ML20116N703

Package of Undated Testimonies of Lr Davison,Dl Freeze,Ra Morgan,L Harris & Th Mullinax Re Alleged Harassment of Welding Inspectors & Allegation of Prenotification of NRC Insps

ML20116N703
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	02/07/1985
From:	Davison L, Freeze D, Harris L, Morgan R, Mullinax T DUKE POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20116N660	List: ML20116N703
References
FOIA-84-424 NUDOCS 8505070319
Download: ML20116N703 (64)

Text

-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIN

)

In the Matter of

)

Docket Nos.

50-413 DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. )

50-414

-)

)

(Catawba Nuclear Station,

)

Units 1 and 2)

TESTIMONY OF LARRY R. DAVISON CONCERN MR. LANGLEY'S ALLEGATIONS ST ATE YOUR N AME.

2 A.

My name is Larry R.

Davison.

My business

address, job 4

1 Q.

description, and statement of professional experience and 0

3 qualifications are set forth in my previously filed testimony.

4 INCIDENT INVOLVING WELDING 5

6 Q.

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH AN INSPECTOR LINDSAY HARRIS AND CRAF'

'OREMAN TOM 7

MULLINAX?

I was informed by QC Supervision, Charles Baldwin, t 8

9 A.

Yes.

d to knock out the steelworker foreman, Tom Mullinax, had threatene I was told this occurred 10 teeth of welding inspector Lindsay Harris.

el air lock 11 when Mr. Harris had rejected some work on the personn The craftsman involved had felt 12 because of lack of proper preheat.

I am not aware of any incidents of 13 they had the proper preheat.

14 this nature involving Mr. Langley.

15 I

50 9 g50go, u kn 7

CAR DE84-424 PDR

1 Q.

WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU BECAME AWARE OF THIS SITUATION?

2 but I do I don't recall all the people I notified of this incident; 3

A.

time, Mr. Cecil Craft Superintendent at that recall notifying the 4

Mr. Wall's position was four levels of supervision above Mr.

5 Wall.

6 Mullinax.

I told Mr. Wall that this type of thing could not be s

tolerated and I asked him to look into it and let me know 7

did about it.

8 i

9 WHAT DID MR. WALL DO ABOUT THE INCIDENT?

10 Q.

Shortly To the best of my knowledge he investigated the incident.

11 A.

after that Mr. Wall called me to a meeting he had set up in his area 12 13 conference room to discuss the incident.

I do not remember 14 everyone who was present for this meeting, but I believe that 15 members of craft supervision above Mr. Mullinax, and Charles 16

Baldwin, Technical Supervisor over Welding Inspection, were We met and discussed the information Mr. Baldwin 17 present.

18 had about the incident, and all basically agreed on what had clearly the foreman needed to be counseled.

19 occurred, and that After this discussion; Mr. Mullinax was brought into the room an 20 Mr. Mullinax stated that he had not 21 he described the incident.

h t if threatened Mr. Harris, but had made the statement to him t a 22 he continue,d to call craftsmen liars, he would get his t 23 He indicated he told Mr. Harris this simply to warn him of out.

24 what might happen if he continued to give people the impressio 25 Mr. Mullinax stated that he was that he was calling them liars.

26 very upset emotionally when he made the statement.

27. -.

After Mr. Mullinax described what happened, Mr. Wall reprimanded 1

Mr. Mullinax and told him in no uncertain terms that this type of 2

statement from him to any inspector would not be tolerated; that 3

4 Mr. Mullinax was responsible for his crew's actions in this type 5

situation; that statements like that from them would not be Mullinax's position as a supervisor, and 6

tolerated; and that Mr.

quite possibly his job with Duke Power, was on the line if this type 7

incident occurred again.

8 9

YOU AGREE THAT THE ACTION TAKEN WAS SUFFICIE 10 Q.

DID 11 A.

Having witnessed this clear disciplining of Mr. Mullinax by Mr.

appropriate action had been taken, and 12 Wall, I was satisfied that I was also that Mr. Mullinax understood what was expected of him.

13 the inspector in question and others would not let 14 satisfied that their carrying out their inspection 15 incidents such as this affect 16 duties.

17 IN YOUR VIEW, DID THIS INCIDENT REPRESENT A PATTERN OF 18 Q.

THREATS OR HARASSMENT DIRECTED TOWARD THE 19 Having been responsible for QC inspection at Catawba since 1974, I 20 A.

believe the number of incidents such as this have been very few 21 22 compared to the number of times craftsmen and inspectors must As with any inspection situation, there is potential for 23 interact.

b.

Given the hundreds of thousands disagreement and confrontation.

24 25 of inspections performed at Catawba and the small number of between inspector and craftsman 1

26 occasions where the interaction reached this level, I believe that Catawba has an excellent 27 have I know management has record in terms of QA relations with craft.

28. -

d occur and I believe taken prompt action when such situations di For all free to perform their duty.

1 have always felt inspectors to Mr. Langley's 2

these reasons, I believe there is no significance 3

allegation.

4 e _

. _. _. _. _ _ _ _ _. _. ~. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _. -. _-.._ _._ _ _. _ _ _.,_ _._._._... _ _ _._-. -.

o.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING

)

In the Matter of

)

Docket Nos.

50-413 DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. )

50-414

)

)

(Catawba Nuclear Station,

)

Units 1 and 2)

TESTIMONY OF LARRY R. DAVISON CONCER ALLEGATION OF PRIOR NOTIFICATION OF NR STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.

1 Q.

My name is Larry R. Davison, and my business address 29710.

2 A.

Clover, South Carolina Nuclear Station, P.

O.

Box 223, 3

5 Q.

STATE YOUR PRESENT JOB POSITION WITH DUKE POWER 4

COMPANY AND DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF YOUR Quality Assurance Manager responsible for Quality 6

am Project I

7 A.

A Assurance during construction of the Catawba Nuclear Stati 8

9 detailed description of the nature of my job, as well as my is set forth in my 10 professional experience and qualifications, previously filed testimony.

11 AT THE 12 ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH MR. LANGLEY'S A SITE 13 Q.

COMPANY WAS AWARE OF WHEN THE NRC W 14 INSPECTISNS?

16 A.

Yes, I am familiar with Mr. Langley's allegation that inspe 15 h NRC or received prior notification of forthcoming inspections by t e To me, Mr. Langley's testimony 17 the Authorized Nuclear Inspectors.

He says that he knew when NRC was coming, and 18 19 is unclear.

ld he got notes in his " pigeonhole" or message box that said a h i

I point was going to be looked at, but he didn't know who was 2

to look at it; he thought it might be the NRC.

3 l

5 Q.

DESCRIBE YOUR ROLE AND RELATIONSHIP WITH NRC 4

INSPECTORS WHO VISITED THE CATAWBA SITE.

i That is, no one at Duke 6

Most NRC inspections were unannounced.

7 A.

Upon knew when they were coming until they arrived at the site.

i 8

would henerally hold an entrance 9

arrival, the NRC inspectors h

conference with site management to let them know they were t er l

10 -

king into.

and let them know what area of interest they would be loo i

11 12 inspectors indicated the general areas they were the NRC Once h

13 going to be looking at, the NRC inspector would be directe The areas to be inspected were not 14 people who handled that area.

f secret and word of these areas was communicated by managem 15 ent so 16 ld be seeing the that the appropriate people would know they wou I

17 For example, if the NRC wanted to look at pipe NRC inspectors.

the field where they would 18 19 welding, they would be escorted to If we knew the NRC

{

select what specific welds they wanted to see.

f 20 inspector was going to look into pipe welding it was not un and QC supervisors aware that 21 to make craft, technical support, This was done so that 22 the NRC would be looking into those areas.

23 stions or the appropriate people could be available to answer que i

24 provide information to the NRC.

25' 2-i 4,

If the NRC wanted to inspect specific cne time events, such as a t

l they 1

specific concrete pour or the setting of the reactor vesse,

In these 2

them just prior to the event.

would ask us to notify i

ti g 3

cases Duke did know in advance what the NRC might be nspec n,

but this knowledge did not have any effect on the work activity.

4 compared to the 5

6 These inspections by the NRC were rare unannounced visita.

7 l.

8 HAVE YOU INVESTIGATED THIS ALLEG5 TION?

9 Q.

Yes, I have reviewed his testimony and researched the allegatio 10 A.

determine if it is valid.

I have discussed the allegation of and the first level 11 with QC welding inspectors, 12 prenotification I have personal 13 supervisor during Mr. Langley's employment.

knowledge of the practice of disseminating information to 14 15 inspectors.

16 I have also talked with other site personnel and these discuss 17 did not substantiate his allegations.

18 19 The inspectors usually learn of the presence of an NRC inspec 20 assignment of a resident Before the on site by word-of-mouth.

When the NRC 21 inspector in 1979, visits by the NRC were " news.

22 it has to site personnel his area of interest, inspector identifies 23 that area that they notify supervision in p'ractice to 24 been our will be visited by the NRC inspector.

25 ---- - _ __

1 Q.

WHAT ARE YOUR CONCLUSIONS AS A

RESULT OF THIS INVESTIGATION?

prior notification of NRC inspections of 2

that I find no evidence 3

A.

items is or has been a practice at Catawba.

4 5

6 From d.iscussions with inspectors and the welding inspector to welding inspectors of specific prenotification supervision,

items to be inspected by the NRC did not occur unless the N 7

8 Even th'en the work and inspections had an announced inspection.

9 were not modified because of any notification.

4 10 Y MAY BE 11

-HAVE YOU FORMED AN OPINION OF WHAT MR.

1 12 Q.

REFERRING TO IN THIS ALLEGATION?

14 A.

Yes.

Mr. Langley may have been referring to the Authorized i

13 15 Nuclear Inspector ( ANI), a resident inspector required by t They have the authority to l

ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code.

work travelers (process control) to 16 on the establish hold points i

17 to inspect.

In such cases specific steps they may want 18 indicate 19 the specific step is clearly indicated to the inspector and ANI's also have the right to irispect work in progress 20 craf tsmen.

The ANI might have indicated to an randomly, and they do so.

to witness by -placing a 21 specific step they wanted i

22 inspector a note in the inspector's box.

23 6

24

for It appears that Mr. Langley is confused on what the notes were Mr. Langley probably did know 1

and he did not understand them.

t welding by word-of-mouth when the NRC was on site and looking a 2

about 3

and he -probably incorrectly assumed the notes he saw were 4

these inspections.

5 f

i>

r

> 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING

)

In the Matter of

}

Docket Nos.

50-413 DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. )

50-414

)

)

(Catawba Nuclear Station,

)

Units 1 and 2)

ALLEGATION OF PRIOR NOTIFIC NS STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.

My name is Dwight Lane Freeze and my business addre 1

Q.

2 A.

Station Support Division South, Post Office Box Power Company, 3

29678.

219, Seneca, South Carolina 4

6 Q.

STATE YOUR PRESENT JOB POSITION WITH DUKE POWER 5

COMPANY AND DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF YOUR responsible for 7

8 A.

I am the Station Support Division Manager, Oconee construction of modifications and major capital additions to Nuclear Station, Lee Steam Station and six hydroelectric 9

to' providing maintenance support 10 My responsibilities also include 11 these same operating stations.

12 13 EXPERIENCE AND PROFESSIONAL 14 Q.

DESCRIBE YOUR INCLUDING YOUR PRIOR POSITIONS WITH QU ALIFIC#TIONS, 15 DUKE POWER.

d I am a registered Professional Engineer in both North Ca 16 I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil 17 A.

South Carolina.

18 4

/0

4 Engineering, from North Carolina State University in 1967.

I 1

started working for Duke Power Company in 1967 as an Assistant 1

2 I was responsible for Field Engineer at the Oconee Nuclear Station.

3 assisting in preparation of schedules, providing technical assistance 4

i to the craft organization and various office engineering funct ons.

5 6

Office, with 7

In

1968, I

was promoted to Field Engineer functions, scheduling, status information responsibility for office 8

In 1971, I was promoted and material delivery schedules at Oconee.

9 t

to Field Engineer - Civil, with responsibility for technical suppor i

10 In for all structural concrete and structural steel work at Oco 11 quality control inspection of structural work was part of 12

addition, Later in 1971, I was promoted to Principal Field 13 my responsibility.

14 Engineer with responsibility for technical support, scheduling, 15 budgeting and inspection of all civil, mechanical and electrica With the completion of l

installations for the construction of Oconee.

16 l

Station in 1974.

. Oconee, I was transferred to the Catawba Nuc ear 4

17 I was assigned as Project Engineer with responsibility for tech 18 19 support,

scheduling, budgeting and inspection of all

civil, at Catawba.

I remained in mechanical and electrical installations 20 21 that position until February, 1981, when I was assigned as i

22 Manager, Construction Services of the Construction Departmen I was transferred from the Catawba site to With this assignment, 23 position until February,1982, 24 the Charlotte office.

I held that transferred to the Oconee Station Support Division, 25 when I was later renamed Station Support Division South.

4 26

4

.,.n,_,....,n+ -,,., ~, - - -,,,,

.,-n,,-g m

-.,,,_,re,--_-_,.,.

-,n

-.,,,,_.,n

,.e--

I have attended schools involving welding and welding inspection, 1

including a one week course at the University of Tennessee dealing 2

with the technical aspects of welding and a one week course at Ohio 3

State University dealing with Quality Assurance requirements.

4 5

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH MR. LANGLEY'S ALLEGATIO 6

Q.

COMPANY WAS AWARE OF WHEN THE NRC WAS COMING 7

INSPECTIONS?

8 I have read the portions of Mr. Langley's testimony dealing with his 9

A.

that the NRC was 10 allegation that the company knew in advance coming for inspections.

11 12 TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THERE ANY BASIS FOR 13 Q.

THIS ALLEGATION?

14 I know of no basis for Mr. Langley's allegation that advance notice 15 A.

received for routine NRC inspections.

The NRC inspectors 16 was 17 operated under a program of routine, unannounced inspections For special inspections, we actually except for special inspections.

18 notified the NRC of approximate dates for special events, such as 19 particular concrete placements, major equipment handling (reactor, 20 The NRC then may or may not have come steam generators, etc.).

21 At no time did I ever receive to inspect the particular activities.

22 As Project Engineer advance notification of a routine inspection.

23 24 reporting directly to the Project Manager, if such advance i

I would have been in a position to notifications had been given, 25 26 know about them.

The primary contact with the NRC was the Project Engineer working directly 27 Project Manager.

However, as 3-

.'~'

for the Project Manager, I would assist the NRC inspectors by 1

I was getting the information they needed during their inspections.

2 available to answer questions, direct them to the proper persons for 3

information and accompany them to look at areas of construction.

4 5

DID NRC EVER SPECIFY WHAT THEY WANTED TO INS 6

Q.

When the NRC came to Catawba for inspections, our practice was to 7

A.

meet with them upon their arrival in.the Project Manager's office.

8 9

Those present usually included the Project Manager, Project Engineer, General Superintendent of Crafts, Senior Quality Con 10 11

Engineer, Senior Construction Engineer and Senior Quality At this time, the NRC would advise us which Assurance Engineer.

12 We areas of construction they wanted to inspect during their visit.

13 would advise them of the status of construction, current work in 14 progress and which individuals were available and knowledge 15 The individuals who were 16 the areas they intended to inspect.

knowledgeable in the areas to be inspected were then notified to 17 the NRC in order to enable the NRC to 18 available as needed by complete their inspections.

19 i.

s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of

)

Docket Nos.

50-413 DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. )

50-414

~)

)

(Catawba Nuclear Station,

)

Units 1 and 2)

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. MORGAN CONCERNING M ALLEGATION OF PRIOR NOTIFICATION OF NRC INSPE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.

1 Q.

My name is Robert A. Morgan and my business address is Cata 2

A.

Nuclear Station, P. O.

Box 223, Clover, South Carolina, 29710.

3 4

5 Q.

STATE YOUR PRESENT JOB POSITION WITH DUKE POWER COMPANY AND DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF YOUR JOB.

6 I am presently Senior Quality Assurance Engineer at the Catawba 7

A.

A complete description of my job, as well as my Nuclear Station.

8 9

professional experience and qualifications, is set forth in my 10 previously filed testimony.

11 ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH MR. LANGLEY'S ALL 12 Q.

COMPANY WAS AWARE OF WHEN THE NRC WAS 13 SITE FOR INSPECTIONS?

f 14 Yes, I was present when Mr. Langley testified about this alle 15 A.

in Rock Hill, South Carolina and I hsve also reviewed the tran 16 17 of his testimony.

//

TO' THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THERE ANY 9

1 Q.

THIS ALLEGATION 7 I have been on the project since 1976 and have never had an 2

3-A.

No.

I am, and have been, the prenotification of an NRC inspection.

The 4

NRC contact for the project QA organization.

primary best 5

majority of the NRC inspections are unannounced, and to the 7

of my knowledge, the company is not aware of the timing o 6

The NRC inspectors simply appear at the site when these visits.

ked by the 8

they are ready to begin an inspection. ' We have been as NRC Regional Office to advise them of our schedule on ce 9

activities.

These activities are events that will occur only 10 12 once per

project, like reactor vessel setting, and concrete 11 13 pours on the reactor dome.

In these instances, we expected 14 an NRC inspection during these activities.

Since a resident we have not had to 15 has been assigned to the Catawba project advise the NRC regional office of these type events.

16 I

17 DID NRC EVER SPECIFY WHAT THEY WANTE 18 Q.

19 A.

Yes.

Upon arrival at the site it is normal practice for the 20 visiting Region II inspector to advise the project managem 21 of the major areas which he plans to examine during his told 22 inspection.

For

example, if the visiting inspector in the preinspection conference that he planned to management look at con'tainment erection and welding, we advised s 23 24 a visiting inspector from NRC was on affected area that 25 in the We advised supervision in the area so that we could hav 26 site.

Construction and QA Technical Support personnel available 27,

I to answer procedural and code questions, QC inspection supervision available to answer inspection questions, and C 2

and welding questions.

supervision available to answer erection 3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of

)

Docket Nos.

50-413 DUKE POWER COMPANY, et & ))

50-414

)

(Catawba Nuclear Station,

)

Units 1 and 2)

TESTIMONY OF LINDSAY HARRIS PERTAINING TO MR ALLEGATION OF PRENOTIFICATION OF NRC INSPECTIO STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.

1 Q.

My name is Lindsay Harris, and my business address is Catawba 2

A.

3 Nuclear Station,

P.O.

Box 223, Clover, South Carolina 29710.

4 STATE YOUR PRESENT JOB POSITION WITH DUKE POW 5

Q.

6 A.

I am a welding inspector at Catawba.

A description of my forth in my previously filed 7

experience and qualifications is set 8

testimony.

9 10 Q.

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH MR. LANGLEY'S ALLEG INSPECTORS RECEIVED NOTIFICATION PRIOR TO NRC 11 12 INSPECTIONS?

I am familiar with Mr. Langley's allegations by reading his 13 A.

Yes.

14 testimony.

6 i

/7 a

HAVE YOU EVER RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NRC INS 1

Q.

AS DESCRIBED BY MR. LANGLEY?

2 3

A.

No.

I have never received any prenotification.

I have never the site dealing with NRC received a note in my message box at 4

Based on my experience at the site, we find out about 5

inspections.

NRC being on the job by word-of-mouth after they get there.

6 7

DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT WITH NRC AND ANI INSP 8

Q.

9 A.

On the Catawba project the NRC inspectors are normally in 10 different areas on different jobs all the time.

I see the NRC 11 inspectors regularly only because they are in the area I am Also I know if I would like to talk with them, I am free 12 working.

13 to at any time.

14 The ANI inspectors put hold points on the appropriate paperwork 15 and the craft notifies us and the ANI inspectors when the work is 16 17 ready.

These hold points consist of cleanups, fitups, preheats, It is normal for the ANI final vis'ual inspection of welds, NDE, etc.

18 a welding inspector on his inspections.

19 inspectors to accompany i

~~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO 1

+

t

)

i In the Matter of

)

Docket Nos.

50-413 DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. )

50-414 1

-~)

i

)

(Catawba Nuclear Station,

)

Units 1 and 2)

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS H. MULLIN AX CONCERNING MR. LANGLEY'S ALLEGATIONS PE TO ALLEGED HARRASSMENT OF WELDING INSPEC STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.

1 Q.

2 A.

Thomas H.

Mullinax, Duke Power Company, Catawba Nuclear Station, P.O. Box 223, Clover, South Carolina, 29710.

3 J

5 Q.

STATE YOUR PRESENT JOB POSITION WITH DUKE POWER 4

COMPANY AND DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF YOUR J 6

I supervise a crew of 14 - 20 men I am a Steelworker Foreman.

7 A.

involved in erecting structural steel, fabrication and installin This work 6

miscellaneous steel, and rigging and setting equipment.

9 includes erecting and fitting containment shell plate.

10 11 WHAT OTHER JOBS HAVE YOU HELD WITH DUK 12 Q.

I left I started working for Duke Power in 1956 as a steelworker.

I 13 A.

for four years and returned in 1972 as a 14 the Company in 1968 steelworkeh. I became a foreman in 1973.

15 16 EY ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE ALLEGAT HE 17 Q.

THAT HE AND ANOTHER INSPECTOR WE f

PERSONNEL AIR LOCKS?

18 f

19 CRAFT FOREMAN WORKING ON THE

/3

,.-,,,-v-

-,n,-

n

---

,--,.,-,-,,,,----m,.,--

-.,,----e..,.w,

--,,,,g,,n--,

.n.-.,,.

--,.w..w.,,

I I do not recall any incident that a Mr. Langley was involved in.

1 A.

was involved in an incident with Lindsay Harris, another welding 2

3 inspector.

4 DESCRIBE THE INCIDENT WITH LINDSAY HARRIS.

5 Q.

The men under my supervision engaged in fitting-up the personne 6

A.

air lock to the containment shell plate came to me and informed me 7

8 that ' an NCI was going to be writ. ten on the work they were I asked why, and to the best of my knowledge the 9

perfonning.

men informed me that the inspector (Lindsay Harris) said that they 10 My crew claimed had welded on the plate without preheating it.

11 12 that they had preheated it; had told the inspector they had preheated; that the inspector had called them a liar; they were 13 going to take that and would knock his teeth down his throat 14 did it again, or words to that effect.

i 15 16 and to the best of my recollection, I talked with Lindsay Harris, 17 he told me that the men had welded without preheating and t 18 Lindsay and I argued about the men had called him a liar first.

19 I cannot recall what was said during the argument, but 20 incident.

I believe it centered on who was right and who was wrong abo l

21 The inspector and I agreed to whether the preheat had been made.

22 We were walkmg to the offices go see ea h of our supervisors.

23 when I conveyed to Lindsay the feelings of the men about being 24 25 called a liar and told him, as best as I can recall, that if 26 he continued to can the men liars that he would get his teeth l

We continued to our respeedve supervisors' offices, 27 knocked in.

and I informed my supervisor, Mr. W. K. Henry, of the incident 1

Mr. Henry and I went and related to him what had taken place.

2-3 to the job superintendant's office and and to the best of my recollection, informed Mr. Ralph Morrison of the events up to 4

that point.

5 6

As best as I can recall, we were told to come back the first thing 7

As best as I can next morning due to the lateness of the hour.

8 and one or both of the crew members 9

recall, Mr. Henry and I to the superintendent's office the next morning to 10 involved went We related what had happened to the people discuss the incident.

11 As best as I at the meeting, but I don't recall who was there.

12 discussed but I can't recall exactly 13 can recall the incident was what was sed.

14 15 day, I can't recall exactly, that I was I believe it was the next 16 He was the Job Superintendent.

17 called to Mr. Cecil Wall's office.

I can't I was asked by him what had happened and I told him.

18 recall whether Mr. Henry was with me at that meeting or not, but 19 the Steelworker craft superintendent, was on 20 Mr. S. O. Shelby,

vacation. Mr. Wall had Mr. Shelby called to come in from vacation.

21 Mr. Wall, Mr. Shelby, and I met, but I can't recall who else was 22 recall exactly what Mr. Wall and 23 there at the meeting.

I don't Mr. Shelby said to me, but the message I got from the meeting was

-m 24 to intimidate or to a very serious matter to attempt 25 that is was d

threaten an inspector and that such things would not be tolerate.

26 o-

j i idate I told Mr. Wall that I was not threatening or trying to int m of my men felt 1

the inspector' but was advising him of the way some being called a liar. I informed my men that any questions 2

3 about be brought to arising during the course of an inspection were to immediately and that there should be no arguing by the 4

I don't recall exactly when, but 5

me craftsmen with the inspectors.

arguments with inspectors were to 6

later I informed the crew that threats or intimidation would be tolerated, 7

8 be avoided; that no I do not remember all questions should be brought to me.

9 that whether I talked to the two craftsmen separately or with t f

10 whole crew, but this message was give to them.

11 4-ING THE WHAT INSTRUCTIONS HAVE YOU BEEN GIVEN 12 13 Q.

CRAFT'S RELATIONSHIP WITH INSPECTORS?be I have been instructed on numerous occasions t

.14 That any threats or intimidations 15 A.

no arguing with the inspectors.

dingly. That 16 would be considered very serious and dealt with accor h

t arguing were 17 any questions arising that could not be solved wit ou 18 d

to be taken to higher management to be resolve.

19 i

with 20 I have been instructed to maintain an attitude of cooperat on I have been instructed 21 the inspectors as well as the other Crafts.

their duties and 22 to work wi,th and assist inspectors in performing k into compliance 23 to perform rework if necessary to bring the wor 24 with the inspection requirements.

25 4

P HAVE THESE SAME INSTRUCTIONS BEEN GIVEN TO YOU 1

Q.

These same instructions have been given to the crew members.

2 A.

i e

a f.

"E~M

/*s M

95. A. u pp RESULTS OF INTEVIEW WITH HARRY F. LANGLEY ON OCTOBER 25, 1983 AS PREPARED BY BRUNO URYC, JR.

On October 25, 1983, Harry F. LANGLEY, a former Quality Control ' C) Welding Inspector at the Duke Power Company's Catawba Nuclear Plant, Rockai'1, SC, was interviewed by Bruno Uryc, Jr., Inspector, USNRC Region II, Atlanta, GA, with the assistance of Jack BRYANT, USNRC Region II Resident Inspector, Oc:aee 'fuclear This interview was conducted at the Ramada :m, Rockhill,SC Plant, Seneca, SC.

in the cresence of the following individuals:

8. JONES, Regional kunsel, USNRC for the Palmetto Alliance, Raleigi, 'tC; and Region II; R. GUILD, Attorney B. GARDE, a representative of the Government Accountability Proiect, Washington, These individuals were present at the interview at the request of LANGLEY, DC.

and he provided the folicwing information in substance:

d LANGLEY said he was formerly employed at the Catawba Nuclear P!act during the He said he was initially hired as a period April 6,1977 to April 6,1978.

29, 1977, at which time welder's helper and that he held this position until May He said that in July 1977 he was assigned to the he was certified as a welder.

Pipe Fabrication Shop as a welder where he remained until mid-Oct:ber 1977, at l

LANGLEY stated that which time he was placed in a QC welding inspector's class.

l prior to working at the Catawba Nuclear Plant, he worked as a welder at the LANGLEY in Cherlotte, NC, during the period 1969 to 1974 Westinghouse plant stated that during the period 1974 to 1976, he was attending college and stu

~~

for a degree in business.

/

r 2

LANGLEY stated that when he was initially hired on at Catawba he was offered He said that this job entailed helping on the welding job as a welding helper.

crew and did not involve welding, although he did know how to weld from his LANGLEY stated that he was eventually previcus employment at Westinghcuse.

He said that be attended only

ermitted to take a welding test which he passed.

four.qcurs of elding class and that he was given a practical test in only one He said that on May 29, 1977, he was weidiag positi:n before he was certified.

officially certified as a welder and his name apcepred on the list of cerif fied He said that after his certificati:n he welders at tae Catawba Nuclear Pl3nt.

LANGLEY stated was primarily involved in welding braces on fresh water tanks.

that in early.'une 1977, he was assigned to the Pipe Fabrication Shop and that he worked 'or a 3:re-an named Deacon JONES.

He said he was welding various sections of pi:e for use thecughout the plant and that the oipe was primarily carbon ste LANGLEY said that he received many ccmoliments about j/'or stainless steel pipe.

his,ork by t e lead inspector, Larry RUDESEAL (pheretic), who began to talk to him abcut the : ssibility of becoming a welding inspector. LANGLEY stated that he evertually ta:<ed with another inspector named Bo ROSS who was able to get him assf; ed to a 4elding inspector class in mid-October 1977.

L".T.EY said t at in mid-October 1977, he entered the CC Welding Inspector class Three of these individuals were other witi 11 other individuals from the plant.

He declined to identify the other

.,el:ers and eight were mechanical inspectors.

individuals by nace, staging that a review of the class roster would identify all LANGLEY stated that to the best of his recollec-the irdividuals in the class.

During the first tien the class lasted for approximately six to eight weeks.

week of the class, they were given instructions concerning the processing of l

L

3 from the earth.

The class went on metals beginning with the ore being removed tion and study of weld i

through various metalurgical processes into an exam na given a LANGLEY stated that at the end of each week of class they were in class during the previous week.

d;fects.

written test covering the Taterial cresented involved basic material Hs said that everyone did poorly On the first test which He said that on the Thursday before their second test which and information.

d to the classroom from to be given the next day, a Friday, the class returne d a copy of an lunch and as he was going thrcugh his class notebook, he foun He asked several of k

examination with the ans'.ers filled in inside his noteboo.

hi the class if they also had such an examination in.t e r the other individuals in f the test in their notebooks and when they icoked they also found a copy o d

LANGLEY stateo that everyone in the class had a copy of test notebooks.

He said that the next day they were tested and it was the same LANGLEY stated that this answers.

the previous day.

that they had received a cocy o#

He said that he 29 continued for the rest of the weekly examinations in the course.

but he assumed it did not know who put the ccpies of the test in the notebooks, Larry 0AVISON, Charles BALOWIN was one of the instructors who he identified as test He said that inas.cch as everyone was getting copies of the He said that they (the students) and 3o ROSS.

in the class.

that everyone did very well to pass the course and overall needed at least a cumulative average of 80 percent The tests usually contained the class far exceeded the mini u, reouired score.

lso received 30 to 40 questions and he assured that all the previous classes a ther QC inspectors who were this help because he war occasionally asked by oHe said th certified, if he was getting any help.

t and answers.

asked, it appeared they knew the class was getting the tes

4 LANGLEY stated that no one in the class 'everf questioned this practice an LANGLEY stated assumed that it was common practice and they went along with it.

that had it not been for this practice, several of the students in the class He said that they even intentionally Icwered would not have finished the course.

their grades during one phase of instruction (structural steel) so that they LANGLEY stated that at the end of would not have grades which appeared too good.

He said that for this test, the course they were also given an oral examination.

the first student tested came cut and provided the. questions and answers to He said that the course ended sometime around Thanksgiving rest of the students.

and in January 1978, he was officially certified as a welding inspector.

(1977)

During the period between the end of the course and the official certification LANGLEY stated that he accompanied certified inspectors for on-the-job training.

He he did not know who placed the tests and answers in the classroom notebooks.

said that he never observed anyone doing it, nor did the class generally discus He said that everyone just accepted it as being a the matter among themselves.

He also estfrated that at least half of the class would have routine thing.

failed the course had it not been for the tests and answers they received befor LANGLEY stated that after he was certified, he spent actually taking the tests.

most of his inspection time working in the number two reactor en the day shif t He stated that to the best of his knowledge, he did not cass any welds that were He also added that he felt qualified to be an inspector based on not acceptable.

his extensive welding experience, but he wondered about the other individuals his class who did not hade a welding background.

5 he had occasion

. LANGLEY related that during the time he was a welding inspector He explained that an NCI document to write several nonconformance itens (NCI).

[thoseitemsthatdonotpassinspectionandprovidesanexpla das ei.bH He stated that scretime in January 1978 he was item did not pass inspection.

He said his inspection procedure inspecting the stiffners on the reactor walls.

liness.

He involved checking the area where t e weld would be made for clean h

age six to explained that stiffners were strips of steel reasuring cn the aver i

t ly a quarter to eight feet in length, four to six irches in width, ard accrox ca e He said that the stiffners were tack welded to the a half inch thick.

Fe said that the area of the weld was ment wall to add strength to the walls.

en both sides of the weld and that the supposed to be cleaned a half inch h

He said his initial inspection n

stiffner was to fit flush against the wall.

I-inspection of the fit-up prior to the weld being made arou m

h activity involved an He said that after his inscection of the fit-up, the entire the entire stiffner.

He said he did find some problems with weld would be made around the stif' er.

h k welds.

He said that the tack welds which included slag and voids at the tac fter two or three initially he would helo the welders clean uo the slag, but a He said he found the fit-ups were getting worse.

days, he noticed that k welds.

LANGLEY rollovers, bad undercuts, lack of #usion, and excessive taci ing.

He stated he then decided to write an NCI because the problem was con ll the said that in addition to writing the NCI, he also placed red tags en a He said he wrote the NCI stiffners to stop additional work from being done.

He said he citing the M24 procedure.cn fit-ups as not being complied with.

bad problem.

that trapped slag behind the stiffner was a particularly i

ed recall LANGLEY said he took his NCI to Bo ROSS, his irrediate superv LANGLEY said that ROSS told him to take t it and said it was correct.

6 Larry DAVISON for review and approval, and when DAVISON reviewed the NCI he told him (LANGLEY) that it should not have been written becQihe there could be gaps and slag on the stiffners.

LA'iGLEY said that he explained to DAVISON that there was more than a small problem with the stiffners and he felt that the problem should be documented.

LANGLEY stated that DAVISON had a habit of making the inspectors feel intimidated every time they took an NCI to him for review.

LANGLEY said that he of ten felt as if DAVISON was trying to intimidate and harass him because he was doing his jcb.

He said that DAVISON finally signed the NCI on F$

the stiffners and he (LANGLEY) tack the signed NCI to Document Control and logged q

m it into Quality Assurance (OA).

LANGLEY stated that until the NCI was logged h

into QA, there was never any ay to officially track the status of an NCI, in effect, it did not o##icially exist.

He said that once it was logged, it was then an official record and had to be tracked.

He said that within the hour 3

after he logged the NCI into G, a welding engineer (who LANGLEY believed to be an individual identified as LE'iELLYN (phonetic)) came to the reactor and told him LANGLEY to remove the red tags and let the welders continue with their work.

stated that LEWELLYN also told him to go to QA and clear the NCI he wrote from the log. LANGLEY stated that he did remove the red tags and subsequently went to LANGLEY stated QA and cleared the NCI by sigr.irg it off with his own signature.

in effect, his signature eant that the NCI was cleared by him when it

that, LANGLEY stated that he signed off the NCI because he was told to really was not.

do so by the welding engineer, who should have been the person that signed off the NCI in the QA Documen( control log.

7 LANGLEY stated that DAVISON was the only QA manager who always gave the LANGLEY related that DAVISON told him that inspectors a hard time about NCIs.

He said the number two reactor was not going to be like the number one reactor.

that DAVISON said that it took a long time to clear the NCIs on number one reactor and that it was not going to take that long for number two reactor, even LANGLEY said that the meaning of if he had to get different inspectors o do it.

this statement was very clear to him ar.d he took it to mean that DAVISON was lly valid,

-going to closely review every NCI he signed to see.if it was rea st He said LANGLEY related another incident which occurred when he wrote an that there was a 30 inch pipe which ca e off the Auxiliary Building on the numbe He said that a pipe passed through a sleeve which was embedded two reactor side.

He recalled that there was a problem j

in a concrete wall at the fourth level.

M with the concrete settling around the pipe sleeve and that the concrete did not He said that when this r-completely settle behind a flarge on the oipe sleeve.

P problem was found, the flange was reroved and the holes in the concrete were f

He said that the removal of the flange caused scme problems chipoed and patched.

He said that when the

{

when they tried to put the flange back en the oipe sleeve.

oy construction welders tried to put the flange back on they could only weld the /

flange from the front because they ccu!d not get behind the flange because He said the construction drawings called for flush against the concrete wall.

He said the flange to be welded from behind also, but this was impossible to do.

he wrote an NCI on the problem because there was no weld on the back side He said that when he took the NCI to DAVISON, he was told to forget it flange.

LANGLEY stated that to the best of his and DAVISON refused to sign the NCI.

knowledge this incident occurred in February 1978.

8 d by LANGLEY related another i-:ident where he wrote an NCI that was not appr He stated that in early February 1978, he was inspecting in the DAVISCN.

He said he

{-

lkway was being installed.

.containrent on the second 'evel where a wa h

h lkway.

noted that there were scre tears in the steel containrent wall ne Z.

Hg said these tears were 's,inations in the steel which were detected w He said the area was the a;netic article test (MT).

a areaIinspected with l

approximately two inches 5:vare aear a lug which was used to lower th He said the spall area of lamination was containrent wall section S:o place.

He stated that he prepared y

subsequently ground out ned #illed,ith weld metal.

i an NCI because the ground :ut area 4as deeper than allowed by the spec He said that when he too< -he NCI o DAVISON, DAVISON would not permit him to LANGLEY said file the 'iCI after givir; -im a in of harassment over the NCI.

that he just threw the 'iC* tway.

l LANGLEY es:i ated that be

ck apcroximately five NCIs to DAVIS 0N for approva.

Of tnese five, he sas ao e to get three of them approved and logged i i

NCI however, af ter sc e of t +, 4ere logged, he was subsequently told that h back to QA was incorrect or.that it -is not justified, so he was instructed to go LANGLEY stated that he cleared the QA log based on verbal to clear the icg.

He pointed out that when he instructions received fr:- the welding engineers.

d not the was told that his 'iCIs 1,e-e inappropriate, he had to clear them an In effect, when he signed the log clearing individuals who told him : do so.

t the the NCI, his signature vdicated that he resolved the problem, which was n the proper procedure would have been for the LANGLEY stated that case.

individual who told him to clear the NCI log to sign the log himself.

F~

9 He said this LANGLEY related another incident which occurred in early 1978.

d tified as incident involved the air lock on the number two react He stated that the ring that was being installed in the containme

[

" PAL 215."

d the containment wall was wall was approximately one and a half inches thick, an 1

The large ring was to be welded approximately three quarters of an inch thick.

The specifi-inside an opening to the containment wall and fonn the air lock.

He said that the cations called for both sides of the weld area to be preheated.

the large ring into the opening in the tG1ders and steelworkers who were tacking lds and as a containment wall were not preheating the surfaces for the tack we LANGLEY said that they were supposed to be result the tack welds were cracking.

d LANGLEY heating the back side of the metal when the tack welds were being m ld pyeheat the said that when the QC inspectors were on the scene, the welders woug, the area, the welders would stop m

the inspectors lef t surfaces, but when y

He said that he knew this because when he cam preheating.

i d

LANGLEY stated that would see that the welders were not preheating as requ re.

h LANGLEY estimated that a he was with another QC inspector named Lindsey HARRIS.

D.

s td He said he wrote an major portion of the required tack welds were not prehea e.

for aporoval and L.

NCI which identified the problem and when he took it to DAVIS 0N

/

l bordered signature, DAVISON asked him a. lot of questions which he (LA LANGLEY said that he insisted that the NCI w t

on intimidation.

He said 0AVISON finally signed the NCI "after a lojy it should be logged into QA.

LANGLEY said that in only a of hassle" and he took it to QA and logged it in.

E ELLYN, the welding matterofminutes(heesIimatedapproximately10 minutes),LW h

blem in engineer, came to see him and advised him that he had research i

inimum the welding procedures and found that the welders could weld at a m

10 LANGLEY stated temperature of 40 degrees and that they did not have to preheat.

z:.$

that LEWELYYN then told him to go to QA and clear the log of the NCI he entered.

H LANGLEY said that he did go to QA and clear the log based on the instructions of nZ.

this was another example of his having to sign off and

{

LEWELLYN.

He said thn:

clear an NCI on the instructions ch another individualf.

He said LANGLEY related an ircident involving the forgery of a welding document.

that this incident oc:.rred in late February 1978 and he said he believed it was He said that a welder, who he would identify only documented in NCI Nu.-ber 2664.

by the individual's welding number k-34, care to him and asked him to change the date on a process ccetrol sheet because he (the welder) did not have an inspector sign off hold point :- 3 preheat required for a weld.

LANGLEY stated that he told the welder that e would not falsify a document that was already signed.

LANGLEY stated that e :bserved the came of Charles 0. CRISP on the document and when he told the welder to go and get CRISP to date the document, the welder told He said he discussed the matter him that he signed C U S?'s name to the docu.ent.

m

ey decided to inform construction management of the with the welder and LANGLEY sta ed that inasmuch as the welder went to management himself incident.

with the issue, he was given a "B" violation and an NCI was prepared to document the incident.

LANGLEY stated that the welder involved was a good worker and he just made a seriousjudgmenterrorwhgnhesignedCRISP'snametotheprocesscontrolsheet.

W He stated that the welder was toog concerned about getting into trouble for He stated that he was not aware of any other missing the preheat hcid point.

forgery issues.

~

11 ified in advance that LANGLEY related there were several instances when he He stated that he would find g

an inspector wouldbe looking at a particular weld.

rnE*

i k d at a certain poi.nt O4 process control sheets in his mail box which were aster s e He stated that sometimes these y

n which indicated a hold point for an inspectar.He stated that he wou 3

inspectors were insurance inspectors.

elds.

He stated his mailbox that said an inspector wculd be looking at some w ld be coming to examine a g

that he never had information that an NRC inspector wou (n

t s would be at specific weld, although he was told on occasions that NRC inspec I

he would

O He said that when he was told that NRC inspectors were coming P

He said he never received infomation in tha site.

usually see them that day or the next.He said for etarple that h advance of two or three days.

ld see them on the following i

would be at the site on a Monday and then 1e wou Wednesday.

I i

C ',$, "

If-alL ALLEG ATION DATA FORM L' s N 'c t r o 5 :.r:c csce. tr 3.

g in i..a.o. e.,e, e u..ce RECEIVING OFFICE Docket Number (if applicable)

1. Facilitylies) Involved:

IN m.)

g { g g

[

g (If mo,e th.n 3. or if gene,,c. write GENERICI I

I

2. Functional Areals) Involved:

(Check app,DP's.te bestes) )

operations onsite health and safety construction offsite health and safety safeguards emergency preparedness ef other especityl 3.

Description:

l0 lO lMlCl6l RIM l$1 @lElY l6lLl0lPl6lbl lDlU l Elf lM l6rl n,~ im e....:te,,,

g, j4 g ;p,, g ;4 i ;4igic;3; ;7;g;_ icij;y g ig;4; ip;gj g

IAIElilNIGisl l IIIIIIII IIII IIIIII i

ll IIIIIIIIIIl l Il l l l l l lll l l e

4. Source of Allegation:

ICr.ect appicpei.tr beni contractor employee security guard

, _. _ _ bcensee employee news media NRC employee private citire:

organization (specity) hMN

@lE6 bME0/8 other tspecifyl MM DD YY

5. Date Allegation Received:

7 b

~

6. Name of Individual tr. it two inii.is.no i.it n.m.)

Receiving Allegation:

7. Of fice:

Q 7 7 ACTION OFFICE

8. Actio i Of fice Contact.

(F est two initi.i and init n.m.)

l g 3 O. FTS Telephone Number:

7 y 7 fc, e Open. if followup actions are pending or in progress Closed. if f ollowup actions are completed MM DD YY

11. Date Closed:

12. Runarks:

IAILILIE$IA171/ lolNls; 161tilIluEl letYIAIMll l#16I (Lim.1 to 50 cherecterst Ibl 14171 IF5lClulelstrl lolFI 14L5ICJBI l l l ll Of fice Y.or,

Number

13. Allegation Number:

g g 7

ALLE G ATIO h],$,k,W M

. i s 1.

RECEIVING OFFICE Decket Numb:r (if cpplicsbi;)

'" CATA WBA O 5 o[o op 5

' '= :'ty'"; '~'

generic, write GENEMCI i

F F

onsite health and safety

9. Functi:nal Arests) Involved: operations offsite health and safety tcheck sporopriate boatesi s construction emergency preparedness u

safeguards other tspecifyl -

lIilelv lElL lolplElDI falulEli inlG) k IC to WICIEIR Wl5l

[cggi.rlAlWIBlAl (Alsll-lBl IIl41-lCIAIMIEIRIAI lHIEJ g

3. Dsscription:

l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l]

com... m eu..cie..i l1]

IAIRlllNI6lSI.l IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIl ll

-4 security guard

4. Source of Allegation:

_' contractor employee (Cr.e:k apprope. ate best news media licensee employee

. private citizen NRC employee organiz ation (specif y) _

dMM Mb I'MI M2d 1

ether (specityi MM DD YY

5. Date Allegation Received:

7 7

E- "

nr,si sw. initiets end I..: name) _

6. Name of Individual R2ceiving Allegation:

1Q3 3

1. Of fice:

ACTION OFFICE 0/f ~

i-traris t.o initi.e. ano s.. n.mei i

B. Action Of fice

Contact:

9. FTS Telephone Number:

gg {.

{ g>

A Open,if followup actions are pending or in progress if

10. Status:

w Closed, if f ollowup actions are completed ichece on,,

MM DD YY i

l

11. Date Closed:

i i

(A ILILIEIGIA17l/ lolNist Ibis 1/ In

~

IIll ibl k4lTI IRl61GlulE13171 IOlFI FltSILl8

32. Remarks:

Ibmit to 50 characterst Yest /_

Number Office l

13. Allegation Number:

/,LLEG M 1(I{ Dg [,0Mi. -

~

i, :.,

..s,-

RECEIVIFiG OFFICE Dockst Numbsr (if epplicabla)

INemel

1. F:cility(ies) Involved:

tif more than 3. or if geners, weite GENERIC)

Onsite health and safety 9

2. Functional Ares (s) Involved:

operations construction offsite health and safety (Check topropriate bostest I

_ emergency preparedness safeguards other (Specifyl -

[C.lOWIC(EIRW151 l.DlElrIEILloIPlEID g

[cIAITIAIW BI Al lAisIL18r 171N1-Ic1A IMIEleWl l#lE

3. D:scription:

II I I ! I I I Il q>

it,,, io im ch.recie

IAIRlll#1Gl51. I I I I I I I I I 1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIl IIIIliIl l t

security guard

4. Source of Allegation:

contractor employee Icheck appropriate boat news media ficensee employee

_ private citizen

_. NRC employee organization especif vl -

bM OMM db

[ othertspecityl MM OD YY,_

5. Date Allegation Received:

7 7 g g

WH f

trirst twa iniiisis and test namel

/

6. Nzme of Individual Raceiving Allegation:

y 7

7. Of fice:

ACTION OFFICE f f-tr.rst two initi is and test namel

8. Action Office

Contact:

1 l

9. FTS Telephone Number:

1 p [

Open,if f ollowup actions are pending or in progress l

10. Status:

mpleted

_., Closed, if f ollowup actions are co

,,c,on,,

MM DD YY 11 Date Closed:

jAlcitiggilAltl/ lolNI51 IBIEl/ WlGI IElX MIMll WlE IIIJ Al IAlvi 13458?ld(EISITI lolFl Wl.51LIBl l

12. nema,xs:

llemit to 50 chare:terst Number t

l Offece Yearf g

7 7

13. Allegation Number:

1 p _ gCR.,

'0FFICIAL USE ONLY 1

90 ot otscLOSE

. a.., --

,,,.m, MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE caad*"'ia' 5 "'

Fin t No.

TTet agrion Pan riciPANTs

~ mob Y macomo or convensatsom I n M l'IsAlp

• • TE /A /C. 8 5 c: ca.c sview / status i

u

( ) ETHER Titet CoNFloENTIAUTY RE0ut3TE.

TES no

$fLL-N b

Y 1$

N &f M (sf.$.

1

tj dds " tadus# Ecew& n /Ae hu}nDA,

~A" %&t tomud Zu (9 Acs&LA w 2xt

,ex.

o jar hw Tb cdM

~

~

b TeXi?dsuc :

l S& h d d e iLn1 a d is/ k c & f inc] A

~

Add &G enJ'A Att N.!x WNw.frM b+

/?////

irs' sild WdA Arald ho,sidth

.snu-//ni.

Q&s

~

xLe 1121uf/ lam Hs 2%ao(ned' n Atas-

/w

/ sod WUuG bnhu2al'>Jhukiscddhcd nuar bdi.suaAfs nar t>10 9 L%kd'<c.2 %# se

~

Usfa+>bs EL4.

f 0

e e

~

l'

/ or l Ps at oare

.L -,,

,f-; s e,

/ 2 - i s - E >,,

ccreanco av actionM Mo LY/l Ak d l' h2$

Y /24 CAJM. OtLEOd

~)ffiJt 12%0}tO/ Arf +<1 O

O

/

,, n.*

e nI V#

e o.1r;u,,,as-OFFICIAL USE ONLY 4

DO NOT DISCLOSE 3

A - aK

'orriciAL use omty MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE m

• a-y,se mi,*=vs gp gigsg v,n u rio.

c cas naview / starse 7'

• • • • gj,g.g cA Mcono or comys-

, 3.'3 g p

( ) ensa comptoesT1AuTV Mousstro vas no b OSk if I bM lA46 feyS 1NAblimL MAR 4 PJF4 Giu/td.

~

Mum /w, '1 ddfikA SW Td'id & lis't ~/he itum/w.

=====v e

e a

e e

S e

in e

O PAGE OF DAff PWEPARED SY AoT11N nt2UIM O

.m oATE a

REVIEWGD SY Y j a

oc war oisctose ame:At use onor

.m. u-b froca;llife T$ flamonalinus i,W-1P A:0041

~ l.

O m s dfix lstm SzistficaN(a_m of(Eelarer ler/s i

NUAIM 2.

n s w ire.

lveldtha rods Asen 3.

4:

Bremaa dydrWer

. '. - Any. -- -

Lsu 12.os.ss

+2h" 5; &/u.srhg__ (Ak//.Sim6c/:iE ^~:

t Wfhti *'Depst-lnted

6. 4.TnA[:lequaft.

7.

Sf ners l

/

lIG A-ooo2. /

l.

lMVT 2.

w.a. 2 3.

!se.12. t9 15 4.

l S.

i 1

lRII-14-h ~oco3 l.

i M

a.

An.se s 6.

lSU. on.o9.S4 c.

4 e.-

n 4._

~

~

y j,

f i

l TM A-ooo4

1. ChealMg_cm GC inspecfw exams 2._Stih_efS_(poot_uteddikd I

t AN-(

P'p.h9e _coty' copcffy reaisfalled At4e. +

3.

, St.'. C t.0 4 S_4

4. ld minAfteds

$. Mbed nob groprYdst&

l#

e

...s c

(,;

! y..-

hAb _'D OC*?

lb & _S E***

t-

-- ~

f. L'Ami u A rioNs

[dl-fY r

i-m aubuss4as ovezein(4t-@~ <:2 a-

3. TtGT w igs (9 t -@ '

4. X-I2AYS

[41-d J

s. Heueicosuue_(ol-4) gh_

.q i

-a r

en -...

it Lamka hide-aial Sou Cf aus _

t. Bus-Inu.lik froabre

' gs 4 coit

-ns wre. /toetsw9 ross

a. _ &tsifca hm.of Ojetdee Geh 2

jiana ^

kaa Fre an.herrWe...

._4.__& ~ sih9 ~tveld 9 msols 12.os. ss

/

i ~~

s. ~ ~Ti u s Te. _ X _ra y D a p c / 6 /

~

1_

t,.

7.. J6 ers l

r a.

j

'1 n-.

I.

.14 A-oco2 2-M

~

.i 13 1

-S4d-ocos/

I._

~..... _. _ _. _...

O.

.M b.

Alae.S C.

. 0104.%4 d.

e.

F.

18_.

g l5_.[, c.m___G. _U.. ns p}d.i b ).

ec_fw e_ xams

~

tt qd-A-o d

't_. Chea

~~

b c M W E.

LAMLEi

{

2.

Sk};

C/

f bl 6 M fd

. [.Y..k Y_

ki_ _ th.

_ ___$C _

. Of0f#f_

4. La m e i e_s_

s.

Preheak rwtprepacly due.

af. oi.on.s4 d

U iswes:

1Asts_p s n b

_l. _L Ami u A +io3ts_@ l - O i

)

2.__GP_REMAM QVERRtDG

[ 91-M I~

_T._ k.W l EI__

A..%-nMs

2. - s>> 'C1 ~ d <

DO NOT C15CLO5L I

Contains Ider.tity of S. 140MEiCCMbiM6 j[

Corf.dential source

l a

fw Ob W$

'?O Y kN10 N JM$

l l.:

yw1l w rx ne wire-l4utd&ered.e -

~~

^^^

tea //w

~ _t(affst G Vfs - m_.-

,+..g w

-~

3

.g,g f'

C

(*

f-g br e

_y

• • y* 6~ ~

- 6,,-

g_

v:nR i

IN' f.

t J

a.

2 L

b.

' ' $4 e.

_d..-

~

~

l pC Y _

e.

W^

Y kY.

s g

2' 2,.

5%

1

~

~

ue+V... -

sh(6p_6 peta,d_a m

2.

e reins 4atis "Au.c* -

>h.PM W m

_ 49' larw(MDis -

he.~% M m-WA 4

Wik Fico+SE_

sm,. PchaAnt ney ~ ~

=

l

,: y e r.

g-un 1

{1Ast&_pciso w i5 J"

t.. lam mAbw A

_ W?P1F612EW@GliEME^(%M4M4 E

4 4

5. -nctwin. scc 4147e'm'- ~

A.

X-124'Ls Tat-W(Ol 4[

1_

]

lIbeMEidOMbLu(

_ _._ i__ p g

i OFFICIAL USE ONLY c

MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE pc/-go L

b. 6 ARM g[g 85G $'t O

't" TTPE ACTION PAntiCIPANTS wt Ru ~o., ^

(4) acconc 0F CONytnSAfl0N

^;

y

( ) Cast atview / STATUS fD I'

db I

05 M I I SYNER Tsut l O '. 3 0 p C on F10 E N TI ALITY REQUtstED TES ho I Gathd B. GAQz)E (3rdabitiongMIBI)Ic' Sc-i/wg up &/er-

~

= = = = An '

views kih M

She sfaled bie Ead/ tr14we@

MHhciJ w kin Dccsed aad 4fvf k eadd be. ce>1-d a/

l

~

'571c scad -//ialz.shetJd adviu him c

-fho/ z -la//ad tow 6 eranj-fru(. sac saia if sum ox /w A,m -fo

-folk -fo ^tR C -

Also Euf I had smned On o&dorif.

73. 6Anz:e also cddud -fluf strc would ec>ds7M Md cau me on i2 06 25 mi-/f kkma hm ohad hew he

$foh WO

[

1 I

[

PAGE l OF

}',"'yfp

• • t2 O6 E3 ACTION RE0Wi[tt D

.6 swW (f Qt ed DATE Ctyttwt0 GT DO NOT DISCLOSE OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OFFICIAL USE ONLY MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE pp g3

'#',' A, 3

• • aviciaaar*

'6. (3 AQ.t6 g c6G) n-

-t

~ vm cerie.

w-9.

c4 uco..., ca va.avica

' dW Q,

( ) CASE REVIEW / STATUS (Q.30 acovestap vas no i >.....

comr10turiauvy B. GAaw (3rddbltto,19 /EtBI) (k. Sel/wg 4 Lafer-aad M.

S/re subled fat EstJb' inkruies

.T Gat h d eu w an' Vieu)s h) ilk blesed Q& Win l be Gadd be. Cavr-i W b"ing

'571e Sata' -UnfI.sheidd advise. him 7 d+1d -lfv/ s/re. Said d has OK & him fo c

0

' lhof I -fallad h>iH1Also -fft1/ I had styned On a[darif.

8.6ARDe' a.lso adrixd -/fa/ hhe. Leidd Ganfo

-lolk fo NRC.

aad cal / me em 12<o6 is 4)i44 Ladraw.han abazd hew he l

egu./d 6e. cc>>/ac. fed.

W i or /

• aer

• • 12 0 6 E 3

~~

AGil0N Rieusagg eyy ;

<>;y satt pgylgw(O Of 00 NOT DISCLOSE L

OFFICIAL USE ONLY

'0FFICIAL USE ONLY w r, m _- m,,

[

MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE coateias Iden'* d

{p f 4-tial Source PsLL MO.

,An flCIP Ants G.93-A-MQ/

TYPE Action (X) nacomo or convensation "ib UkIC-pts t I caer naVisw / status l*l 8 5

@ no h,'46pg conricant Atity acoussico

[gyphc&

/h5 fl/Wntrit) -fp Scf y.p p1(c{sr19 h sununni infervieu.

^ adnsed /te hadd be 0/aMatWe. on M_

Genkq. 34 h)os 04 feed -/had M. h>oidd ntef of -Me n M w M Of 7:30 piv>.

,A.c

< or i

• f"'hf I2 0b* Vf Action atouindo I

MTE LOS atVigsto SY po 9 ariw c

codd"g ptp ma co 0FFICIAL USE ONLY 4

DO NOT DISCLOSE n

-6

'OFFICI AL USE ONLY MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE ge/ oog 2,._

flLE NO T YPE CTION PARTICIPANTS vs

-v j-() RECORD OF C O NVE RS Afl0 N DATE 40

.d te 12./2 S5

( ) CASE REVIEW / STATUS w

.s a=s

.S

( 3 OTHER g,c as CON FIDEN TI ALITY REQUESTED b

20

/gl} {, fgl3 g Gasted 8.6nais af (704)365-t913 re sel/cuo w mis

="~ r H4

. She sud she a.sud B,e m mb/i6 w k ha/ whee I c eaded w r she. toos sau ht brw ed -/c cm/sc/ /wr rw an inrWrietc.

54c said s/c incidd Vlad y kn:vercu cv

/

4/5c dscwun Dcss;6/c (csseu3. why Gaded

-/f1c =fu de,L k<d td,iv IE 400s ()of M/is 'ed 40</4 Guf 4m/cn'icc.

ShE sa?d she lbs! head alw!

etnwwds 0" Iwur fun o.ui -/na? zhc ct<d nof knew what loss c>owa on. She

.y d Shc arcu& - ad c?d foumomnd cad eat / me.

h 4

I Pact

( or DATE

--]t-3.Utig c

/t /2. TS PCEFARED DY ACTION REDutRED Y

O*

_,, et CO',\\b

,e u w

.v-e f_ t*

l DATE CCYigutD SV OFFICIAL USE ONLY 00 NOT DISCLOSE

'0FFICIAL USE ONLY MEMORANDUM TO CASE P'lLE g,gg ME# g5_f y j 9,

PARTICIPANTS [, hgg

""I d

p~

TY98 fl0N 28C0000 0F CONvtNSATION J

/ }, [],

( )

/ 8747#8

( ) CASE REVitW C,o" sed

/Q,* y g, 7g*3 g N

NO I I 07NER Comet 0gMt1AUTY 450u887E0 fe. Se//nro u.o wrr6 dal}ed. 2>.6AQW a)

(704) 365-19/3She sud she pa.ssed /he

• ***T

^

kH4

-fha / tohee Me caded hee she.

hm iu an inferview.

5%e said she i

tot w_ ed -fc cornac tvoubi /cflotJ y -/bmmoeroa w

da.tJed reascu s. so h y klSo 'dlScussed DOSSible nof &16sfed nV4 aur6/erv,ew.

-/tre,Judu wd tdim he suas commeds an hour -

i she said she tus/ heard alw/f know tphat Luas ex>cL1a on. 2 k

/Mo Gad -//tal she 6 d nc siid She hauld -had ad /cumoamd aad eas/ die.

l l

l Pset { or I f)ol},

(

Y 0

41 ACTION REQUIRED hey,.

90T,;,+* -

OATE E

-,,. 00..

4 00 NOT DISCLOSE 0FFICIAL USE ONLY

~

OFFICIAL USE ONLY MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE gc/_ goo >

" "G-A1ppf gcc,gg [ggj }

• • aviciPaars vrec crion c) nccono or convensation t

case neview / status 6'

/2. (3 ' 83 cc "'

,,a 53 e

) ovnen

((, d ((M complotNTIAury atoursTro Co M No

$1AR] EUEd Galkd kd rauf She was oslud /m /3.6MM sununar

-b cauaud a#n me %i ~8.GAQbC Modd ' Cad mL

-fonind,f/

howa repsrdwa w hed cu.et b11,fl ff110 f t C Y)

.a 4

Maan EuEa -

'202r (57-5225 l79b4 E

I v

4; mad 4 GUEa GaLkd al 5 5'50aw k 6do st -l11al. B. 60 rdL-ins 4tst& -Germ d(MTgd /2h(nm -ic hc -

f,unid raf 12surs4d.T cal inci a/L9.'5o k -

i 4

y l

l PA G E l oF l CATE p;CPAREo sy l >

• l $' ' hb aCil1N REQulRED ch\\

C\\

', h *.9 g; "p_ '

i' cc

-y l

c' i

DATE

/

l styggwEo sY OFFICIAL USE ONLY 00 NOT DISCLOSE

}

~

OFFICIAL USE ONLY MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE pg, 3

l

' * * "th ~ m _

[/ F/ g) /-

• • Rviciraars Af40f Eu_E4 "U i<-

c ives crion Ascono or conv Reation c!

• I co' wd

• • / z. /3, E 3 t

w. - go#.

t I cass Raview / status Cogas

,)

//l4 / Orvt ceWE no

( ) o7MER newsvio canawamury

8. GAaw IMAR] EaEA Galled Gud TO!d She toss ashd Ar

%t ~S.GAQ1>E~ kordd '(nLL me.

suam**s

-h calland Odnse. me.

emkJ co/

w

-fonin64 nd howe.

re n s rd w o tw1.N'maNw f2.

'202r 667 522d /7904 J way suza -

/

f^

MAa1 Gusa Gaded al 2 ?'50n k sdose -Mid 2> c

-/w mh 4 AM ggdgg> 96rnm -!c, mS

ss~

b M

O I

e hd///$

y I

l l

1 i

set l or I p

oAft U./3 f3 PREP *Rio :

MS ActiiN REeuiREo d

a0 a

Q4,7 w-g

• • 78 navia n o av 00 NOT DISCLOSE OFFICIAL USE ONLY

043131V1 0C3 ON 7A

~

M3WOWVN0nM 10 DVS3 dll"3 8N~ 000 Z~~

,,,T,f.

N,,/

Q' 7/11/ 7 c1;, # os\\

AAu vouow

.vutioi.v=2s

,,~ _,

g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

2 ' 9 fI'2 0 9-c

1. . 5 m

'#30 0v13 I I 3I "3A'3" /8AYAA8

/[*/

g

)o 3 g 01M3W itN3

/Ol/ L - /OlP99 oo=eicaiuvnAA.3on3:13a in mo sn=m % /0/ 2'9p)PQ J' @* fv 'f'"V

_ J 9/aJm

• M"'yM " f' 9vyag >rp('. r VP m'2 ? mT,7 n

M 'W r' y' "

W M RF d>m uo f-. r

- @v ts~ yp P'v */7 ' W ' 1Wt

• fo

.ppr upy3 r,w m 9,j m/ip?7=y' aisin,myynasro 7sry m

~

3 iippr-~

yr-- gy.m," YyJ fn 9 9 p a )r { W P! 5 0^* n F )

( D"P -ffi)* W & 1Y'ff %

IQ'T y f^

tsrocm on s my.vi3,.c iauq i?nn v-v sy, p=sn<wp ew yr17-a q p )jmy 9m,q m s t@j )rocf)Q vcj,m ya 5 1r Sm5 9.Ytc )G

@u9F -Hn 1 twt 9VUME M' JP"l'7 -/V"/ TVD

@ '" " 7 -P*/ UE tR mms

\\

up"ni FNt's -jfwf.)m),

w tans y 9 y m9v rajtm m iv jny,gE is ivr ocfis 7,no m icmas - pi s mpv, pwww,m fo ;ys.fiwo m p p,, w:,ns ysf w. ojg7 n

{

i l

~

4vs3 l 04 j 07A3 i

d#3dvm30 8AfiM"

/

ll. )3 5 9 1

tokion uJonin30

)~, > ~

ll[y *..

t-0 t

J'.C J'CI diCCU

'a 33Af3A30 8A D h3"'l * * *. 3$

OddiDIV7 nSJ ON1A 00 NO.J 0lS01OS3 m

~

044131V7 ASE ON7A l

M3WOWVNOlrM 10 DVS3 4113 M~

Cos\\ _,,7,r,g.

-/

R,' 7/>h d'~~

. o e

" *S

.vvmi vwu 9'@q9 o i,l, 6# u-,

,g/7"/3 8E 4Aw naion 0:

'? dn 7

q,,,,,,,,,/ tAvAne

) ( oves nA 3m go,

" /Ol/ 4 - /Ol99 W noww0>wuvniA nenn4:0 ne no

) ( esm3W fp 9.V>n*

12 la/ g'90>p, j, A n m 6TivEe 0F(? nr W vm2 " )"*?74 W'"'y?'~ " f' W...."..

A M M -W P~ 9~" f %

Dro up q m'tP P"-P7; W' mf

^

Y 4h b'ti V 9

• tv y nr//p7W '_

v*F 17Vd~ -/9 U' 9 5 '"'PW "~f"'" M, )"

f

'v W % ~)'>f W 'V/'"7T"7 -/V '~ W ' & 1ky1 )?M M M

?cttm pf5G PT SJ"'svF v=v 77, p2S"'P fpwcnvo on > rwnurm tk!t4 ymqLr',,z< q.)97 pmp N*" P'Vd /G 9"f#lf -/9 4 9 H

?" " */ v " Y ~ -ff* f U E f%p 1 W 9WM PW )37E)!P~ -ffm/ TyD Wvo.t^aR* P~ Q fn'cM rMfI?"' w S/WfT

-ffiVf-}1L?)'~ !T WG)7"'V, Q is tuepgfiopfy p m v igsnas*

ppsis ponycj ppat4.wein--

fof.

~)yY )DV!ftJMPM o'j yf fa MSy*fM afff Io N

r

/

I

)

l n

i os j 07A3 l{'l b' $ $

d ps!W30 SA f

4

/

TSAtoN W30hiW30 y[y 3t,1

'l 00 N01 OISD051 0

1 7

-. ~,,

o.

Qg g'f[ gonsoe WSAlla9O 9A 00 N01 01837083 0ddl3lV7 nS3 ON7A

OFFICIAL USE ONLY DO NOT D15GOSE Contani ident.ty of conwene..I som.

MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE F8bE RC P&aTICIPANTS 3-OATE TV M ogfigm j

( ) cast navisw / stafva

_,,,12.19. g s

[ECOMO Or COnyggsaTION

( )

/(-lf f steusstro fu no

( ) ofusa courioanttauty

~ ~

aud,sla Easted M' af-Gm.

She s4 4 wL-advised sta. eadd not earrkc/

f

/

at har Rsidean aud she. 34,/ d.

.She gum l

to:4cau -

(L11ed 16 W i2 h e buk. ok /lcosu.

LoiLL dell IW hmern) mEna< q and lh4 ske & dd A&r l

11ssA e Mo ys r%ea.

/pm l

l I or i Pa u

{2*l9* $b OCtraME IIQ

/

action naouinao g got etsn051

• • 78 cer,,;m idehty d

~ssviewe# 87 I*'# "

Confiden' 00 NOT DISCLOSE g

0FFICIAL USE ONLY

D0 hat u. mass Coattins id2n.ry.;

0FFICIAL USE ONLY Con!*tn'cl sourn usuoRANDUM TO CASE FILE TV-Ooo5

-~

nan'a'= 'd. ur c_.

E' w <'

/], g, g u,, o.,

ef nacomo or convensarten cast naview / status 3.'O[

( )

vas no stoutstto

( ) C7 pts courtotut:Auty cad

& She sauf -Ntal

~~~ latled

-k ett un -ffa txe

.x sie no sta -Rub menwokd -fo Gtli Mm. 7 daak 'aslu d af'-f mau Nt Guld %4u/ hG a d s/re sa<d -Nta/ i/ tendd M%

Se sa<d stic nauld Le'.kHu W he. Gmheded me.4<q hw--Ine. me

..Tasnw isv-/na/ W un s

)

as 'TbssiWe.

$cndsc/ 5% ds som

'in 1px4+d. -fftal kl.

--M I or I use oats

'?

l 2

• 2.0 0 x...no y g.ay-

-orio,, nooino I

. ATE

,,tyiSW6o ST y pv6wisaV4 l

00 NOT DISCLOSE coa'f as Wf,*j j OFFICIAL USE ONLY

6 0FFICIAL USE ONLY i

MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE g ggg3 o

O J ' M i-s maaticipants V

TV creon p

77,y7, escono or convensation cast afverw / status e su

( )

E '.10 a41 conriormTiauty atoutstto Q ao i i., t.

ca Mi/

no dccus s scavies. 7 c<nta & d ML M w ad

'o m e e t ou...,

his de>1ceras aad 44a+ 4c. NorJd - Ifs te I M

us u his dau Mc sa<d he koald -lak -fo torf4 hw.sff. 6u-/ -But! /te tDould hivl. la gar

&ck vtex/ ta<e(<

-Yo h-/ me. V~oia Achtu he Anould k amda ffe.

i r

\\

~M

-M I

past or /

a catt sceranto e,v' Action Atoulpto g,ej cart v t... s, 00 NOT DISCLOSE i

OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Oc %;1 C..:.;d Contains Idsntity of 0FFICIAL USE ONLY c:nfid.ntial sowc.

MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE pe/.;g3

""2*

n,

vansicsonuss MAR 4 Ettssi ww si Tvrt cctrom

.,. 0 3 bii

% RicoRo or convgasAYl0N casa navis, / starve N NC 3;oopm-3'Io pat vas we

( ) ormen accuestro courioc=viaurv Ellea (los/ trom tulnotan) dad aMdAlle'. lo Sclud'Lo/ la

'u====s Mont brfel halLA addtiss ' so GRP &lld &, &Wd ee,n,

$b W

jfg hOflgh &th hhW

&mec/euo

/

hQt/d 8fTHM.:22, int A M 5

. 4LO'A y, i..

en..et e~ov of td Confidential M8 I or /

p.ec

""ot.os 84 k.gpsnto eQ) L4!bf(-

L.

e.

action accuento gl,o

,,...o.,

00 NOT DISCLOSE OFFICIAL USE ONLY t

e

I CoMura lhetity of

, FFICIAL USE ONLY Md.ntid ww 0

MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE g g3

^ " "* r,

m,

• • aticianarspggygc,fgaf im action th escono or connuarina g,ggyc, of. of. y./

i can uview / navn ying3: 27-3l32 p concionamurv wousnuo vu

=

( ) CTMER MAQ/ E!/90 Oddd ad. -fht h uMl r/ B.GARbE

'k0

&/ennNL. if

^ ha fek'rmi nL em 1 ad.h 4 1

/

Rwe. td

-/12d le did rkr/ Gall. Site 3/aled 41,4 8.G A A b6and M GA

-fo havt dedac/ ul as p sibit.

% fo &lacf adc os see

&lys2f$l.:. C.hl! Clttt$ [L NA!A--

1 k

9 e

D G

W Ce*'t "*l# *

^

gg;,;,w -

e. n I er I

""ot.o6. g4

• • '="* "(fffryc _

g urio. awino

/

4 h

MVlgeto ST 4

00 NOT DISCLOSE OFFICIAL USE ONLY

'0FFICIAL USE ONLY MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE 3

DO NOT DISCLOSE oart (D ascono or comycosarion

6. M/2%

g, A

Cast naview / starve c u r-,,a scoe,

,,h',C[

( )

Yes no atout Tso t1 ovata courtotN7:auty nd re&n,a A;s esa.

auta do ae d4M D.w:/W :Gewsc As fV2mait*L, he N & L L

sola.L

<6Su fi '

M bmL i-s//

/M

-/S75; bin c.ommi bun hC i

t es l 0 U d Z d d o'is.e A - l % +1k kposs)& & me. 4o meel 'uin 41mx

/

s me fir m d e g w

.[H/uculd

/w AwMdusd 'aud Iks/ud % -o hi 4ed oak so 4>e. eould mala cow awar-IL usie & h & R v'%&

s

~

Yb '/Hed.

_Mialsassagg'.fte hL lurJ/d h)L lu.u~/ Eudb,'

Y 5

9 I

s

=

t' e

e.--

$6

% w-v

^M,

( o, /

.t e

n 0

,.;;tu.Eo

_m

_A T niainS \\d'*AU e

contd niw l

l -

naviewto av 4

00 NOT DISCLOSE h/f

~

OfrFic1AL ust ONLY

1

'0FFICIAL USE' ONLY MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE FILC MO.

PARTiclPANTS ONE TYPE action

- - ~ *

%., j $l,g;i o.1,o/ /9 FJ 7

tX) ascono or coNvensaisow 444/ Gaga

< > ca.c navia. / erarv.

coma som.

""'f,fp g o,,,

connocanaury acouestro vas no d add 2ss of p 93, dues.

7 & Lle<<- 6AP 4 9 4

f

M

.c o,

I*9 N A SY b

['/

ACTIoM REQUIRED DO NOT DISCLOSE (C'.fi f.S [dentity W f,3;-i J k ufC8 e

oATE NtylEWED BY 4

DO NOT DISCLOSE h/[

OFFICIAL USE ONLY

~

'0FFICIAL USE ONLY MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE o6 uco... ee=====

gfg

,,, o f. g g p m sema u.

navia. / mTn

,,,, /,*

C ii YES 2

50utSTED ti.rzu CONFIDENT 1&UTV

^

COJJed Got/ec/ -lo advise. -//n/ Ile, ukndd k

~ a.ud -/haf fx. mords de

. GA ort I adnseg him Jrsvelkaa lo fime.-//xre k an m4ryua>.

w/ereieu) bewese a.6/e k' Speud same l ffe. ed-lha/ dale. -lof /ze. perds 6c aazifo

-(ho/.7 6roidd -be. Atnavaia l

of pnk comani/mer/s. 7 -Mea as ad i,M stea. /-fe wd bd M as 'T &>cids k w -/frihe inadd f

/-fe w d

-lo />u/se. /ihn/ prrunemem.s.

Ct.So H ev ot st 1/

^' ai -/Arsud M he esidd 6e Roc / red al fk

~M a/ M n'e als ne' ue2/ed.7 od o 4he adeltess e/

Zbt. 4 Aim.

/

t

{yggg W /kuf biltStim Dt. )

/W..Jerre Jhckeu r<eshclwiV4 Me..

• Un***' 5 SAPbC taAo /c/d her he had bws tuen1 ci.26 84 and,%-

f /fa x. /o enver.sa/k w/ "

^

3 i e s i,w s m u Edse reques/ed she.

^

la hadd k lulerNanan h m wafftas -/Ae m Gadd moh. such _

ot. solai 14 awaae. aeufs &duk a} k Asca /wrems u em- -

M ese

/ or /

pase

• ^'" gf, y,,g

'picraa Action nEQutdED

, 06 d

+%c*

vy OarE i dystutD BY 00 NOT DISCLOSE

$ fl OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Y

'0FFICIAL USE ONL MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE

.... 84-0005

}

g. a,,,

-.,......,. suse : N A/OMOS 3ars U C '.

N' O2. O/. 84

,,o.

sk cncono or convenusson cas neverv / e,ms

]((;/Om-313o%

( i vu ao anwerso t3,,,,,,

eanno =muty

~

~

Austz ailetvatwed af /Shdoq7/ irs

• * * * * ' T's G M E M a

O e

i -

O l

p ec / or /

oAMcz. 06 64 l

i" ag A.,io. <,noi.o OATE

~ntviewse er 00 NOT DISCLOSE h lI 4

OFFICIAL USE ONLY

]

, MAR 131984 l

R11-44-A-COO 3 SLsJECT:

cerning several allpgations I am currently conducting an official inquiry conOne of the individuals who made during the Catanba 1.icensing Hearings.

ontact you regarding the possibility some concerns during the hearing suggested we cl information to his concern Le t.

i that you may be able to add some addit ona tters only as an individual who me assure you that you are involved in these ma provided by other individuals.

i might be able to verify some of the informat on during the day, or collect (404) 221-4103 Isould you please call me collect at ning, so that I can discuss these at (404) 926-.0364 af ter 7:00 p.m. in the eve matters with you.

Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

incerely a., )

Seuno Urye, Jr.

Investigative Coordinator i

l b

I

!l I

e

===.="'*""''

1 &Gd Mau:

b l l i i...

"*"*""*J f,.............................................................

J

.{0

... "..q

...I

.......................................................... ~ ~ - -

• i

~

M '~

L

~ Nart

t 0FFICIAL USE ONLY I

MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE E'b8 40-5 f

~

pas 7tCIPam7 3 D'TE

( k etComp 0F Conw g atafl0N Cast Egyegw / status

_,,,, 7 :o o p

( I i >....

~

^ &iles me edlec./ al M resideau sb addiit-ke feceNd nw htfu (o:1/is/te)..Taddsid /twi M su='

~shu In/s't &k 6 L. Ik szu hicouis fry 4, hto. r

1) m pday 4h. Ge cuns a' Jh A:.sa. : i s

Exem. tu/ amrt 4suv muukam ertrecJeid loi% />1wAct.

er'sxcdssehe-

^

^. vi'4%s a /Je. (tis itsr sen 3rrc< subin lo phe to / wee M 1%. si's. lJe lies daue. sw&

3 % awk %

headd 'mL of o%4 Mt M ouuddd. /Je. 91 tils.i naud.- Qu'd -hi lu Jins-nb/ anwe-. s,f u.; &s.

W Y

4.d -/nat h bea es>!w edel />rr R %.

/d 94 4 arriH i

1 I

t 0

8

_ j n

DATC i

PREPa i

1---

AC,10m AEQu, RED

- g g 1

DO NOT DISCLOSE y

0FFICIAL USE ONLY i'

i i

6K%

UNIT E D 51 t.T E F

[g

'c, NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION,.

['

RE GION ll y,4 I

7' E

101 M ARIETT A STRE ET N W

'o ATL ANT A.GE ORGI A 30303 JAN 061984 MEMORANDUM FOR:

A. Herdt, Chief. Engineering Program Branch FROM,:

B. Urye, Investigation / Allegation Coordinator

SUBJECT:

CATAWBA:

IN CAMERA HEARINGS CASE NO:

RII-84-A-OOO2 This refers to my letter dated December 19, 1983 (Case No. Rll-83-A-OO91) which set forth five allegations which we recyived during an intervien of an in camera alleger.

For reasont which would facilitate the administrative handling of tne allegationc of all of the in camera allegers, I have assigned the above case number (RII-84-A-OOO2) to those allegations set forth in my December 19th letter.

Please make a pen and ink change to that letter eliminating the case number RII-83-A-OO91 and substituting RII-84-A-OOO2.

For your information, the following case numbers have been assigned to the in camera allegations /allegers as indicated below:

RII-83-A-OO91 NUrcJ RII-84-A-COO 2 RII-84-A-OOO3 RII-84-A-OOO4 LAN3 LEY Your assistance is always appreciated.

Brun Uryc, r.

-N O T I C E-THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION RELATIVE TO ASLB IN CAMERA HEARINGS.

IT CAN BE RELEASED ONLY TO AUTHORIZED AFFIANTS.

f jY f f ffXy $_ -

u t v TOU rb

[P,J

_