ML20129F697
| ML20129F697 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1985 |
| From: | Guild R GUILD, R., ROREM, B. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129F703 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#385-810 OL, NUDOCS 8507170434 | |
| Download: ML20129F697 (28) | |
Text
--
4 b
oco<rtra usuc UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'85 J116 A10:13 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0FFICE 0r SEcRtrAra 00CKETlhG & SERVICF.
In the Matter of
)
BRANCH
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
)
Dockets 50 456 (Braidwood Nuclear Power
)
50 457 d)C-Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
MOTION TO ADMIT CLAIMS OF INTIMIDATION AND HARASSMENT OF COMSTOCK QUALITY CONTROL (QC) INSPECTORS AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER-As permitted by the Licensing Board's June 21, 1985, Memorandum and Order Admitting Rorem, et al. Amended Quality Assurance Contention, Slip op. at 13-14, Intervenors Rorem et al., by their counsel, herewith submit a further specification of their claims of systematic intimidation and harassment of Quality Control (QC) inspectors employed by the Braidwood site electrical contractor, the L.K. Comstock Engineering Company, which claims were initially filed as Paragraph 2C of Intervenors' Amended Quality Assurance contention of Jun 21, 1985, pp. 23-24, together with a listing-of the witnesses and testimony subjects which Intervenors' intend to present in support of these claims.
Intervenors' further move that the Board adopt a protective order needed "to encourage those with knowledge of possible safety-related deficiencies in facility construction or operation to put their information before the Commission."
Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al. (Commanche Peak Steam Electric
[
h DO j
9 b
Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-714,17 NRC 86 at 92 (1983).
Such a protective order should include measures to protect the iden-tities of the present and former Comstock employees who would testify from personal knowledge of widespread harassment and intimidation but for their fear of retaliation by Comstock which has " chilled" their freedom to cooperate in this proceeding.
See, Affidavit of John D. Seeders, Exhibit A.
Intervenors would propose that such protective order permit the identification of witnesses and the presentation of testi-mony, in camera; and the dissemination of identifying information bc limited to only approved persons who have subscribed to affi-davits of confidentiality, all as may be needed on a case by case basis.
Such protective measures are contemplated by the Commission under analagous circumstances.
Statement of Policy; Investigations, Inspections, and Adjudicatory Proceedings, September 7,1984, 49 F.R. 36032.
Protective orders and related measures to assure the inte-I' grity of the Commission adjudicatory process in addressing harassment issues have been adopted by licensing boards facing similar circumstances.
Carolina Power & Light Company, et al.
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), Memorandum and Order I
l (Ruling on Certain Safety Contentions and Other Matters), Slip.
l f
. op.
- p. 5 (January 15, 1985); Duke Power Company, et al. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-24, 19 NRC 1418, 1428-1413 (1984).
Intervenors urge that this Board take up this matter at the July 23, 1985, Prehearing Conference, and adopt such measures in this proceeding in order to assure that the full 2
i 1
t I
extent and significance of harassment, intimidation and retalia-tion evidence known to Comstock QC inspectors is available to this Board.
On the basis of the information now known to Intervenors, limited by the fear of retaliation which has inhibited the cooperation of present Comstock QC employees from coming forward now in the absence of Board protection, Intervenors submit the I
following recast claim for litigation:
l Contrary to Criterion I,
" Organization" of of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, and 10 C.F.R. Section 50.7, Commonwealth Edison Company and its electrical contractor, L.K. Comstock Engineering Company have failed to provide sufficient authority and organiza-tional freedom and independence from cost and sche-dule as opposed to safety considerations and correc-l tion of quality and safety significant deficiencies.
l Systematic and widespread harassment, intimidation, retaliation and other discrimination has been direc-ted against Comstock QC inspectors and other employ-ees who express safety and quality concerns by l
Comstock management.
Such misconduct discourages the identification and correction of deficiencies in safety related components and systems at the Braidwood Station.
Instances of harassment and intimidation include:
1.
More than twenty five (25) Comstock QC inspectors complained to the NRC in September 1984 about harassment and intimidation by Comstock super-visors including QC Manager Irv DeWald, Assistant QC Manager Larry Seese, QA Manager Bob Seltman and QC Supervisor R.M.
Sakalac.
Such harassment included widespread pressure to approve deficient work, to sacrifice quality for production and cost considerations and to knowingly violate establish quality procedures.
Harassment and retaliatory treatment included threats of violence, verbal abuse, termination of employment, transfer to undesirable jobs or work in areas where quality deficiencies could not be noted, assignments to perform burdensome or menial "special projects" and other adverse treatment.
Such discriminatory action was taken because of the victim's expression of 3
e quality or safety concerns.
Former Level II QC inspector John D. Seeders has knowledge of these widespread instances of harassment.
By letter of August 17, 1984, Seeders complained to the NRC, Edison and Comstock management regarding instances of harassment directed against him.
Subsequently, Mr.
Seeders was involuntarily transferred to the position of Engineering Clerk in retaliation for his expression of quality concerns.
Such assignment was intended by Comstock to keep Mr. Seeders away from sensitive work areas.
Although QC Supervisor R.M.
Sakalac was finally terminated in 1985 for his mis-treatment of QC inspectors and other misconduct, the effects of his harassment remain uncorrected and systematic harassment continues at Comstock to the present.
The. existence of widespread harassment impugus the integrity and effectiveness of on-going corrective action programs designed only to address other widespread QA failures at Comstock.
As stated in Mr. Seeder's affidavit, these Comstock QC inspec-tors are eager to cooperate with the licensing board in identifying and correcting the harassment problems at Comstock, but require board protection from retaliation in order to provide testimony and docu-mentation of their harasement.
2.
Comstock management, including QC Manager Irv DeWald and Corporate QA Manager Bob Marino harassed, discriminated and retaliated against, and ultimately terminated Level III QC Inspector Worley O. Puckett because Mr. Puckett made numerous complaints about safety and quality deficiencies which he identified in the course of his duties at Braidwood.
Mr. Puckett was hired by Comstock in May 1984 in the newly created position of Level III QC Inspector whose duties included conducting a review of Comstock procedures, tests requirements for the more than 50 Level II QC Inspectors, review of the Level II's inspection work, and the resolution of inspection disputes.
Mr. Puckett was highly qualified with 20 years' nuclear Navy and nine years' nuclear power experience.
See, Resume, Exhibit B.
During the course of his employment with Comstock Mr. Puckett was shocked by the widespread deficiencies in procedures, qualifications and workmanship.
He
. identified numerous instances of improper construc-tion procedures, improper qualification of welders, and material traceability deficiencies.
He ultimate-ly recommended a complete stop work order for all I
welding activity to permit effective corrective action.
See, Memos of August 10 and August 17, 1984, Exhibits C and D.
4
Finally, he warned QC Manager Irv DeWald that "we are approaching a complete breakdown in our -QC program."
August 22, 1984 Memo, Exhibit E.
Puckett was subjected to harassment and retaliation because he raised these safety and quality concerns and was terminated on August 27, 1984 by DeWald on the pretext that he should have scored higher than his 86% on a qualification test.
He filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor, alleging violation of the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 USC 5851.
Letter, September 5,
1984, Exhibit F.
The U.S. Department of Labor Area Director sustained Mr. Puckett's complaint finding unlawful discrimination by Comstock against Puckett and ordered relief.
Notes of Decision, November 6, 1984, Exhibit G.
Mr. Puckett presented his case at a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge on Comstock's appeal.
See, Complainants' Pre-Hearing Exchange, Exhibit H.
Comstock settled Mr.
Puckett's claim before putting on its case.
The terms of settlement are subject to a non-disclosure agreement between Comstock and Mr. Puckett.
Intervenors' intend to offer the following witnesses in support of these harassment claims:
1.
The 30 or more present or former Comstock QC inspectors known to John D. Seeders, whose identitles have not been disclosed due to their fear of retaliation.
See, Seeders Affidavit, Exhibit A.
2.
John D. Seeders, with regard to his own harassment and harassment of other QC inspectors, including Worley O. Puckett.
3 Worley O. Puckett, with regard to his own harassment and harassment of other QC inspectors, including John D. Seeders.
4.
Commonwealth Edison Company's Manager of Quality Assurance, Walter J. Shewski, with regard to Edison's knowledge or lack of knowledge of harassment and discrimination by Comstock, 5
and company policies and practices with regard to enforcement of 10 CFR 50.7.
5.
Comstock Q'A Manager Irv DeWald, with regard to the harassment of QC inspectors including Mr. Seeders and Mr.
Puckett.
6.
Comstock Assistant QC Manager Larry Seese, with regard to the harassment of QC inspectors including Mr. Seeders and Mr.
Puckett.
7.
Comstock QA Manager Bob Seltman, with regard to the harassment of QC inspectors including Mr. Seeders and Mr.
Puckett.
8.
Former Comstock QC Supervisor R.M. Sakalac, with regard to the harassment of QC inspectors including Mr. Seeders and Mr.
-Puckett.
9.
NRC Resident Inspector R.D. Schultz, with regard to the harassment of QC inspectors including Mr. Seeders and Mr.
Puckett, and the NRC investigation of such harassment.
Due to the time constraints facing Intervenors in preparing this filing, the Affidavit of John D. Seeders is submitted initially unsigned although authorized, read and affirmed by Mr.
Seeders by telephone with Intervenors' counsel.
See, Affidavit of Robert Guild, Esquire, Exhibit I.
6
r 4
~
WHEREFORE, Intervenor's respectfully request that their harassment claims be admitted for litigation in this proceeding, and that this Board issue a protective order as herein described.
July 12, 1985 Respectfully submitted, f'
i s,
Robert Guild One of the Attorneys for Intervenor Bridget Rorem et al.
1 I
Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.
Robert Guild.
Timothy W. Wright, III 109 North Dearborn Suite 1300 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 641-5570 7
m M Eh EX111 BIT A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
)
Dockets 50 456 (Braidwood Nuclear Power
)
50 457 Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN D. SEEDERS John D. Seeders, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1.
I have been employed by the L.K.
Comstock Engineering Company at the Braidwood Nuclear Station since August 1,
1982.
I worked as a Level II Quality Control Inspector, certified in Calibration and Receiving until my retaliatory transfer in October 1984 to my present position as an Engineering Clerk.
2.
I have had extensive discussions with Robert Guild, counsel for Intervenors in the NRC licensing proceeding regarding the continuing harassment and intimidation by Comstock Management directed against QC inspectors because of their expression of quality and safety concerns and the performance of their quality assurance responsibilities.
I have personal knowledge of widespread intimidation, harassment and retaliation at Comstock and I am willing to appear as a witness in this proceeding to present sworn testimony and documentation on this subject.
I have authorized counsel for Intervenors to submit my concerns as part of their contention in this proceeding.
1
3 I have also had extensive discussions with at least thirty -(30) other Comstock QC inspectors who have knowledge of harassment and intimidation by Comstock management.
They share my concerns about the breakdown of the Comstock Quality Assurance program -and, like me, 'they are tired of the continuing cover-up of these problems.
We all want to see the Braidwood Station built safely "by the book" and hope that the NRC licensing board will help us accomplish this objective.
I believe that all of these inspectors would cooperate with the licensing board in-getting to the bottom of this problem.
4.
I have discussed with at least ten (10) Comstock QC inspectors the specific question of testifying about harassment and intimidation in this proceeding.
Each inspector I spoke with was eager to present such testimony and provide documentation of their technical concerns in order to finally correct these problems.
However, each of these inspectors also expressed fear of retaliation by Comstock management for their cooperation or testimony.
These men have families who depend on them and they are afraid of losing their jobs.
This fear is based on the harassment which they have already experienced.
These men are willing to testify in this case if provided protection from retaliation by the NRC licensing board.,
5.
While I share the same fear of retaliation by Comstock for my participation in this case, I decided last August when I wrote the NRC, Edison and Comstock management that I would do whatever it takes to see these problems straighted out.
2
6.
=I~have authorized counsel for Intervenors to act on my behalf in seeking a protective order from the licensing board to prevent Comstock from intimidating or retaliating against myself and other QC inspectors for our participation in this case.
Further affiant sayeth not.
John D. Seeders Subscribed-and sworn to before me this day of July, 1985:
Notary Public My Commission Expires:-
3
[.
L
[
EXHIBIT B RESUME WORLEY 0, PUCKETT ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
3672 Spring Grove Road Business:
(513) 732-5416 Bethel, Ohio 45106 Home:
(513)734-6310 OBJECTIVE:
To obtain employment in management within a Nuclear Power environment.
To obtain employment in the management of personnel, administration, supervision, training, and development with a view towards advancement to higher levels of administration.
SUMMARY
OF QUALIFICATIONS:
Lead Historical Weld Engineer Supervisor for compiling information from historical weld documentation for input into computer data base.
Project Weld Engineer / Chief Weld Engineer - Responsibilities include the supervision of the weld engineering department, writing and qualifying procedures for welding and post weld heat in accordance with ASME Section IX, AWS D1.1 and ANSI B31.1, compiling and maintaining welder qualification records on 471 craft welders.
Lead Mechanical QA Inspector, Senior 0A Mechanical Inspector et the Wm. H.
Zimer Nuclear Power Plant.
Certified Level II non-destructive testing inspector in accordance with ASNT-TC.1A in the field of liquid penetrant, visual and magnetic particle testing. Qualified in the inspection of post weld heat and hydro-pneumatic surveillance.
Performed QA audits and surveillance of nuclear equipment installation and nuclear construction activities.
Twenty years in the'U. S. Navy as a hull technician, pipefitter, nuclear component welder, and welder instructor.
EXPERIENCE:
Henry J. Kaiser Company P. O. Box 201 Moscow, Ohio 45153 Lead Historical Weld Engineer, Project Weld Engineer, Chief Weld Engineer, Lead Mechanical QA Inspector, and Senior QA Inspector.
Sept., 1975 to Present Senior Mechanical QA Inspector, Lead Mechanical QA Inspector, Chief Weld Engineer, Project Weld Engineer, and Lead Historical Weld Engineer.
Present responsibilities include the initiating and writing procedures and super-vising of the input of historical weld documentation into a computer data base at the Wm. H. Zimer Nuclear Power Plant.
Jan.,1956 to Aug., 1975 Pipefitter, ship fitter, nuclear component welder in various Navy installations d,
y j
RESUME MORLEY 0. PUCKETT PAGE 2 i
located in the United States and overseas.
Supervised and performed inspection, welding testing and maintenance on surface craf t, nuclear component submarines and prototypes.
Worked in Planning and estimating; writing step by step procedures for repairs.
Both major and minor on nuclear submarines.
- Analyzed manufacture's manual and government publications, researched, devised, initiated and supervised all phases of work on nuclear power submarines.
EDUCATION:
High School Graduate Courses Attended:
Management Training and Human Resources Development - 42.5 Hrs.
Welding Inspection and Quality Control (ASM) Graduate.
D fects and failures in Pressure Vessels and Piping - 32 Hrs. (ASME)
Maintenance Welding in Nuclear Power Plants - 32 Hrs. (AWS)
June, 1972 to Aug., 1975 USS L. Y. Spear (AS36) Submarine Tender - Norfolk, Virginia.
Supervisor of pipe shop - repair department.
Planning and estimating - repair d:partment.
Providing technical and systems support services for thirteen nuclear submarines and surface crafts.
N v.,1968 to June,1972 N.P.T.U. - Idaho Falls. Idaho.
Nuclear component welder and shop supervisor.
Made repairs and installed new systems in three nuclear prototypes. A1W S1W, and S5G Plants.
Instructed and/or famili-arized officers and trainees on welding and silver brazing techniques and repair procedures.
April,1%6 to Nov.,1%8 USS.Hunley(AS31)SubmarineTender-Charleston,SouthCarolina.
Weld shop in repair department.
Performing major and minor repairs on nuclear sub-marines.
Nuclear component welder working with Freeze Seals in containments, glove bags and anti-contamination clothing.
April,1965 to April,1966 C-1 Welding School Service Command Annex - San Diego, California.
Welding School. (Graduated with Honors).
April.1963 to April,1965 Naval Station Brig - Norfolk, Virginia.
Supervised and retrained confinees and made all repairs on Naval Station Brig Complex.
~
G J
RESUME WORLEY 0. PUCKETT PAGE 3 Nov.,1959 ' to April,1963 USS Boxer LPH4 - Norfolk, Virginia.
Ship fitter, pipefitter.
April,1956 to Nov.,1959 USS Lake Champlain (CVA39).
Pipefitter - on the job training.
SUMMARY
U.S. NAVY:
Promotions from Seaman Apprentice to Chief Petty Officer.
Top Secret Security Cicarance, Atomic Energy Comission Clearance based on background investigation.
Retired from active duty August,1975.
SERVICE SCHOOLS:
1.
Atomic, Biological Chemical Warfare School - Portsmouth, Virginia.1957.
2.
Fire Fighting School - Portsmouth, Virginia.1957.
3.
Damage Control School - Norfolk, Virginia.1958.
4.
Nuclear Biological Chemical Warfare Refresher. Course - Norfolk, Virginia.1958.
5.
Plate Welding School - Portsmouth, Virginia. 4 weeks in 1958.
6.
Pipewelding School - Portsmouth, Virginia. 8 weeks in 1959.
7.
C-1 Welding School - San Diego, California.
32 weeks 1965.
8.
Radiation Control - Charleston, South Carolina.
40 hrs. in 1967.
9.
Race Relati.on School - Norfolk, Virginia.
40 hrs. in 1974.
PERSONAL DATA:
Date of Birth:
Feb. 23, 1938
' Heal th:
Excellent.
Height:
71' Inches.
Weight:
185 Pounds.
Marriage Status: Married, 4 children.
Hobbies: Collecting old bottles and post cards.
Sports: Hunting and Fishing.
/,e '
A
,o Arp
.i rune, Inc.. o.fmont, PA 15626
,,, m, s,,,,
,uo o
.o-m.00:
L K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY, INC.
F Q
- "' ""l-
' URGENT READ REPLY
~ ~ ~
-e.s w
n"aclEE, r
-1
). T-DMAL-Q TQ.
OATe B-ob -B */
B d.. M Alub)G E A suaatci Lat.t.a Pkc.EDu.22 L. L.. IC. lam.S 4:on tc
__)
'l.3.1of E&v. D9-/ 7-26 FK10d'a3.1FiM l
.Xl-l.3 M t $H ^A-oMasddAb4n.) & A l A t t-. t c a Etc E d d istsn3bn)a t.h L LlIL 2I10G A^!' A R G/~ b..$./// hiv.C9./9*80 $/_g fDM/
l t
u.QL I S bcL Y LDu.Al triEd sid Tu'G f6 Pas,Vio' sv. nias oi.i 9.g psie/s PA2 A..$.B.I. 2. G&sa u.i2&S 7%l l} bec &Duallrigh in AL.L-.
hib tUS.
o.5 GOSG M/IVT /
StGNED d.dD e
^ - ^ - *"""
lE0lfdPM Q,
AI. lde sedr!"
is)MW r'
/S y
ypcsn
.5~uc. Gds rM-rot.ursw rc
/~He
,P & dldAf Ydodd
)t70sss8G ddal'c/
.2!r.6 A.Q/ds// ol FN4 mum n sum / f femus ins puwsa, rm s
/s y'oun- % ewca 6/ Gap n s;' wo /7s sa.pseo4/em, 8.o.J?/u'srewc l
s w o k i-s7 w.~. & soc u e.o a> swr / s s /fss/Co
^
tr. e.saca.rsw,w ywr t
h
~ _ -
DATE RECEIVER: WRITE REPLY, DETACH STUB, KEEP PINK COPY, RETURN WHITE COPY TO SE g
EXHIBIT C
@i L
J
%F
~~
Comstock Engineering, Inc.
Memorandum R. Saklak 7,.
Office: Braidwood W. Puckett p
Subj1ct:
Rod Slips Date: August 17, 1994 Control flo:
84-08-15-14 During the period of time that I was doing Pescarch on Neld Rod Slips for the months of riay, June and July of 1982 it occured to no that the problems we were having during the afore mentioned period could possibly be generic through other periods, so I performed a spot check on the Rod Slips Issued in December 1982, September 1983, January 1984, June and July 1984 and during this period the problem did persist, however not as prevelant in the year 1984. In addition during the period prior to May 1982 !! cat flumbers for E-6013 electrode were not entered on the weld filler material withdrawal form.
I also took a sampling of heat numbers off of these previously issued Rod Slips to see if they could be traced to documentation the ifcat lot numbers in the Research of
'Nelve separate heat numbers I was successful in all but three heats 40157441 and 401S9011 for E-7010 and 35202061 for E-6013.
It would be my suggestion at the very earliest convenient time that a more thourough review be performed on all the Rod Slips so as to have an in-house identification of any major problems we may have.
Respectfully,
. C.
e.c.
W. O. Puckett WOP /pb M
cc: QC File tn O
EXHIBIT D QC !igr.
MN D
i 1
LL neate s4"
,g g
W. O. PUCKEU N
b 27
Y O
'IO:
Irv. DeWald August 22, 1984 FROM:
W. Puckett Irv:
Over the past few weeks I have been performing a proleminary review of our Weld Procedures.
In addition to the ones that I have already recommended stop work on i.e all stainless and A36 to A446 using E-7018.
There are at least five others that were incorrectly qualified.
Wese being all the procedures involving galvanized Asm A446.
ne afore mentioned procedures were qualified using the cryteria of AWS D1.1 1975 and it should have never been done. AWS Dl.1 cryteria was never intended to be used to Weld materials less than an 1/8" thickness our heaviest guage unistrut is 12GA which is.105 all of our procedures that involve A-446 should have been qualified using the cryteria of D.l.3 which has a completely different set of test requirements and a completely different set of essential varaibles.
In addition to these pro-cedures that I can assure you are not qualified there are so many inconsistancies in the remaining procedures that we are using that I'm sure their qualification would be considered indeterminate.
I'm aware of the impact it would have but I strongly recommend that all weldings be stopped and that and all out effort be started to do a complete review of our procedures, welders qualification and welders filler material Withdrawal Forms and once the magnitude of our problems have been determined we can better address our non-compliances and formulate a plan that will bring us back under the codes and specifications we should be working too.
Irv I work for Comstock too and I speak from a lot of experience with the Procedures being what they are and the moral of the QC Inspectors being what it is we are dangerously approaching a complete break down in our QC Program.
I think you are aware of this and I'm sure neither of us would want this to happen.
Sincerely,
.cJ.
!O k Os n Worley O. *Puckett WOP /pb l
cc R. Seltmann i
M MM
~
EXHIBIT E
~
- w. s v.s W e.rs an, 4
e J
b tj'le o, s b C r S,
/ffy
&MME
~
Nz;J.ef.laher EXHIBIT F 3epr..f ali.<,& c //,ar 2 ca.
- u. ejf:
h.,;at.,, - e,.,,.2ns 7.1s: m.;, u.
E,'.'; y..,ana Dur S; sa,!icita.a., cp yo=,r a,,,,p o, t.
s Jan w a i / *,,g
. n
/e v.,,;,,a la d,r,...,.,
.,,,j u s fly %,, ?,
,% ;d.,,ao d, j'ii..,, ;,.
!!,.J J.aas n,y! fuliaj Jr i:
!, s.
.Bca;d.acad nu e taa,.%s,
t
- ,,, d E,,,y,,,4,,,,y ', /,,c.
>n,.y.t s, i </ s./
I,/,<2 I.
4 A. Co...., /, c '.
c g
w..,
la r en;.a / < d R.,y.a s t as a.
ba /.3 LaI:r. C o., I, o f in.shec!c.
J sua s g
$. */, l'N'Y *
/.14
<o..l la,du, I e a i f,.. r
,.r I w irI,in t l, ~
H.<< /cn e
> n,A i:, ~ y,<a.e
,s
< < 3 ~< * *
- n.
.a
.h.: a
.,. s
,,....ac d.. c.w a.,
v..n it.,, / a a.,, a.
soc %. /r is a.
., a !! 4 Hu.,,
., > J. w id,
,,a a s, c c. e s r e.. ;w e d. y,a s s.*ngl Qc I.,:p< cto s (a thc' t.', a,, o,, e Ia < a,,, s nu r a l
s,.c! rhe.t s:vera J a.., if, s a.-.dt s la,>sL l.y t />c. /
ul.
Ji l1
.n a,..L a r s 1, !; !!
s,.w L K Co.,, s lo c h, I,,c. at the Jo a'.
l.y -
y;r, f QC I,, sp ss. f o r i.. 's t r e.
.,.s r's e. >,.'., a 1.,,
was.
far 3ea:ab nL n etsa.c Po a e Pl.u,t.
Ji,e ;< o <asen sc. 7*.
j,,. ja s sec, s -
~~ nj* II'y le u. !,3 J f atl *hal J was br I:nla, lu rr s < c la r :f. < u t.*c n au a nd re -
Is r.n..atsd 1 ~;l! j o'"s
') c a af y gaalif ca f ens a.
c t I:.,e.
a, Oc lospr..*ce.
u s,a,,,; l,: l:t e s er s a.
' ' " I'
- J c.,,,
,s rsllra*L Ho>g C I,ie f Pe 'tg Ilf f *E
~Uh I'"*y y'"'S huelw r c a.,,po s,,,, t in II elcar tiepais. as a ths y
s/s,+,*n n<,. 3. us
,n Yisa c lu...
C..., s (, uc ll,,, a: a vn we fris e 9 $, avl <. l, + a ci./ / lu es., / sj er.r s
- .n Q a.t '; f. s.I. l:vs' fi.a c. l: 4,7 fl a s. r e
,s t.
l., ;,s t e / s. e a. d la v.d
}yja,.h,,,, ;e a f J alac w e,- h a i J',,, q, y a,ig
(,,
- a u.,.
v
,,, a.
f., ;;,; c t u r.
p., s >
- l
- I, f!L va e inss s J > >., o s eglr oln fe e...id a,, /., w e, k a c!.
a s,, u /1 in n il d.., li,s
%:la..
'../.al, nsonL, Il<a S, 11n 51,.a, >, d C
- n -
c ac!s, eagu
/
.,,A
,e*
~
- "I,.<+;an jede o a / R e.,, !,ct:n.,.
Jr ;.
n,9 e..},a1.
f t.,1 y w,,_
3 au /;t Jr,a i w a a tal La f een,inlltd becaass. J u.s s ivo yed n.y. c onse:.a. s.
dr ;ua,.
.s, d..;a e aoeaon is /oc j,; j,,
(;.% s ay...y a
.a u,,
e ta,.g s.
J. n. c..n,, j,e.':
t,.
J (dzl t ',af J ~~ss being ma.a a..!a+ed.
b
.t ch.,y ' d..stry !
,s.y o'4,;,,,,,,e.g. do.,(
I,,.,
b..I as a e, s.. f w. la n,s. /. 'n
- la C'<,,,, / r. <.+. b., j a d...a
%. la f;o,,s.
is y s.;e r..a s' l>3 r!n c o de >
.,.L l1!,4 n, a l,,,3.u ;*l, % g.ns,nl obt y/ ion,s to iI, a s u. r <.'a.,,,(:,,
~
c o n.... a n ; ':< 4 ef
.n.
<. i< u e 1% s e P '<. n f, J.;e +a / e.
tha+ if wach is J. s ;.,,, p r., fe o n,ed,. dira <.?
a;o 'a +ia., -f t !,a s,u c e.h.,, r h.s r J mas /
O
% acf,;,n !
. a Ae c.., 4 ct /,.. s and repcet / h o s e. He ns /hu/ ca n n<J Jh s ;s
- >=cfI taua I 3 i, s c a.c e e c la.L lo ha despcs ;+; n<d.
g
~^ai a l
d.,, a..d J J.'d ac t.,s,,ue Io e is sapfn.<
f.10 C.,. u! c 4 p, o a.d....,
,,.,.I s,,,,,,,,,,.,f,j 7,,,, ' j Jn e e sl. os.f
,,/,
o.
o..,p/ca,ets.
J repor/ed (Aes. /,, w,./,,,,,,f,,,,
g
.,4 na..w.,u a non.
i. y a n s. j.. s /. f y / /,,,,,,.,,4,.
was I,
c..d th,;r [trst react an corrael i t, s.,,.
J ;;,,,ti,,,e,n,,,,,cj,j, ld s.,r.,e g a.. d
- ,. r;<. t s a e '... a
+o J re c o m.f,y. ae f,a n
+ha!
verk ha s!<j'r:d r we. s L> a f a. r e.
y,,,.u n t, a, o
e,' c n.
e n/4<4 e t, /s s /of>.
' tho/
very
.y.re.
g,, ts...'.
ma...g e n. e.. /.aa s
/..y r /,4 e?.,,,, /, m c /ce,3
/ A.uy, J. m e g s /, e d. /. de.
su t
g.,,rk rrder i
J c.L,'.,: tie.L Il.a s Iop. u.
e is a ge. n
.)
.u s I e a m '.m Iut, e f
<r
(,,(., a ! (( a3.s la f n s.
c a..,ssi u s roIher Ihan n,u n..ye n,<
t b e.;..y y a., I t t.3 e, dar d.a s la e c...;c /c a c..
u o /ti,y J Ja. e s Ie sa. n ev nla<.f sd b.y fl,e H elaar g e,,,, _n,, ;,,,
g s,,,,,,, ;,, ;,,,,,,,, ;
q lu,," ;t,,.ea oyj ;,,, y,,.
,n
- ,, ja,,ff,,,,,
,e*,krd n.s Io e a.ma I., o I,o r>,4 -
1.a. v e a's f <. *
- A c.n'ny.
d e...s i... - i.i u a 5 f.h a f.b.,
~
j
- t.,s sk h r se.~es,
n.
v 3 &ol..y 9 h e 5
[3,, s,./....
N ':
- !...J d,.s t J
.uo.s sn1
.(owl iI,s. t d.is in u < s I/;)r. t ion
'n u s !.i
'n. oul*.
(s t, e l,.. I is rega;re.l.
fa
,- {nct..s hofet Ik.I ij ;f eh dsiea n l.,es.
I l.c. t J ua s u.<3 a s t?y i
u.,d r e es ;s e.
.y;,,,
n.
re in. la ed ;n n.g fasit;on t
j e, n. l. s %!.,
II,.s i J
.o ;11 ha e c m ne n tia //s. n for m g /c s s o f ta4.r 4 a nd ine e.n u e,s lt,, c.. s.
. [.. l s
Ihe f !' r e t-n'~a f k $ J wea s a n,pis.y J.
e d u...,y !a le or alssenf f rom J s,cu.ld I;he. la add. Iha su c ** h. J suci k esl
,,e!,
- f. % G.,,. s i< < !s, J ws<
naosr he.6rs of. s e. r / /n-4.
n o d r,....)
h/urdag5.
/.
J h r.. a n.p [on. J.ui// arrr4cic./e
.s n y
.f,,,,,,. pr.fas:.i na Jha.,4 a ssis ta nc y 564 n,*g affeed m*-
g e o..
i de*ntae4 4.L' F S s
AN N m LS N
b EXHIBIT G
~
~
rz,,c " "',y.
U.S. Department of Labor Ernployrnont Standards Adrninistration wago and Hour civision 230 South
Dearborn,
Room 412 L,
gtq Chicago, Illinois 60604
% CB.e Telephone:
312/353-8145 flovember 6,1984 i
Reply to the Attention of:
fir. T. Trumble Corporate Administrator Comstock Engineering, Inc.
912 Fort Duquesne Blvd.
Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Re: Worley 0. Puckett Vs.
D;ar Mr. Trumble:
This letter is to notify you of the results of our compliance actions in the above case. As you know Worley O. Puckett filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor under the Energy Reorganization Act on September 11, 1984. A copy of the complaint, a copy of Regulations, 29 CFR Part 24, and a copy of the pertinent section of the statute were furnished in a previous letter from this office.
Our initial efforts to conciliate the matter revealed that the parties would not at that time reach a mutually agreeable settlement. An investigation was then conducted.
Based on our investigation, the weight of evidence to date indicates that Worley 0.
Puckett was a protected employee engaging in a protected activity within the ambit of the Energy Reorganization Act, and that discrimination as defined and prohibited by the statute was a factor in the actions which comprise his complaint.
The follow-ing disclosures were persuasive in this determination:
1.
With regard to the examinations Mr. Puckett had been said to fail, no chjective criteria had been developed to determine the minimum successful score for a Level III inspector.
2.
The mistakes or errors connitted by Mr. Puckett are subject to dispute and not of sufficient magnitude to justify his dismissal in so briet a period of employment.
This letter will notify you that the following actions are required to abate the violation and-provide appropriate relief:
1.
Reinstatement of Mr. Puckett to the Level III Q.C. inspector position or a mutually acceptable monetary award.
2.
Payment of wages lost to Mr. Puckett for the period from his dismissal to date.
3.
Payment of relocation and temporary living costs for Mr. Puckett's move to Illinois and return to Ohio (and return to Illinois if reinstated), under the terms of Comstock's relocation policy.
This letter will also notify you that if you wish to jappeal the above findings and remedy, you have a right to a formal hearing on the record.
To exercise this right you must, within five (5) calendar days of receipt of this letter, file your request for a hearing by telegram to:
\\
r b
/
~
2-Mr. T. Trumble Corporate Administrator The Chief Administrative Law Judge U.S. Department of Labor Suite 700, Vanguard Building 1111 - 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Unless a telegram ' request is received by the Chief Administrative Law Judge within the five-day period, this notice of detennination and remedial action will become the final order of the Secretary of Labor.
By copy of this letter I am advising Worley O. Puckett of the determination and right to a hearing. A copy of this letter and the complaint have also been sent to the Chief Administrative Law Judge.
If you decide to request a hearing it will be necessary to send copies of the telegram to Worley 0. Pucke.tt and to me at 230 South
Dearborn Street; Chicago,
Illinois 60604; (312)353-8145. Af ter I receive the copy of your request, appropriate preparations for the hearing can be made.
If you have any questions do not hesitate to call me.
It should be made clear to all parties that the role of the Department of Labor is not to represent the parties in any hearing.
The Department would be neutral in such a hearing which is simply part of the fact-development process, and only allows the parties an opportunity to present evidence for the record.
If there is a hearing, an Order of the Secretary shall be based upon the record niade at said hearing, and shall either provide appropriate relief or deny the complaint.
- incerely, dl^~-^
Daniel P. New Area Director DPN:Im cc: /Mr. Worley O. Puckett i
Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
i i
i i
(
rse.sm-,.e
.-r-$,u-----.-
,nne--m,,eww em-
---v.,
,-n
,_m,
, m -m w,e w w w e, w, me m~.e.,py
-ge ng,m e-umm-e,-~my-n-w w o - --
s
mm m:s EXHIBIT H UNITED STATESOF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR In the Matter of:
WORLEY 0. PUCKETT Complainant Case No. 85-ERA-00004 v.
COMSTOCK ENGINEERING, INC.
Respondent.
COMPLAINANT'S PRE-HEARING EXCHANGE Complainant Worley O.
- Puckett, through his attorney Lee Hornberger, submits the following as his Pre-Hearing Exchange pursuant to Administrative Law Judge McKenna's Order dated November 26, 1984.
1.(a)
Issue to be Presented:
Was complainant discharged or otherwise discriminated against by respondent in violation of the Energy Reorganization Act of
- 1974, 42 USC 5851, because complainant made numerous complaints about safety problems and violations of NRC rules and regulations to respondent and engaged in other activity protected by 42 USC 5851?
It is complainant's position that he was discharged and otherwise discriminated.against by respondent in violation of 42 USC 5851 because complainant made numerous complaints abcut safety problems to respondent and brought-to respondent's attention violations of NRC rules and regulations and engaged in other activity protected by 42 USC 5851.
The applicable citations include 42 USC 5851; DeFord v.
Secretary of Labor, 700 F.2d 281'(6th Cir.
1983);
Consolidated
' Edison v. Donovan, 673 F.2d 61 (2nd Cir.
1982);
Ellis Fischel State Cancer llospital v. flurshall, 629 F.2d 563 (8th Cir.1980);
Marshall v. Springville Poultry Farm, Inc.,
445 Fed. Supp. 2 (M.
D. Pa. 1977).
1.(b)
Worley O. Puckett 3672 Spring Grove Road Bethel, Ohio 45106 Mr.
- Puckett, the complainant, will testify about his prior experience in the nucicar field.
This experience includes being a
Chief Petty Officer with the United States Navy for approximately 20 years.
Ilis duties in the Navy were in the nuclear repair area as a nuclear component welder.
In addition he has approximately eight (8) additional years in nuclear construction as a qualified quality assurance inspector and lead mechanical inspector.
Ile has worked as a project weld engineer.
2
o In light of his work experience, he is very qualified and has worked in all aspects with the various codes required in the nuclear industry including ASME, AWS, ANSI, and the construction federal regulations.
Mr.
Puckett was hired by respondent in May, 1984 as a level three quality control inspector.
During the course of his employment with respondent, he took several qualifying tests.
Mr.
Puckett consistently did better on these tests than numerous of respondent's quality control inspectors who were not terminated.
During the course of his employment with respondent, Mr.
Puckett reviewed respondent's welding procedures and documents.
lie found numerous situations where these procedures and documents did not comply with standard procedure and/or NRC rules and regulations.
lie repeatedly reported these non-compliances to respondent's management.
(Exhs. 26, 27, 31 et al)
Mr. Puckett finally recommended in writing that a stop work order be issued.
(Exhs. 21-24) Respondent's management was very upset by this recommendation even though it eventually had to implement a large part of it. (Exh. 25)
Mr.
Puckett was doing his job in an outstanding and commendable fashion.
In addtion, based upon his work performance and his qualification test results, he was one of the best 3
o-quality control persons at respondent's facility.
In spite of
- this, respondent, with no prior notice and with no justification whatsoever, terminated Mr.
Puckett on late Monday afternoon, August. 27, 1984.
l 1.(c)
Complainant's Proposed Pre-marked Exhibits Are -As Follows:
1.
Resume of Worley O. Puckett 2.
7-1-80 Appraisal 3.
5-1-80 Appraisal 4
3-24-83 Test 5.
3-25-83 Test 6.
3-28-83 Tes t 7.
3-28-83 Test 8.
3-29-83 Test 9.
3-29-83 Test 10.
4-1-83 Evaluation 11.
4-7-83 Test 12, 4-7-83 Test 13.
4-7-83 Test 4
14 4-7-83 Test f
15.
4-8-83 Final Exam 1
16.
4-29-83 Certificate of completion of Metallurgical Course entitled
" Welding Inspection and Quality Control" 1
17.
5-29-84 Letter 18.
Undated niles 4
4
~
4 g
s 19.
7-12-84 Speed Letter 20.
7-26-84 Speed Letter 21.
8-9-84 Memo Recommending That All Welding Be Stopped 22.
8-10-84 Memo 23.
8-11-84 Reply to Stop Work Recommendation 24.
8-13-84 Memo Repeating Stop Work Recommendation 25.
8-15-84 DeWald Memo Admitting Welding "Inconsis tencies" and Recommending S top Work Order 26.
8-15-84 Puckett Memo 27.
8-17-84 Memo 28.
8-17-84 Nonconformance Report 29.
8-22-84 Speed Letter 30.
8-23-84 Speed Letter 31.
8-22-84 Memo 32.
8-22-84 Minutes 33.
8-23-84 Form #14 34.
8-24-84 Memo 35.
9-5-84 Letter 36.
9-28-84 OBES Determination 37.
10-9-84 OBES Notice 38.
11-6-84 OBES Reconsideration Decision 39.
11-6-84 Letter 40.
11-12-84 Telegram.
41.
Undated Report by Compliance Officer Raymond Wyzguski, U.S. Department of Labor.
5
.1.(d)
Complainant submits that production of the following documents by respondent will aid in the expeditious and judicious handling of this case; (1)
All documents relating to or refering to the complainant.
(ii) All documents constituting the unpurged personnel files of the complainant.
(iii)
All documents relating to complainant's performance and his potential to perform at a satisfactory level.
(iv)
Any and all records,
- notes, diaries or documents relating to respondent's separation of ccmplainant and the factors leading up to that separation.
(v)
All of the documents relating to the qualifying and other tests and the results thereof for respondent's other quality control persons and applicants.
1.(e)
Complainant is seeking reinstatement and to be made whole, including back pay, travel
- expenses, compensatory damages, and his attorneys fees and costs.
2.
Complainant submits that the following facts should not reasonably be in dispute; 6
O
~
(i)
Respondent is a person within the meaning of 29 USC 5851.
(ii) Respondent is a contractor or a sub-contractor of a NRC licensee applicant.
(iii)
Complainant was hired by respondent in May, 1984 as a level three quality control inspector.
(iv) Complainant was terminated by respondent on August 27, 1984.
(v)
Prior to the afternoon of August 27, 1984 respondent did not inform complainant that his job was in jeopardy or that he was not performing satisfactorily.
(vi)
While employed by respondent, complainant made complaints about safety conditions to respondent.
(vii)
While employed by respondent, complainant made complaints about welding procedures and documentation problems to respondent.
(viii)
While employed by respondent, complainant made complaints about what he viewed as violations of NRC safety rules and regulations to respondent.
(ix)
Complainant did better on respondent's quality control qualification tests than several quality control employees of respondent who were not terminated.
7
t
~X e.
w
~
n, i
e T
f 1
(x).
.. Complainant filed a complaint with the' Secretary of Labor alleging a violation of 42 USC 5851 by respondent within 30 days.ofjJheAugust 27, 1984 discharge.
N (xi)
All. of the documents attached hereto
- a s proposed exhibits are genuine and true and accurate.
't.,
9 Lee Hornberger 1
Attorney for'Domp1hinant 4030 Mt. Carmel-Tobasco Road s
Suite 117 Cincinnati, Ohio 45230 (513) 528-2685 s
t e
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE fe f
\\
{i I
hereby certify that the. foregoing document has been forwarded by regular U.S.
Mail to all counsel of record on the date indicated.
2
^
Date:
J o
of Lee Hornberger i
n 9
8 N,_