ML20129B950
| ML20129B950 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1983 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Jamarl Cummings NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129B955 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-210 NUDOCS 8506050371 | |
| Download: ML20129B950 (10) | |
Text
+
f 2
UNITE ES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
i WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
~k April 7, 1983 g.
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER l
NOTE FOR:
Mr. Cummings, OIA J
? :/k FROM:
John Ahearne C
4 1
y
- Jim,
[
For your information.
i
^
I L--
(.
i Attachment j
Z
=
J N
b 8506050371 841227 1
/
- c c', r 5 3 -W
(
x l:g.. -; 2. '
r. e, ' _'i
'. L J ', ~;
.}.l_-,y ; j' *;
_ : [ ',...,,n,
's :. :
-s. _ [, ' '
. s ~ ~.,. ' ' _ ' _ _.a._.'
_ ;6.-.cz_;
?..
.)3p_.J.i ':;_'
.;, :'sf;y[.;,g_;.y.;;.J_[;'.; fy y? : }: '
y j _ _ ',*$ ' l :
.,r.<;;p[fQ;sfQ._q':;.}l?. - -.
?
J
- 9
. ~ '., I[ g )._ ',
_ ' l'
- ".' . ;- lll, - L? '.-f :J._ '.< _ ' ~;.,. _.; ;;. l -
' ~ s .
U
- ._.,.., c..
_ _ ' '..': t
_ " }ly: '., ;.
,. ?.-
Qv_,'_.
, 4, ' 3..,,. * ' Js. -
.*4.,
",,.=',-r
.7, g < r ;.
'e
.t
_.'_t
.*h
,~,
i'
,,..-l*
,f,',..
y,,.
]
^
O Off1TEfrSTATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.g3 geg-4 N0:33 BEFORE THE COMMISSION d.!
s-
. ; l. :j ? -
c In the Matter of
(
APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR AN OPERATING LICENSE FOR
'b COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES) '-
(
Y' F
i
~
CASE'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS' 3/31/83 MOTION
]
FOR EXPEDITED RECONSIDERATION 0F COMMISSION ORDER On 3/31/83, at about 2:00 P.M., CASE was infonned by the Applicants that they were filing a Motion for Expedited Reconsideration of Commission Order with the Comission, and Applicants' counsel read the Motion (as well as the Comission's 3/30/83 Order'to us over the telephone, allowing us to tape them.
Thus, although we still have copies of neither of these documents, we at least were able to listen to them and have general knowledge of their content.
Since
~
Applicants requested that the Commission rule on their motion today,' bey stated that they were telecopying or telephonically comunicating their motion to the other parties so that "they each may know the subject of the motion and respond today either orally or in writing if it wishes." And, as noted by the Applicants themselves in their motion, "Obviously, the Comission must act today on this_
~
I motion for reconsideration if the necessary logistics are to be attainable."
l (Emp!) asis added.)
CASE agrees that it would have been necessary for the Comission to have l
acted today if the necessary logistics were to be attainable. However, by the time CASE was infonned of the Applicants' motfoh, it was already difficult if h;
r
~-
.J.--
^
~
~
is
.T
. y,
/
before the NRC discovers too much and before CASE is able to adequately prepare cross-examination questions of the NRC Staff which will prove that not o'nly the Acolicants but the NRC Staff itself is violating the commitments of the Applicants in their FSAR and construction pennits, applicable industry codes and standards, NRC regulations, and even fundamental engineering principles.
CASE is very much concerned-about whistleblowers. The position of CASE has been set forth almady in our pleadings in regard to the appeal regarding the Atchison matter and related subjects.
(See especially CASE's 12/21/82 and 1/11/83 pleadings.) We believe that the Comission itself should look into l
the matter of whistleblowers -- but true whistleblowers, not middle and upper management people who had a duty to report construction problems to begin with and who, in some instances, were.the individuals accused of wrongdoing....
We' are very much concerned that a decision in the Atchison matter not be used 1
as a precedent which could lead to the identification of future true whistleblowers er other circumstances. However, we are also very much. concerned about the unwillingness or inability of the NRC Region IV office to adequately investigate the allegations of whistleblowers and are fimly convinced that this should also
~
be fully and thoroughly investigated. Our efforts to get other internal depart-ments of the NRC to investigate the Region IV office and its handling of allega-tions of whistleblcwers have proved fruitless. There must be sorre method set
]
up to detennine whether or not the NRC's present. efforts in our hearings are directed not at protecting whistleblowers but rather at their desire to cover their own inadequacies. We are hopeful that the Comissiori can arrive at a solution to this thorny problem.
.-,.-r,-
o
- k..
(
UA ssUCLEAR REOULATOMY CWediast08e CMC D0 mas a INVESTIGATION STATUS RECORD e%$7COCitOpes Th.s tor
- as to se co'ao etac wwwww srbcs* activet, hee comenso reweeve to e esse or se. sam em XI eevs l' ee estaaer 'isi teet"ec cures the E esv *eso t as pseec. see.cnw Pus Chnage ' ee the mates b*osa ILeon tPo e'eae w'sa t*e mes f.es ord es*e one copy to 6+eamm orwes, O".co of savest.est.oas I A&*
- 8**el
- CattCony gosee:g
_ a e.oe.... c...evo.
1... o.. w w cr~...
i O! FIELD OFFICE 4-83-012
_l"E.'.fR"en'"
I a'
- 'e='a w avet REGION IV l tr vi dom (a-Othfe ash Ghg n '
1 httJEC T GR'FFIh COMANCHE PEAK: POTENTIAL INTIMIDATION OF OC INS 9ECTORS siarus isoa.,
re. -,.
e er e, ere,
09 7/13/83, the NRC Region IV Administrator requested that O! conduct an investipation tc cetem.ine whetner co-workers of a former Brown & Root employee at the Comanche Peak SES were intimidated or_ discouraged fron properly carrying.out their quality control duties as a re-salt of the individual's discriminatory termination; specifically, fron writing NCR's where deficiencies were identified.
This investigation by OI represents a follow-up to a regional
- nvestigation condu:tec prior to O!'s establishment in 1982 and to an investigation conducter by Int Department of ' abor.
gg i
i ao O
e f/
Q/
i fi
,ECY-83-1720 v/20/83.
to,,;3, o, NRC SECRETARIAT a
p1 b
X o.ie TO:
O commis. ion.,
O Exec. oirsoper.
U g o.n.coun a '
O cone. ti.i.on O solicito, O rubiac Affairs O s.cr.t.ry XXg OIA O letor & Auditor O roiiev e
- o. tion Rcc Edward J. Ma-key, Const Ref Ju&nita Eiiis Citizens Assoc for Sound Enerqy (CASE)
Palladino 4/15/83 To:
o,,,
concerned about the manner in which NRG Region g,,,.
IV Investigators have conducted investigations and atti-tudes of whistleblowers re the regional office Xb er. pare rWy for segn.ture of:
XXS chairman and Com Review O cmes O soc. ac. co. so t. ra. secy. 4 ra O son.=e m i'*
Date due Com: April 29 0
i hReturn origin.1 of incoming th respon O rorair.ctr sy-N O ror ropri.ie.etion v
tfk O racinform.iion c
l Cpys to: Chm,Cmrs,PE,Gh,SECY,0CA to Ack Remarks:
baC For the Commission:
- Send three (3) copies of reply to Secy Correspondance and Records Branch NnC Fones en ACTION SLIP (Hz) 4 V
M5
~
p4 1
1 STA1EMENT PLACE:
RIV, Arlincton Texas DATE:
April 14, 195 1540 l
I. Char.les A. Atchison, herecy make the following voluntary statement to Mr. D. D. Driskill, who has identified himself to me as an Investigator with the U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Comrrission.
I make this statement freely with no tnreats or promises of reward having been maae to me.
l I was employed by Brown & Root, Inc., at CPSES from February 27, 1979, to f
April 12, 196.
During that time I workec as a Documentation Specialist l
(OA/QC), Quality Assu-ance Engineering Specialist, QA/QC Leac Auditor, j
Project QA/Q: Training Coordinator, and as a certified Level II Visual Exam-ination. L II Liouic Penetrant, L II MIFI, L III Mechanical Equipment anc L II Magentic Particle Inspector.
On December 14, 19Ei. I transferrea to the field QC Inspectors' Group for ASME 0: Inspections.
M duties the-e were to conouct inspections of momer.
l restraints, mechanical equipment and primarily pipe whip restraints.
A restructuring of site personnel anc responsibilities resultec ir my being l
transferrec to the non-A5ME group wnich took ove-responsioility for tne inspection of Dios whip restraints at tnat time.
I continuec tc primarily inspec: pice wni; restesints.
(
Fo inf o-matio*, a pipe. hip restraints at CPSES are manuf acturec b;.
Chicag: 5-ioge & I or (CSC ; anc NPSI.
During m, instec:icns fit-uc. weic-in;. installatior anc bclting-uc c' tnese pipe whip restraints, w-icr. are c e-fa.rict ec a:
ne veno:
com:,any. I observec tna; ma' c' tner cari.'tec areas of welcing tna wouic nct pass AWI D.1.1 or ASME Sectior 3 M Sursectior inspection reouirements for visuai, liquid peretrant or magentic particle inspection.
Tnese defects were obvious tnrough the paint.
I was not rescor-sible for any inspection on these restraints of welas which were performec b.s tne venoo-ouring nis fabrication process.
Ir. eariy Jansary 1952, I told Richard Ice. Mechanical Q: Eouipment Supervisor, BLR, aoout tne welding oefects I had obse-ved on these pipe whip restraints.
He statec he hac Deen aware of these vendor suppliec wela defects.
He stated he nac ciscusse: tnis procier with Jie Hawkins, tne ASME QA/0: Manager (former) f o* B&R.
be state:: Hawkins had told hin tnat these were venaor supplied components, therefore, they were not in his a-es of responsibility.
Hawkins furthe-statec tnat tnese components had been ap;rovec (inspected) at the vencor site prior to shipmant tc CP5ES by TUSI OA representatives.
Ice told me to go ahead and try to get tnese oefective welds documented on an l
.p.
STATEMENT Charles A. Atchison, April 14, 1982 NCR, but he dian't think it would ever be accepted.
In January 1982, I l
wrote an NCR draft identifying defects in about 20 pipe whip restraints and sent it to the non-ASME NCR Coordinator and that is the last I ever heard of it.
I doubt the draft was ever assigned an NCR numoer and loggec.
Ice I
I was aware that I submitted this NCR.
As a result of the apparent disregard of my NCR I dia not write any more NCRs on these defects.until late March 1980.
In late March 1982, the iron workers' craft supervisor, responsible for installation anc onsite welding of pipe whip restraints, Dale Ballard, asked me to look at some restraints for possible problems.
During this I noticed excessive weldinc cefects in these four CB&I suppliec restraints.
Insomuch as these were obvious weld defects and these restraints were not ye. instaliec.
I I f elt it was my responsibility to report what I hac observec.
On that cay.
I told Randall Smith, my leaamar, anc supervisor, about the cefects anc he j
authorized me to prepare a draf t NCR on which he initialec his approval Smith took the NCR draft te Mike Foote (his supervisor) and C. T. Brandt l
(:oote's supersisor).
Foote and Brandt ther, went and personally inspe:ted l
t*.ese restraints.
Focte an Smith inen came te me an: Facte saic he woulc i
net issue /autheri:e tne NCR because I was ' witch nuntinc.'~ _ose--insce: ting
(
anc outside my sccDe o' worL Sr'tr late-nat cay, aethc-ized me te continue occumenting these welc ce'e:ts uncer tne RAGOM SURVE!LLAN:E PRC'i:.AN. whict ; cor..inue: tc at.
About 4 days later, Dave Chapman (a TUSI QI. Supervisor - I o r.') Kno. he is Ron Tolson's Supervisor) was at CPSES looking at the CEI restraints, which I'c icentifiec cn my NCR, which were located in the Reacto-I iayaown area.
Suosecuent tc that, I was told by Rancy Smith that m., N R wouic be issuec.
Srith Dave Brown (an Ebasco employee working for TU5I). C. C. (nc furtner 10,1 and I then went to the laydown area to concutt a complete inspe: tion cf the four pipe wnip restraints.
These were inspected t: AW5 C.i.1.
Tne NCR was submitted based on this inspe: tion.
Two days late Focts and Erand.
ac,ised Ranos Smitt. the inspection of the restraints wouic nave tc be cone in a:corcanie with ASME criteria.
Smith concu:ted this reinspection and
' o c r.: accitional cefects.
The N:F. was resise tc refle:: the A5ME c ite ia anc it was subritted tnorugt the appropriate channels.
Durinc the aoove related time frame, several things occurred which refle:ted my supervisor's cissatisfaction with my performance.
One of these things was that Randy Smith told me Foote stated that I was witch hunting and working outsice the scope of my responsibility (he had said this directly to me previously as related above).
Another thing that occurred was that my supervisors, aside from Randy Smith, would not communicate with me on any technical matter related to my work.
Basically they were giving me the cold shoulder.
A
y c
e-3 i
STATEMENT Cna ies A. Atchison. April 14, 1982 Another situation which occurred ir.~ late March 1952, wnich my supervisors again believec I was acting outsioe my area of responsibility, was my icentificatior, of unauthorizec work being done on a Westingnouse pipe whip restraint.
Or aboJi March 29. 1952, I was called to Reactor Building #1 tc conou:t an inspection of the fit up and tack welds of pipe whip restraint
- RC-1-027-901-C47W, which millwrights were preparing to install.
I found they die not have the reouired cocumentation. therefore, I refused to de tne inspectior..
Randy Smitn and I went to Bill Hartsharn, QA Engineer for TU5I te explain the problem.
We all went to TUSI's Quality Engineering Decartment where we talke: te Cnris Dupree, 0: Engineer, TUSI.
We explained that the reacire: cramings and Westingnouse Design Group authorizatior fo-mocification of the comocnent was not in tne co:umentation package.
The mod'ficatior tt anict I refe was tnat I ha: noticec tnat a se:tior, of tne restrair.1 nac'been cut out, aosarently te fa:ilitate the instal'.ation of tne restraint.
It was learnec tnat Du ree hac authorizec tnis mocification without apo-ova' fror Westinoncuse.
hartshaer.. subseosent to this conver-sation, autho-izec me tc inspect the ta:t weics wnen the riilweights hac ottainee a co:3 c/ ine conteci drawing for tne restraint.
Rancy Smitt later icic me that Focte an: Eranct were upset that.this p-o:ler ha: net been t ougn. te ther f:
resciutier.. however. tney were n:t tnere.nen tnis matte-o:curre:.
iney neve-saic anything cirect13 te mi ano.1 tr's natte-0 about A:-il E. 15E'. I was restin; t s ner-A5Mi T airdn; :-e:e:cre Manua' and fount it cic n:. :~;.ioe fc-tne t-ainin; an: ce-tifi:atior cf 0:
InsLe: tors in Liccic fenetrant o-Magnetic Fa-ticle InsLe:t;c~
Consecuently, I w*cte ar N F regardint this oeficien:y.
Tn's appears t: nave beer. the last
- stra, Rancy Switn tel: me on A:ril 12. 195;. tr.at ne was geing to attempt t: veic this N:F te:aese B&E was responsicie fo perf orming the N3E Inspe:tions.
Heweve, this creates a conflict in orgnai:ationai responsibilities in that B&F is resconsitie 1c only ASME Insoe:tions, nct non-ASME inspection.
I exclaine: this to nir and he agreed with me.
k'nen Mike Foote hearc about tnis NCF he be:ane very upset, but he coulo not oc anything about it be:ause I..a: alreacy getter ar N:F. nutoe assignec tc it.
I went out anc late signe the N:F wnCcn had been typed u:.
At 5:00 c.c., A -il 12.193*. I was calle; tc Gordon F urc,c's c'fice.
He is tne B&E QA Manager.
he toic me he was term.inating me, base: on a " speed l ette r'" (a memo) fron Tor Brandt.
The speed letter basically said I was conducting inspections outside m area of responsibility, therefore, my services were no longer needed.
I would like to point out'that none of my activities were done without the knowledge and approval of my supervisor, Randy Smith.
All my past performance appraisals were outstanding to i
W E
k
~o 4
STATEMENT Charles A. Atchison, April 14, 19E2 excellerit (only attencance anc leacership ability average).
Tne last eval-untion I signec reflectec the same performance.
My terminatio: sneet states my performance has been " excellent."
Lastly, they did not conduct any I
counseling on guiaance witn me regarcing their dissatisfactior. with my performance which I believe is a standarc procedure at tne site.
I have reac over and understand this u'
page statement.
I certify this statement is true and correct ot the best of my. knowledge anc belief.
/b Executed on April.M, 1952.
e'
/
'//
A " s u.
),/,.h,l m t /.
- 4 i'.t-- e -
f Subscrioec anc certified before me this 15th cay of April 1982, at Arlingtor.,
,e y ~.,m.
?
i s-
\\.e
/
wL.,wJ...-r x Q.
[:.
L..
Drisxiii, Investiga;;-
(
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
. CASE ' CHRONOLOGY
,,Lc vu.c n _
oaft ortate opencs av Cf.T E ACTiv lTY o
w.....
c..el
.tA L, 'A r f.., A
- c. O pa..
5,._,.
1
,_e W - ta cJ n it co.<
- v. (A./
t c r< u
, m.I 4
h o(o..
.e 7 +1 t.N k
'r-
% m 'v., _ -..,. - m t
c
-su it 4ua %
M,, _,.. - 1
. 4-. 4 c
, iu t',b 77
_g,ci
,8e Cc _ tt h1
,-d_.;LIc edu C AT T u c of c_Pst$
A a rGw A celld.cm21D nDoene nt e -.., w t.u r o dac t r '_ill,$s t% W W o.n % s ts cdrs uR\\\\
e ~L)
A'0_ ', U: etJs 1 o 4sMb
. *% b [cn c5 40 k
eR T *,3&can, 1.1. cn
-%. %2 + 5.r. a. o, o d c, - tc., -c.tz, L1 ArcLt
<!, CT G C;
_._.6.
e e+
M e
ee M
GN'n M
e hew 4 N-M he.hquemum e est S -
6gham.
eh e-e '
S G
+.eAb e e que e em 4
h 6 --
WM6 eW Dem 6 ee66NM9M N e66 66996
.M6e
-_-__e AC T t w TTY CC gs L/M e LETTER CB uCMC TC
- TELE 7MChC cal.i imSP a insptcTION ad f $ e METING IMV e INvC371G ATt0 N REP a REPCRT ISSUCD r
OFFICIAL USE ONLY DO NOT DISCLOSE 10-e:9a e::.Ti.
. _ _ -