl!ILIP A. CRANE, JR.
6 RICl!ARD F.
LOCKE DAN G.
LUDDOCK i
7 Pacific Gas and Electric Company P. O. Box 7442 8
San Francisco, CA 94120 (415) 781-4211 9
ARTl!UR C. GE!!R 10 Snoll & Wilmer 3100 Valley Bank Contor I
11 Phoenix, AZ 85073 (602) 257-7288 12 BRUCE NORTON 13 Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.
P. O. Box 10569 14 Phoenix, AZ 85064 I
(602) 955-2446 15 Attorneys for 16 Pacific Gas and Electric Company j
17 a
i m
r 18 Dated:
June 18, 1984 By 19 Bruce Norton 20 21 22 1
23 i
1 24 25 26
.u a-.---a
[
y t
_a I
J UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0pMIS$10N l
SEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
f
)
Docket Nos.
50-275 PACIFIC GAS Als ELECTRIC C0WANY )
50-323
)
(Diablo Canyan Nuclear Power
)
(Construction Quality Assurance) l Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF 0.A. Rockwell STATE F CALIFORN!A
)
[
)
ss t
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
)
[
t The above, being duly sworn, deposes and says l
I, 0.A. Rockwell, am Special Projects Engineer for the Pacific Gas and
(
Electric Campetty at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
In such capacity.
I wort directly with management of Pullman Power Products and the H.P. Foley j
Company who are contractors on site at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Project.
In such capacity I an infomed of personnel shifts and force changes of each organisation.
I have caused that the employment files be reviewed of the jr three individuals who were identified in the May 17,1984 submittal of r
PGendEt Mr. J. McDemott, Mr. T. O'Neal, and Mr. J. Phillips.
I have also investigated the possibility of the existence of any claims of harassment made ty any of these three individuals as a result of the affidavits.
Contrary to f
the representation of Thomas Devine, no harassment or reprisal by PGandt or j
.its contractors against any of the three individuals has resulted from their f
anonymous allegations.
i I
1 EXHIBIT 1
I Mr. J. McDennott was hired by Pullman on May 13, 1983.
In a scheduled force reduction on January 13, 1984, Mr. McDennott was let go by Pullman.
He was rehired by Pullman on April 9,1984 He currently works for Pullman.
Mr. J. Phillips was originally hired by PTGC on March 31,1983 and, as part of a scheduled force reduction, was let go on March 23, 1984. His ranking in March 1984 was 143 out of 147.
Subsequent to his layoff by PTGC he was hired by Pullman on April 9,1984. He current 1y' works for Pullman.
Mr. T. O'Neal was hired by Pullman as a QC inspector on July 5,1983 and currently is working for Pullman in that capacity.
The two individuals who were laid off were let go as a result of legitimate mduction of force, and not as the result of any allegation or affidavit they may have signed.
Both were let go prior to April 26, 1984, the date when NRC first released the affidavits to PGandE.
Investigation has revealed no reports of harassment by any of these three individuals as a result of their allegations.
There have been no reports to their supervisors.
There have been no hot-line reports, and there have been no reports by union representatives regarding those individuals.
Mr. 7. O'Neal did for the first time come to y office on June 12, 1984, the day af ter the Joint Intervenors motion was filed, to speak to me about his alleged quality concerns.
He demanded v written response to his concerns.
2
o He did not inform me of any physical threats, social harassment or reprisals of any kind resulting from his allegations.
Dated: June 19,1984 D.A. Rockwell Schscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of June,1984 Nancy J. Lemaster, Notary Public in and for the City and County of San Franciso State of California.
My commission expires April 14,1986.
q UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-275
)
Docket No. 50-323 Dicblo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document (s) of Pacific Gas and Electric Company has (hnve) been served today on the following by deposit in the United States mail, properly stamped and addressed:
Judge John F. Wolf Mrs. Sandra A. Silver Ch irman 1760 Alisal Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board San Luis Obispo CA 93401 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Mr. Gordon Silver 1760 Alisal Street Judge Glenn O.
Bright San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board US Nuclear Regulatory Commission John Phillips, Esq.
W :hington DC 20555 Joel Reynolds, Esq.
Center for Law in the Public Interest Judge Jerry R.
Kline 10951 W. Pico Blvd. - Suite 300 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Los Angeles CA 90064 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Cashington DC 20555 David F.
Fleischaker, Esq.
P. O. Box 1178 Mrs. Elizabeth Apfelberg Oklahoma City OK 73101 c/o Betsy Umhoffer 1493 Southwood Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
5:n Luis Obispo CA 93401 Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Bank Center J nice E. Kerr, Esq.
Phoenix AZ 85073 Public Utilities Commission State of California Bruce Norton, Esq.
5246 State Building Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.
350 McAllister Street P. O. Box 10569 S:n Francisco CA 94102 Phoenix AZ 85064 Mrs. Raye Fleming Chairman 1920 Mattie Road Atomic Safety and Licensing Shell Beach CA 93449 Board Panel US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Frederick Eissler Washington DC 20555 S::nic Shoreline Preservation C:nference, Inc.
4623 More Mesa Drive S;nta Barbara CA 93105
c.
~ Ch2irman
- Judge Thomas S. Moore Atomic Safety and Licensing.
Chairman Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Wrhington DC 20555 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 2055)
Secretary US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Judge W. Reed Johnson Wa:hington DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Attn Docketing and Service US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Section Washington DC 20555 0 Lawrence J. Chandler, Esq.
- Judge John H. Buck
- [~ nry J. McGurren Atomic Safety and Licensing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal B,oard Cffice of Executive Legal Director US Nuclear Regulatory Commission D:hington DC 20555 Washington DC 20555 Mr. Richard B. Hubbard Commissioner Nunzio J. Palladitto MHB Technical Associates Chairman 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K US Nuclear Regulatory Commission S:n Jose -CA 95125 1717 H Street NW Washington DC 20555 Mr. Carl Neiberger T71 gram Tribune Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal P. O. Box 112 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission San Luis Obispo CA 93402 1717 H Street NW Washington DC 20555 Michael J.
Strumwasser, Esq.
SE':n L. Durbin, Esq.
Commissioner Victor Gilinsky Pnt~;r H. Kaufman, Esq.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3580 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 800
'1717 H Street NW Lo] Angeles CA 90010 Washington DC 20555 Maurice Axelrad, Esq.
Commissioner James K. Asselstine Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, and US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Axelrad, P.C.
1717 H Street NW 1025 Connecticut Ave. NW Washington DC 20555 C. hington DC 20036 Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street NW Washington DC 20555 CCt0! June 18, 1984 A
8
/
DAN G. ~ IBBOCK Lt CVic Sky Courier Network t-
flo*C Y
)
j 9
'ui "U...
- n. - G,V
_ i.
%. =,.
.i '.
.~.
... ; 4.. :.. u ::. ;. a s
~.
2 :.
- .u.
- - ::.: c::.-: :.e t ' p.::: p t:
- Or.d c. =ncay
...i
- 2 dec=a
- :tttic..
Th u::--.:o:e by M,Q -
daggh
$ Gd s'fd kT C.
24Cw L2Llo /O rn~
./?'..m A,<
j 3
(p
- s. % g:.N :...$. y. * ' '-
~,._
i t 2:==; :
i to
.4'
+ : ;-
,e
. n.., y..
i h
.. n e
e s
.(.s
- e.
7 T
3.
-c
- . ~
< ai w.**
,- s,
.su
Y6-CT '
9
"'PAROG SIET" W.,72 CF C;5nUITICN:
$d 374 [
[/2MA
.E
- O O/M
/ (~ O O Cd / / '
~
y.
x F t'-/0 Of74.
/0. / 5 E a:
- a. s -3 y DE:
D!mLCCR:
ITO:CED BY:
21.
22.
4 WW.
24.
25.
1 26.
27.
23.
. n..
a NO d ).
31.
32.
33.
. ej.j,.,.,..
5,,g.,p p
3 4,. _ _,,
.. _ ~.
849 W4W :'V?* pyt%i.L
,,,p o 1 sy.4p pgag,,.ggi 36.
37.
38.
39.
1
' ;**p,.
. '1 * -
40.
1
~
i d
I
w a
1 ~.mm m A. i.-
e I
ii. :'. :.. :'. !:
"I::
er,,.p.,..
.e
......s n,y n, y
.. * * *** **d ? 2 R *
- Z 's C
"$ ',I '.2 3 p
.),
. ? -- ' :1, c.. u )
- ! O f
- Q 7 7 D 3 71.L g v ed ni g7-f eQ :.1 W o V t.., W. r 7
- J
- D ~34 Y 'D W%'
41.,
Z T l'I'*C /
C';L W M m# n.y %,7 pp.,0.;y,9,,
.,3g
, p.,,,,,,.y g,
.l' 2,3 ae y 4 g,p,. q 3.
c, W % en v,,/g/gry,)
a N Id E
. N'
% % ; n t s w.s. # d ?/.? 6 ?. z m e ry, y..: y m g,.5. a....,,,..
,,,m,
"[,!.Y'T,.? 9/...
';S.?"7 ~~ /.L,,,i f
. i P...
v = -..........=..i;...,
.,,,, l ggagig.,,.
4 AdOO 03T'lOH.LNCO
[,
.=..
I.I O h*M hg Q.1f**O I "3 t
=
'=d W 3 w"ui'::" a U
....L...
- T:
- u3ue:
m
. s....... Lg l l p..a.. w
=g.e
. ; a s. :=.. a a t v.
..n a t.,. a a
....... e i... ;f.
.iw" **.. ***.
a.,
a w..
j..
. ;r./.,y py;r y
,w c.
. n,..,,,. C...
- y. ?%V /j.Q
\\
.../
l, h
),f b?.;I.l:l':?':
~
l
/ TE lME#-l %'SC' p S 2.E * :.'.
TJ s'>'?WFV//?(P9U 5 U(0.! 29l'TM J ?/7 kfl >f');/
D' 9M' h f C','
}2C-- t..{.,b]
2' yWJ 0.!
S' b '
3.,. y, g,p pj \\?/}/VQlsycm t
- ?.0;.;i:: U
- 3
.'.3.... : 1.
y 9 94 [
W[: T.. /. 3[e.;;71
/l pi~ 9 z. s' 2 & f.,.... >
%.&...%t. li 636- %.,
s's e a
- v.....
.a.
r
-y y$ k.,.)/M'1'y' ;t,y/w p ' Q/
N'Sb $'
J I/
(A/7T N'~Z
- .i.
g, i
'... l 4..
9pj ya p,,yp y.,zia,y
,9y.;
}(??'Sn;r f')VN M ?(/
/v9
')N/.A 7 S9/ V~7e' pr.7//4.1
,, /
y&/ Q.C'
/v9
.A //d/ 0'/ 7/) PSC/
V'
(???/.J9/V f.
- //I'l(
00l//
A '?.7.] t?'k//>'L) b/c/o' V' JV P9*b'Z'*9 N()
- 3h;:':
-_I'
';;'I' b.90~.9. 6......
9 9
- 6 3 9..,,
@G..Vw C/ \\,.Q..
4....
4.. ! ').,. 3
.,. a...
.4..
3 bN.d("6 J )
- i' 4Q~I Mf.er d pi..t M'gn.. y
. M.,s / '* O' 4%
A l'
.e r..
x w,
v DCL/ 96-059 2,e>< 5.v?
m,5
.1 x, - c.
Cws ca rad
.h.:ma
- s. ~ s
+ un e J
.4
~
deua Jt'*%'. r' A=J/A/(
A
<* #fd f,*fCd 0C&/CNf f Useid
/V Am
/C n '?
06 vc nuct
~ra rd'?m e :
te ad u:i.<.)
.e..,
nupiusa essn;,uv e.v: <.
X
.~i
- a -d Dide'd CA Aulrd rMd VuMdiR
..A.!E]
w.t :
M ' n' ' ~ <
/C6:/u M'sra.:. /4.'a?<-rdR.
Ne a'C
. v.
,i M.,ni ;ivir wS s-fad.-sdd ca./
3 6 v d s't -i l.
as
.% c 44,4 rdt
/,v 4
Hs,v.ud,?
bun /&'W Ivout d ua AM.i.s 4 a. v-l co oien r&
rua r ras
,vu.u-sada was ads / Oun riu&
<4 AuRcN.cifd**
C /}/)dtk
,U 4/ M d d'/],
[
/46c c Crsu/g-d/J
/JAff A$
4 AuRdN-tsd c/4 dd<9 vu '-? dd d
.' 0 '?
- -:3
.d - j';.
3,y;. -
- ye
, _ 3_,.
c
- rus,9 z<.c ds a.va r :,~c s
- , e d:,
. : o ::.
a.
- ~
tr !"//CN l1j'C UJr) % d u d 4() <Q/b'al4, t. v'
<5d 2.5 *f d Ad/f
/h /4 f..'?
AS srHwurs.
/
verg red t c,aa.J
.adtJ 46Ccasinc<v, A.9co-ua aladip,
t.o a R6c6m.vcr
='6Acv17 de cumdar:.
/ad<16 eutd6 M.ud 4 :.a r d s re r a c.
o.ia ri d y e
.n5 d,.csem y,4
,is sea.c w:
C,v6
, m ra i.
- n.....: :
t.~.
',' j
.e c.
...,.c 2.)
CNa Mc. A rd.
/ "<r /6 ,e 4 b
MA R.4.wces
/dJ23 6:v rue d a,d
' r*T W
~..-
3.)
F~:uit i%.a&u6
.w? w
/:vur r*a.1-
' ;< x4 Mb
. yw ti'?.4<4n/Wt'rS ~ _ MONf
,% & % t f
+
b,t,;,
"h'YfV,hg N""#g)yyy$h'fN&
6) 046 Piar4
/ "x/4 ",Wt, "
xaim.uta
./.J.us (s,u a.us s<x-s )
- 6.)..
O N 6
~ A r6.. /. '<t'/d, ",W6 "
MA/VVutts -
NJ23 7D6 N4rfRou NAd as6a
/:"A A ud uk n.ury*
MAi1M6a t<,o ra. r ad.
NJ23 R 6.. fl.~.. 77/d ~.,.
p
/OGi/ 96-059 3 cA :
a u; u a c we.c A.Abj U$b '
$Ud Yo 4-
- .;. A.
/ C *,,'
~
A/Caudd 20/
- 3. 2 Aud 277 f0 (u:
V'oca 9c d s D i. u s t said mg Scar fun'e AAA
- vbAsc reps
<ve id.:
,2:
7
<w1
-s/w:fx]Gd CC V:6/?Mh/t'i-7*H'/J A9-1W88.
t 0
'*O*
s g gasagnatedS"#
w
_4
+!
h 5
Y
+
qs i
s w,.
=ess *
- 6-s a
4 e*
4 4
. g4
- 4 I
a
. $ k4
-J,
$t 33 988 8
4 4 4
e w s-a
(
/
,g' 97 W/N$-
/
d.2 2 CL/ -
>R/G oivd59fN/NG Gi c5 C As NY E/CO?
//
YNc' NCE
- wp or as sg, -bd'p esw n seh /As on.
hy f'wid$
- ] J')-@
o /E C7 C WEW lll5E$ 'W A$'
eAtia asse,p/o _ ;w : ??H-mdeeind' %x Aen
< ouoh. w kuk k- /oh in -k ebes e skan
. &%, fifG~
fa
}W 62c WAS PA A
NAP A0 haeo-amAfso d df a/o,mp & L-Ra-~
ifR S Hi?p j9 kG l fo N}n nap, fc.h M/m. He Skovh
$$ff W8r/h foN.s ATithcd kJP
~ ? S P79)?
ON I;g Ng!g.:,vn a So il k?! No!
hv~, q'oj'=
i e r/0Vi~ TD 00 '.~:-
UGM W
//W N'
s N.l 4
k -
4 s
..<: a
. N
',.a
- &.e s
- s
_:n.<~
r.
h
~
' [ h=
1 s.
vim
_j w.g
~...q,(3y;,,
.-i..
hf$
(
- s. u w a..w ~. mns.nm a
~
r
? ff '*hf 4.....'...
.nn -
i_
[_
.:s
..i 7.,3 !:#ji,.: " x q m,5 ;; 4 g; m.g e
d'~2 ('.' ~ *.,Q/g.y, ~ ~ ~ p%?ffQ@f;p-j 4..,*s.*.i
- m
-t j :.
s w
r
l
/
/
INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
(
DATE July 21, 1984 TO PPP Superintendents FROM Paul Mokry SUBJECT Craft STPR's on DR 5946 Discuss with your Craft about flow meters and their proper use.
Cover the information contained on the attached sheet.
After this information has been d.iscussed, the Superintendents
-are to sign the memo and attached training sheet and return to Carolee j
at Trailer 61 or return to Tim Roberts box in the Main Office.
Please do not return with the daily time sheets as this will cause unnecessary delay in the processing of the DCN's and DR's.
W Paul Mokry, f
General Construction Superintendent M. Andrews B.
Madron D.' Blih'ana8 H.
Reed J.
Callahan E.
Jorden J.
Rowley C.
Bolinger C.-Borra B.
Parmley a
es R.
Martin P.
Impastato L.
Longo S.
Tucker T.
Justen J. Williams u
bfhh
\\
NN ETURE OF HISTRILTION:
CATE:
TDEs INSTRUCIOR:
L" RENDED BY:
M A, 21.
2.
[
22.
_ 3.-
E eI 23.
Y iv W 24.
4 b1GY AfM 25.
b 2 /s Mb 26.
.G.
7.
m b;=
27.
$I da Jb/
28.
9 1
%Assm n ]?Z($
29.
-10.
)
30.
'll.
/
3d o"7 31.
$lV 32'.
13.
Y7f 33.
1 Y/
34.
15./s'SJ l,,/.
$ 003 35.
16.
36.
'17.
37.
l 18.
38.
-19.
39.
20.
40.
~_.
s A IE.9 E!II.)) hl. 'd I L
,f,e o$iy 0 M
.E4 %
C ~? ge; q q 4'
l.
4 dim.- Wer t-rocucrs c..r :c.
l-nsur.wa I ; 'C * @d.
, E
-..e Q) gil ['C Z
, -....., = - - - -.
p "-
-d-yl<
[ g,jw;, -
em a. g,p.7
- . ',, i.
- ,.1.---
...n
.... g ac C=a
'u - e -
.u:.
.:s.c.
.n:,t: :,
.,.... s..o.,. r :-,..,,ev.
Caring weld conitoring. :ne fel'owing conci:f ors,.ere
- ec:
Flcwmeters were in use unich are not oerm1;;e: in E50-213 i
ana ESO-219..These E50s permit only the Lince L-32 (20 ps1 inlet type).
The folicwing additional devices are in use:
A.
.Linde L-32 (50 psi inlet) - This device is identical to the L-3,2 (20 psi inlet) except it is designed fee an inlet pressure of 50 psi.
B.
Victor FM 371:
This cevice is similar in appearance :o the Lince L-32.
- is cesignec f:r an inlet :ressure of Cen-inued - Page 2 A.... - - : m. ::- e.,.
InctcATE APPRC!AL 57 c:7..::iG ThE A;;Rc;UATE ".:.Ec;:eE.4cEO DISPOSITION" X
A)
Revise E50-213 & E50-219 to permit :.5e use of the additional tyces of flowmeters.
B)
Revise. ESD-213 to delete regulator :aii' ration requiremen:s.
c
[
A)' Withdraw all -types of flowmeters fr:a use which are nc.
permitted in E50-213 anc E50-219.
B)
Revise E50-2'.3 to cela a reguia:or cali: ration requirements;
.l c
w sf= r % i <. : cZ w s,e.C: W f U.6#.'213 % !
9 CG4TdC2 P:N U MIT II" PC
- eM'#7-( CT~# " C'.
3)
PG&E.to disnosit1on.
Furox.).Hiu.ac -ro 2gy4j.f3*ggy',%,, l M174[IsNs (t <& M s:E M,W
,,,.,l h..dgwinl;g
)(
7
.{x"" rDJ- >wtJ-=,.,-u-n
=,. 6 s s :.c e-. c..
....a,
c:...........................a i
f s e -........
=.... -
.... c.-...
.mn.~,y::::m, a m a y, g e,z y gp eye g
.0.,., ;f,
- . C.- e C..s 's er.eme Cs e
..e m.,
Ceo I
ce 're. r. tea.' t::;m e s..et NeeA.8.<se*
QC wold monitoring to be' instructed to monitor for flowmeter conformance.
>Dhueha.C mfe en.m:% /w-.scM) 'k-N r..
e......, / d m 7 f,d c./, v w.,/ Z ;
p +.m -: -
I........u n. _ z 2,...,.. :
. x c,....., e m c ei.,
/
- c L.,..
- c m......,
c....,,. -..
.;,.... o.. ::::-.:.
_~
tj[
[ F *' )' y$ ~ N.... U
$hhh
- - 7 h1..r H n
p.
22,.s e
v T ~'
I
- }k RJ [.! h h [g UL r
80 0
- C-
'~
.e&
.>* W 5am h O
- t. ?.s : '.c.
- s 60.
w c.eaie cu s ete:we sn e..ic.
9:n
.n -,.:
c:< ;.. - ~
I.
- mo cv ea
.: s.c..
7 7-
'iir
.:n: :2
..<:t....-.e...
- misc.y p. w.. j e:
C.
Victor HRF 2325:
This is a simi:ar flow:eter w:. : 3 ca:!t-in
- res:ure e;;'1::-
D.
Victor AF 250:
This is a regula:or w1:n :ne !cw :ressure gauge gradua:ec in C H.
This device is r. : a : rue nre:e.
All of :he f'o.. e:er: wi'1 ac:ura ely easure n
e'-
rnas pr,.me: ;r;;; e r ; r.. e : :resswees are usec.
Ne AF 250 will ce accura:e if the outflow of gas is no; restricted.
2.
L-32 and Vic:Or fic.ceters were being used witn the AF 250 regulator.
.Nei:her device will read accura:ely in :nis instance.
I: is i cossiale to cetermine the inle: :ressu.e to the L-32 or Victor flow =eter.
While the flow =eter wili restrict the gas flow from ne AF 250, ESC-219 coes no:
cer=;-
this ccmaination.
3.
An L-32 (50 psi inle: :y:e) was :eir.g used wi:h an inie:
pressure of 15 asi.
This is a viola:icn f: E50-219.
This same flow =eter was sa: at 15 C.:H, a viola:icn of the WPS.
.The WPS requires 20 C.:H.
4.
Regulators were r.o: caliorated as is recuired in ESC-213.
,.',,(ty(, g.t f6,d6 (c'j.U.Et:
-did CClodLD.
6 ObdTVdd OCCU.ff'.d fri /o.Q.84 M d3h-t-1 t
0.6%k W
(?A. l0 ~Et.U 0'LOf. {f, M.D. W:-ff) g ',
y
+
s.
....u....,.-..-
.D.
.-;;.,5:.a.ir...
,ylft-(f
.....g,.;:
4..,3.
.,.;- 0 7 @g
.y '
I-
!~
..,'. -..' ~ L L.., ; R.;e.,.... L,,.,.,.a. ; -. a-dG.. n
.n w.
Mb
..S...T_i._ C E R DATE':
T
~
- ..o.::
t t l
t
"'.d.n DCN/DR'is.tscued'fer.your STEPS TO PREVENT REC'JRRENCE r.0 y,,,use ty.
+
v.
..is docrment to perfor:n any wor;:.
U.t e
& a.
,,. a s..
- s. -
c,..,-,...
e.-
w - m...
f I..'.
r1.
c
..o cc pletad pro:ptly cr.d.cCrrectly with
- a..'uete docu..antct.icr..
Return to r.te by _ fbqb p -
h
[
&} (M Yn. O.
Y 0AAL
/d h
hy
.ZI '.' -
l O
.. -. ; 2,~ % Q. :. s 1
l 1
7.
t 27.
8.
28.
l 9.
. 29.
O.
30, fl.
31.,. e pu--<c.s M :,:x....
.w...=.
m.-
- - e,s:
.-.;g<_ -w.32.
, ~-....., =..
c.w.
l
!3.
33.
Q;~k' % n :" n N W j 4 f L.,.w,,
-, Q &. . ' " '. '
b
-1
?A p 9,
+.
3g, av l
'q
- ' W
.a-
>l.1.~.1%.. LJ.rvskCRM*444":2%tM* *****t-
..r.,
...s
- u : (
- t c t. %.'a b^ i g'- r ' 8 C
"-ji {."*
,M.*5'. ~
~
!gs 7,
'g g o. e * *. s r p..,.
g
- y.., % ',,
Aru".a.hl \\
gr =
I ' I *,w Pe t.k
s.-a I'
10 s'a -o 70 s
NN NATURE OF INSIRUCTION:
Ed 26 6 [/
DATE:
7-MN N:
INSIRUCIOR:
hN W ATTDED BY:
1.
2.1.
2.
22.
23.
4*
24.
5.
25, 6.
26, 7.
27.
8*
28.
Q 3.9.
10.-
30.
11.
31.
u s;Q1&L 3gy gw,m y..
._ m,
- g.x,9tnyt % ~.
- 2.w.
..,.p 13, 33.
4, 3......
n
. g.,,.,.
.,,g,.
c u...
f. Ay 4.5g,6;.,, S.
' ww. ; M. ;., : w-, wn,x
... l.,....y.
j
.,,.w....
- 3;.
- 4 f.
,. 3 1,6.
Np. >. my n.m:- o: warm:<W.lh;.
36,.
..,,,a....,.
_, _.,. 4,'
3 "M t'OfM W,.
, np ;.
.10 "1
~
37.-
MAS E-
- STW;..N9[Od 17.
or tgendWE4.-~.:s*4:=Nwwemv440-' :**
qq g,
,.m.=.
x+
19*
39.
'; b' ".ir"a t ~.. t.: 6'* 4'**
'1
~. - -
n 0 R18tNE No TE_W.T' PWs.
./
IT f AREA ELEY..
COL /LINE DATE:
NOTICE NO.
7T' dDNT VAR lCOS
'7 - 12 ~8d
/or#'-C7d l
DEFICIENT CONDITION: D URi%
corriOG of c.ausmeus' BemPE.es Tc-c e.sw sta c C T @ E F A me" 6
/A capr c,er sempsc.s cEA367 6 PEc. oc z. Ec-2z.Giro Acrucu c<.:1 ci Lc H6 ).
t tsY cc OPn.x.asug" 2esreaoers a e O
- T?
05 # 27AO DATEC e-a >-gy ADocesseO T Hrs PEo 8@ AcD 9 d' Ev' Antior s rArED rs
' !, git ATOR'5pIGilATURE:Vft2lli 0
J g
EccTm UEcE ACC60ms
,/
4.:
i INITIALS DA
/g HOLD TAG APPLIED:
TAG ! g RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION:
[
.f f
Acc.,EPT t% 15 Pm DQ."Z240 o^m VZ7/8(/
wd,c two r.o.2.o% Auem. ear _. s. s r m e & g h CHIEMh5INEER v
( of_}
1, 4r5 TC D 6D mod Lgygt III.
,y/
/U Y
b i
5/WW' S
\\
APPROVEDASRECCfkMENDED OTHEa FIELD QA/CC MANAGERS EVALUATION:
CAUSE CGDE i COMMENTS *.
NON-CCNFORMANCE - 0.R.i 3
l i
_.' aE:ur Da:EP an 0axiaEINS=E--
CONTROLLED 0 F'.~
~
INTERNAL AUDIT
[ bTHER' Tu.s, DC)J DATE FIELD OA/CC MANAGEF
/
YM
/[T& X D
I NOTLdTERTHAN:
]
CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED BY:
'~
STEPS TD PREVENT RECURRENCE:
NOT APPLICABLE 02/YT"SWeence ro Assuec /2 ism.
eu: FEasacca. A ee insree.erca
-ro Am. ice newcas -a nen <ovees,,a uc,,wa eso.eepu az FOR CRAFT STPR'S RESPONSIBLE SUPERVISOR DA E QAlQ iAGER l ~unCIwT CONoIT10N CtOSED:
s t e a s _
m,.!.
o^n g +
. 23fgp:
o ORC 69, A.Ed bOTY'\\PE, $LS s
"[.ik.P T DC. f,"C., - E Eb ! IC l
l
.h*_.F i i:
OCStGM t i'N6TH CUT LE-W6T -\\
[ BESTP luMT 0
I 2.-i66 E
8 %..
8%
l 5-\\\\ R F A
co %
(c Q.
% - \\ 7,6 6
(o A "
(o Ve (o - \\ RR 8
9 3/no 9'/id' F-.o46 8AT 7
3%[
3y3 j
..g h gg,
.g O.
i m
- bK
.4 e a.swqqp I.