ML20136B698
| ML20136B698 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1983 |
| From: | Sniezek J NRC |
| To: | Jay Collins NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136B196 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-779 NUDOCS 8511200266 | |
| Download: ML20136B698 (42) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ t 5 -
\
l g"* "% UNITED STATES
.7=- t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON 1 j W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s.....' a u ,- mannw i , .i MAY 3 ! 19S3
' t LU .LW NOTE T0: John Collins, RIV -
FROM: Jim Sniezek
SUBJECT:
LETTER FROM ARVILL DILLINGHAM, JR. TO PRESIDENT REAGAN REGARDING SAFETY PROBLEMS AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Enclosed for your appropriate action is a letter from Mr. Arvill Dillingham which alludes to problems regarding the South Texas and Comanche Peak nuclear plants.
/W m Sniezek
Enclosure:
As Stated
~
8511200266 851025 PDR FOIA GARDE 84-779 PDR
/3-/6
ALLEGATION REVIBd CASE NUMBER 4-83-A-13 DATE OPENED G225378C FACILITY NAME CPSES 50-445 50-446 SUBJECT Improprieties in Constru-ction-Drilling through Rebar SOURCE OF ALLEGATION Robert L. Messerly (From Case)
' NUMBER OF ALLEG. 3 ASSIGNED TO Inv.
CROSS REF. N3. A4-83-05 ACTION SCHEDULED Investigation ccmplete. ) FIRST/LAST NAME R. Herr DATE ASSIGNED 02/24/83 REPORT NUMBER 1st: 0000000000 2nd: s Lst: FUNCTIONAL AREA FTS NUMBER E-728-8100 1 DUE DATE 00/00/83 ALLEGATION SUBSTANT SORT CODE O DATE CLOSED ACTION OFFICE RIV DETAILS: Messerly's statement contains three specific allegations - first, that a carosce or clamond tipped drill called a rebar eater was used on numerous occassions to crill holes in concrete walls and that these holes were net reported or authorized. Second, the polar crane was used to spring one of the unit #I 32" main steam into position (about 6"). Third, that cutting torches were used to enlarce heles on hancers. The investigation, including nearly twenty swown staterents did not corret: rate any of the a' legations. Si
. . . . .. .~u a u w .=:ca .:a.=.nawiacu aa m_ x zw . . .. ;.w.
^
ALLEGATION REVIEW r
~ . .
CASE NUMEER 4-E3-A-26 g DATE OPENED /067E3 T3 FACILITY NAME ES 50-445 50-446 SUBJECT Inadequacies in As-Built QC Inspection Program , SOURCE OF ALLEGATION Confidential NUMEER OF ALLEG. 2 ASSIGNED TO RPS A CROSS REF. N3. 04-E3-009 ACTION SCHEDULED Determine Action to taken FIRST/LAST NAME J. Gagliardo ,' DATE ASSIGNED 0 REPORT NUMEER Ist: 0 <D
-2nd:
Lst: FUNCTIONAL AREA FT5 NUMEER E-728-8100 DUE DATE 00/00/1983 l ALLEGATION SUESTANT SORT CODE A DATE CLOSED ACTION OFFICE
,RIVA 'g. > g/gf[
DETAILS: The alleger states that the QC "as-built" inspection program had identified numerous dimensional discrepancies in pipe hangers and that QC inspectors were instructed to discontinue material dimensional checks, and only general configuration checks were to be conducted. Further the QA procedures for generating DCA and CMC inspection reports were not followed. We will contact the licensee and tell him cf the problems noted and that we will be inspecting this in our final review of the plant for readiness for licensing. e b I B-Ik
r .; . b ALLEGA~ ION REV:Ei CASE NUW.EER 4-83-A-34 DATE OPENED (DT/01/83 J FACILITY NAME CP5ES SUEJECT Poor QA Practices t 50JRCE OF ALLEGATION Arvill Dillinghan former B&R employee NUMEER OF ALLEG. 1 ASSIGNED TO Enf. Off. CROSS REF. NO. ACTION SCHEDULED Need to wait for response from alleger FIRST/LAST NAME E. Johnson DATE ASSIGNED' 06/07/83 REPORT NUMBER 1st: 2nd: Lst: FTS NUMEER 8-728-8100 DUE DATE ALLEGATION SUESTANT SORT CODE Z DATE CLOSED ACTION OFFICE RIV
, DETAILS: The alleger has made vague allegations of poor construction and QA practices at CPSES. RIV has written him a letter asking him to contact us if he has specific concerns to be investigated.
=
/3-!7
,6 ALLEGATION REVIEW CASE NUMBER 4-83-A-69 OATE OPENED 08731 3 FACILITY NAME b n/83 che L
- -! Peak 50-445
-! 50-446 j SUBJECT Intimidation QC Inspector
- )
l SOURCE OF ALLEGATION Former Contractor
- j Personnel I
- NUMBER OF ALLEG.
1 ASSIGNED TO OI
- 1 CROSS REF. NO. 4-83-016
; ACTION SCHEDULED Investigation FIRST/LAST NAME R. Herr DATE ASSIGNED 08/31/83 + REPORT NUMBER 1st:
di. 2nd:
! lst:
FTS NUMBER 8-728-8100 s DUE DATE l' ALLEGATION SUBSTANT SORT CODE O DATE CLOSED ACTION OFFICE RIV DETAILS: Sensitive. 4 , f I a
?
+
r3 0 4 _ _ , .y -.
' ~ '
. _ . . _ . . .i-7C ALLEGATION REVIEW CASE NUMBER 4-83-A-67 DATE OPENED 09/09/83 D
~
FACILITY NAMt - 3manche L Peak 50-445 50-446 SUBJECT- Improper Coating Pro-
- cedures SOURCE OF ALLEGATION Contractor Employee NUMBER OF ALLEG.
ASSIGNED TO 01 CROSS REF. NO. Q4-83-022 ACTION SCHEDULED Inquiry FIRST/LAST NAME R. Herr DATE ASSIGNED REPORT NUMBER 1st: ' 2nd: Lst: FTS NUMBER 8-728-8100 DUE DATE ALLEGATION SUBSTANT SORT CODE O DATE CLOSED. i ACTION OFFICE RIV DETAILS: OIR4-83-0072(Sensitive). 4 e G G Uoc
' ~
s h' ALLEGATION REVIEW CASE NUMBER. 4-83-A-DATE OPENED C09/12/ FACILITY NAME CPSES 50-445 >i 50-446 SUBJECT Deficiencies in Coating Program
, SOURCE OF ALLEGATION Contractor Employee .i
,f NUMBER OF ALLEG. ASSIGNED TO RPS A CROSS REF. NO. Q4-83-026 ACTION SCHEDULED Special Inspection FIRST/LAST NAME D. Hunnicutt DATE ASSIGNED 10/25/83 REPORT NUMBER 1st: 2nd: Lst: FTS NUMBER 8-728-8100 DUE DATE ALLEGATION SUBSTANT SORT CODE A DATE CLOSED ACTION OFFICE RIV
, MAN HOURS REPORT PREPARATION ASSIST DETAILS: Allegations that there are problems in: (1) Material Storage; (2) Workmanship; (3) Satisfying AWSI Requirements; and (4) Possibly coating integrity. Plan at present is to have RIII inspector assist in followup.
1
C ALLEGATION REVIEW CASE NUMBER 4. _84-A._1 DATE OPENED
# 09/15/83 ~
FACILITY NAME % Psts 50-445/446 SUBJECT Intimidation
~
SOURCE OF ALLEGATION Former Contractor Errployee NUMBER OF ALLEG. ASSIGNED TO OI CROSS REF. NO. 4-84-008 ACTION SCHEDULED Investigation FIRST/LAST NAME R. K. Herr DATE ASSIGNED 09/15/84 REPORT NUMBER 1st: 2nd: , Lst: - FTS NUMBER 8-728-8100 DUE DATE ALLEGATION SUBSTANT SORT CODE O DATE CLOSED ACTION OFFICE RIV MAN HOURS REPORT PREPARATION ASSIST g DETAILS: Sensitive.
REFERENCE:
OIR4-84-A-0013. A f e
.% /
~" ^
lb \!
~J l , , . .-. . ... - .
- ^
~
t t.- ALLEGATION REVIEW CASE NUMBER 4-83-A-80 DATE OPENED FACILITY NAME ( 09/16/8 crats Q 50-445 50-446 SUBJECT Taped Transcript SOURCE OF ALLEGATION Contractor Employee NUMBER OF ALLEG. ASSIGNED TO OI/RIV CROSS REF. NO. Q4-83-025 ACTION SCHEDULED Inquiry FIRST/LAST NAME R. Herr DATE ASSIGNED 09/16/83 REPORT NUMBER 1st: 2nd: Lst: FTS NUMBER 8-728-8100 DUE DATE ALLEGATION SUBSTANT SORT CODE O DATE CLOSED ACTION OFFICE RIV MAN HOURS REPORT PREPARATION ASSIST DETAILS: Sensitive. J
. :. . w. 2.,:& :: = -:w.=
,r 4 1
'0' ALLEGATION LEVIEW ,
CASE NUMBER 4-83-A 4 DATE OPENED . 09 FACILITY NAME ' \ c/20/83 manc e t Peak 50-445 .
. 50-446 [_
SUBJECT , f SOURCE OF ALLEGATION Former Employee Brown and Root i NUMBER OF ALLEG. 2 ASSIGNED TO RPS A CROSS REF. NO. Q4-83-023 ACTION SCHEDULED Inspection FIRST/LAST NAME D. Hunnicutt DATE ASSIGNED 09/23/83 REPORT NUMBER 1st: 2nd: Lst:
, FTS NUMBER 8-728-8100 DUE DATE ALLEGATION SUBSTANT SORT CODE A DATE CLOSED ACTION OFFICE RIV DETAILS: A11eger not allowed to requisition materials for fabrication of cable trays and 60 or 70 cable tray hangers on elevation 810 are not installed in accordance with DCA's. A11eger recalled he had used blueprint numbers 901, .!
902, and 930 to instil hangers. [ SPI
. . _ . ~ . _ _ .
0 YIla b , mac Fwn so7 (11-82) ALLEGATION DATA FORM U.S. NUCLEAR F.EGULATORY COMMISSIC% instructions on reverse noe RECEIVING OFFICE Docket Number (if applicable)
- 1. Fgeility(les) Involved: (Namel att more than 3. or if genene. wnts GENERIC)
L8MMM6 /b/f 4 S m D ir.T R (b N J Yle Al CLis b4%/ A
- 2. Functional Area (s) Involved:
(Ch.ca aooroonste bout i l operations onsite health and safety A construction offsite health and safety . safeguards emergency preparedness other tspecity)
- 3. Dazeription: 1514lNI_41ilrl/lVlfi l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 l l l 1 l l l l l l l l l l l l !l l l l 1l l l l l l l l l l 1 IIIIIII I I I I I I I II I IIIIliII l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
- 4. Ocurce of Allegation:
ICw soproonste boxi contractor employee security guard licensee employee news media NRC employee private citizen organization aspecity) other (specityl I MM DD YY
- 5. D:te Allegation Received: -
- 6. Name of Individual (First two inicals and last namel
- D' WI Rtceiving Allegation:
- 7. Office: gg g ACTION OFFICE [
- 8. Action Office
Contact:
(First two initials and last namel
- 9. FTS Telephone Number: g g _
p jh 7 fC orie, Open. If followup actions are pending or in progress _._, Closed. If followup actions are completed MM DD YY
- 11. Date Closed:
l l [ T2. Romarks: [ gl t[j,.jg gj qpjg l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l j lLJmit to 50 cnaracters II IIIIII !l !III IIIII II!IIII l om.. v.., Nome.,
*4.' .::
s
- 13. Allegation Number: .
L :. .w . - l - T ~5 ~ A ~ G 4 qg g i u s NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMM:SSION mac Fo m ac7 ALLEGATIDN DATA FORM (11-82* Instructions Dr. r$vs'ae Seof RECEIVING OFFICE , Docket Number (if applicable)
- 1. Facility (ies) Involved: IName' .
Itt more than 3. or s' [O/woAc.be genene, wnte GENERICI i
- 2. Functional Areats) Involved:
onsite health and safety -
\
~ '
(Check appropnate bouiw i operations ~ construction offsite health and safety ,
~
safeguards _ emergency preparednes's , , other (specifvt . . - 3.
Description:
l5lEl/VtS].Il TITIVIEl l I I I I I I I II l I I I I l - . .; tLmt to 100 characte si l jjl l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l j.- 1I IIIIII I I II II II II II I I I II i. _ . . - 1IIIIII II l l l l l l l 1IIIIIIIIt ,~
- 4. Source of Allegation:
(Cneck soo opnate boa { contractor employee security guard - -
...~.-
___ licensee employee news media .. NRC employee private citizen orga nization (specify) --
- -~~ # '
other tspecifv1 MM DD Yv
- 5. Date Allegation Received: , . .
triest two initiais and test name)
- - N' M - ~~ ~"
- 6. Name of Jndividual Receiving Allegation:
- 7. Office: g pq ,
ACTION OFFICE
- 8. Action Office
Contact:
irirst two an.tia s and i.st name) n M e D pf 6r,% : o-
- 9. FTS Telephone Number:
7 gg f . g g Open, if followup actions are pending or in progress fCr og Closed, if followup actions ere completed MM DD YY
- 11. Date Closed: o? OP 3
- 12. Remarks: g l-{g l3l- pQl3l l l l l l l l } l l l l l l l l (Larnal to 50 characte s? '
l l l l l l l IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Office Year Number
- 13. Allegation Number: ,
1
g f(fl[3 yg == 88ac 5*"a 3c7 J.s. uuctzAn troutArony couuission t11e ALLEGATl2.N inet coon on DATA- . FORM RECEMNG OFFICE - Docket Number (if applicable)
- 1. Fe:llity(les) Involved: INemfj /)
Iw mor inen 3. or if genene. wme GENEMIC3 UM /778AM ME Tf M
$1iAA (WCTAl0 <TA17DAl A LCD /0SC. TfyAQ
- 2. Functional Ares (s) Involved:
tcheck eneroonste taten: 3 _ operations onsite health end safety I construction offsite health and safety safeguards emergency preparedness other (So.cifyl 3.
Description:
f6 lPl A'l5 L~ l l l1l V l t-l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
< * '= ' " ca*'=c='*
IIl l l l l l l l l IIIIIIIIIIIIIII II IIIIII I I IIIIII II II I I I III IIIl l l l l l l l' l l Ill l l l l l l l l l l
- 4. Source of Allegation:
Icheck soproonste tal , contractor employee security guard
,_., licensee employee news media NRC employee private citizen
_ organization Iso.cifyl
.,_ other tse.cify MM 00 vy
- 5. Date Allegation Received:
3
- 6. Nnme of Individual imret two initiew end test n.m.i -
- h 4 R:ceiving Allegation: ,
- 7. Office:
p 7 gg ACTION OFFICE
- 8. Action Office
Contact:
triest two initiets end test names T d
- 9. FTS Telephone Number: y p ,, p /lg ,.
< l 1
l t Open,if followup actions are pending or in progress Closed, if followup actions are completed MM OD YY
- 11. Date Closed:
l C. Remarks: stimit to 50 chara:tersa 191-1714l-10101RI IIIIIIIiiliI l l l II IiiillIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIll II 3,
- 13. All:gation Number:
om.. v, uomw D L l nj y pltLl,,l Q l14.l.a.] fgl rgl l2l
9 G/(3
**:',o- -
.a: x~
ALLEGATION DATA FORM L 5 's:.ta' 512.. =* ::vv:ssos I
. ,r. :. 3., 3. .. , , ,
RECEIVING OFFICE i 1 Doexet Number (if applicablel i
- 1. Fccilityh,es! Invotved: theme '
t' more t~e 1 o
- D "/77A* M /?F k A r* h lI I c I l ge-en:. we:s GENERC SPAS > Ele -7 m e $7A nex ! -
l! l ; I i S1w Mrs ei 7x i lI ; I f l l
- 2. Functional Ares (s) Involved:
i0 deen aco oone.e oones..
. operations l onsite health and safety
- i. i i .N f construction ! offsite healtn and safety 6 l !
' saf egua rds ! emergency preparedness
' other isoecityt I
4 l 3. Des:ription- 3 5 !/./ SI /17"I / ' V; E ! i ' i i t ! ! : i-c t: x : 4 a::rs j , , .
. I I
! I i l f '
?
t
. 5 I l I ' i 8 ' i ! [ i i ! i 4
- j. i . t *
. , i 3 , -i . . .
4 l . t.. Source C# l
- egation' '
- ,y., m ::.re .. .
- ontracto .mpievee se u :n g. ..e l Iitbr*See employee newg med.g i i N=C empicyee orevate ei::en C';a *..:St or. i ($ ce cih -
I Othe' .S;ee tyr VV 0 Y*
- 5. OEtt AI't;It. ,e - e:t vec. ,
3 , ,, q 7
/ * ^ <-
i E \ e **1f C *** * *Cua'#
- t %r, a.: eis one les: a.e ~ e _
- -/'/f ' -
- 3. . #* .k ,_ ',
ESOE ve~ * +;5 t':n .
=
m, s a. n. *.Ct. . &pgL go -
- . _ _ _ -_..... m. , , , , , ,
ACON O EEsOE i f. e t ; * ** .
- C ".tP :t .: ., . % ; ,,7,,, ,,, ,,3.,.,
, ,/, ' , . **
. f / /
5 US ~9 . : " t \ . "' e r -- p..p j , r- .. - . S ta t :t y '
, , . , :., ~ 7:e- if f ol ew : er. : t 3 t re c r; o 1r ; :;res .
0 0se: if follow w: a rt : ~.: a e :t :,ete: v s.- :: v3 Cate C se: i p 7
-p j
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
C. e *~ a > s a . g y ,,, 9 - g
-- : x : e 1: es _.
/
C" :e s ,- e - [,
)j 3
n!;ecatior N:. ameer - -- en- )' N's l CI f, h - ? 3 ;- A : O C ' E . C
- s . epth3 ALLEGATION DATA F@RM U S NUCLEAR REWTORY COMWS$10%
. sene so m ac?
(11-82 Inst vet.ons e . reve se sioe RECEIVING OFFICE Docket Number (if applicable)
- 1. Facility (ies) Involved. themel tre more inan 3. o, if Come..a4.64E bK l l genene. wnte GENERIC)
S E A9A Et.s rses< Trasto. ! E . 2. Functional Areals) Involved: l terwen epoconnate boates> i operations onsite health and safety j $ construction offsite health and safety o e spectyi 3.
Description:
Isl6lN i!l lTl t lVIE I l l I l l l l l l l l l l l l l tume tc 10c enar, acte s- gjgggggggggggggg ggggggg i I IIIIII IIIIII II II II IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
, 4. Source of Allegation:
tche:k son opnate bon: - contractor employee security guard licensee employee news media NRC employee private citizen organization tspecityl [ other tspecityt [ther codem nr e sw t> \c% c # MM DD YY
- 5. Date Allegation Received: g
- 6. Name of Jndividual (First two imtiene end test namel D D t*W8LL Receiving Allegation:
- 7. Office: g 9 y ACTION OFFICE
- 8. Action Office Contact; tr.est two imtiais and test names E N NN
- 9. FTS Telephone Number:
$T -
% I ( 0
' fe,' , d Open. if f olicwup actions are pending or in progress Closed, if followup actions are completed MM DD YY
- 11. Date Closed: j
- 12. Remarks: l Afl. jpj3l. lgl f l fl l l l l l l l l l l j jl l l l l iumt i: $c che a:te s>
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ii l o ,..c . ves, u.mee.
- 13. Allegation Number:
I -
%-0 09 O p, g' L . . . _ - _ - --- -
e. WC 'e Q) '"t D ALLEGATIOf4 OATA FORM ulan k3 u r v. n t e.5 6t .:.ter,y cc . . me se.,:. ate s ,,, w s.:. RECEIVINu OFFICE
- 1. Fccility(les) involved: INamel Docket Number lif applicable) us me o then 3. o, n gener,:. =co. GE*.ERICI (~0 />s/ M ir H e heAN l
_S7rnm Eleemn- 3 7/r 77o + l l
$$ ras kSE> ~
/X
"'~'
- 2. Functional Areals) Involved:
Checa app <ooriate t>antest I - operations onsite health and safety [ construction offsite health and safety safeguards emergency preparedness other tspecityl
- 3. Dascription:
ILims: to 100 c a.a' acte si ($!EWig ggg $l /l71/ ll/la1-gg lllllllllllll\ll g - g gg g g i I IIII IIIIIIII II IIII III III IIIIIII!IllIIl l l l l l l l l l l l l
- 4. Scurce of Allegation: ~
#Chnk soorca. mate bons contractor employee security guard
; _ licenses employee _, news media NRC employee private citizen organization tspecity)
_ ether tsoecityi MM 00 vy
- 5. Date Affegation Received:
6 Name of Individual Receiving Allegation: (First two in; ties ene test nemet M8
- 7. Office:
gg g ACTION OFFICE
- 8. Action Of fice
Contact:
triesi rwo inite, e..a ..it r. mei - 88
- 9. FTS Telephone Number:
pg, g g
- 10. St::tus: v tchsch one, 4 Open, if foll(wup actions are pending or in progress Closed, if fo'6owup actions are completed MM 00 9 113 Cata Closed:
g g
- 12. R. marks:
1.smet to 50 enatacters) j_ij_jgl7 f _ a f;fj ; ;;;;;;j;;;;;;;) 1III i ll III IIIIIIIIIIIIII - coOffice v sYears -n - a oNumber uh p, l6
- 13. Allsgation Number; j- gg g g,g g , y,g , g gj j f y .
- a. -
. . _ _ . .____._t. .
Ifd 3 Ib . I tcc sc - r ALLEGATION DATA FORM U S NUCLEAR REGUU.TCeot CCMWSSIOP.
'"-C mst .,:t.e ,s or ... 5 se RECEIVING OFFICE Docket Number (if applicable)
- 1. Fccilitylies) Involved; theme-t* more tna- 3 o c' femm.54c.wt gAE hEAu l l l osnene. wnte GENERC ,
E t. s craic STwi% l i S t.E W OSE sTV l f l .
'I ;
- 2. Functional Arestal involved: I tcheca soproonate bo=iest , operations onsite health and safety construction offsite health and safety safeguards emergency preparedness other tspecifvr 3.
Description:
If it l W' 5 I l li~ t !%(I E. I i i l i I j l i ! i( l l l l l
.u mt te tx c a a:te s l l j g l l l l g l l l l l l j j l l l l l j j j j ll I I i i li II l l I I II I I I ! I I I III II Il i i il I i lil i i i lI II I i l l l l 4 Source of Allegation:
#Cmecs scorsonate oom. contractor employee security guard licensee employee news media NRC employee private citizen organization (spe:ityt other (specity)
MM OD YY 5 Date Allegation Received.
- 6. Name of Individual triest two m,t,.. and test namei 3 b Ell'D d Receiving Affegation:
- 7. Office: g,g i j
ACTION OFFICE = 8. Actior. Office Contact; triest two initiets one inst neme! . b. bRE S. FTS Telephone Number: q gg . ygl g e g .:
- 10. Status:
, en,c, ,,, 1 Open,if followup actions are pending or in progress ,
Closed,if followup actions are completed MM DD YY
- 11. Date Closed; gl9 g g g lJ T2. Remarks: g l/.l_.l gl }l l Q ) [l l l l l l l l j l l l l l l l l (Lim te 50 c$a a:te s' IIIIIIIIIII IIIII I I II IIIIIIo , ;
ott.ee y ee, Number h6 }
- 13. Allegation Number:
j g lI l g l4 l-l gl3 l-A-l ol 0 l f l9 \, _.
.a 4 - ..__
. m.m ql $) YL-
- .-r n ua.A nos t. ara .ecss .s- t .<:= c ~ t s :c .
<. r: a .: , .e . . - >s
... . .. . .- .. , - . - _ .- .. . . . - . . ~ . -
l 2.t %'..*tG QFiiCE Oc:ket %c:-ber lif a;phabiel t . .n,". s :. , : , e e. s.-e-Coxviedc_byrK-
- 1. g e a e e x - .e a .t n,,
U2f 0lI",O. 'I 'l IS'i _g&m Ewrpu- 27xned Of: 0 - lC 0 4b 'f $$ l _dl.EA/ As s . Te !l l l ! I II
+ 2. Functions: Are a.'s! Inv olv ed: '
I
.c..c.a m :eoc.. ,3 operations onsite health and safety I
1 construction offsite health and safety safeguards emergency preparedness oth er :SpecifYi 3.
Description:
!5'ElN!SI'll'!1IS'!El l I l l l l l 1 l l l 1 l l l l
~"'*****"' l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 I I I I III IIIIIIII IIIliIIIIIIIIIIIIl
- 4. Srurce of AIIegation:
g ichoca soproonste temi Y contractor employee security guard l licensee employee news media
- NRC employee private citizen 4-organization tspecity) other 'specityi MM DD VV
- 5. Date A!!egation Received: g g 7 g y
- 6. Name of Individual I'le:eiving Afte;intion:
triest two imi afs end i : namei _b/88/M k 1
- 7. Offica: p . ylg;9 ACTION OFFICE
- f. ;:49 C" ice C e -%:t: F st >= e's ear last en me' l-f.i.h-.~.fW 1
- e s re: :': s e . . - ,. e r:
;p 9 j y f i f oj
.m
. _) *,, M I C, e n. if 4. ": .,2c a.: : : :s . . . r g or in cr:,3 e e s l
_ J c*: < -d. if r:t':.~=: e:e:m z , . . . .r< sa VV SO YY
- t t C** b ed; i 1 i a 1 l
{ l
;p 4!-18..y 4,3 -,o.o.
f ... .
;/l .. i .I i i , i i i !l l l l l l l
, .....7
-. n s = 4 5: r
" m., :: sc c .a a:te se l ! l l Il !I l [ }_,_I d 1 I I I !I l !!I !l l c .. . . v .., u .e, /jJ !
l 13. Allegation Number. T--
- i. 012.. R .4 _. _S V__-A- 0 o ol/
3 e ,
.,e- e w- --
- suic s.m an u.s,. NUCl. EAR REGUt.ATORY CQMMISSi>
site ALLEG,.AT13.N i m. coon on DATA - w.FORM (o-go x z c_ T RECEVING OFFICE Docket Number (if applicable)
- 1. Facilityllee) involved:
tre more inen 3. or W INam*lg0Md/UVb - AE - O b O O O 4 Y I conene, wma GENERICI Encrok a
<<A rio s O 5 0 0 0 + +'- (s
- 2. Functional Ares (s) Involved:
(Check sooroonste oostw i operations onsite health and safety N construction offsite health and safety safeguards emergency preparedr.ess o-her (seecityl 3.
Description:
16 lf 1 /A 6l /l fi /l//I M l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l IIIIIIIII I IIII IIII IIII I II! 1 II IIIIII I I IIII I I II I I I I I II I IIll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
"'"~
- 4. Source of Allegation: -
(Check soproonste boat contractor employee security guard _ licensee employee news media _ NRC employee private citizen organization iso. city) i 1 other(so.creyi FON_R h 1MAMd TOR hmploYff, ' ~ MM DD W
- 5. Dsts Allegation Received:
g g 9
- 8. N:me of Individual R:ceiving Allegation:
triret two initwas and i.e, no M 8 [thhM
- 7. Office: p g g y ACTION OFFICE 1
- 8. Action Office
Contact:
irirst two initi.i. and i.et namel - S. FTS Telephone Number: g 9g g . p j j
- 10. Status:
, % , ,,,, Open,if followup actions are pending or in progress Closed,if followup actions are completed MM DD YY
- 11. D:te Closed:
T2. Remarks: l g y d gly,l,,,,,,lg j y l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l (Urmt to 50 charact.nl IIIIIIIIIIIIII !IIII I II IIl l is. Aii.gation Number: 0 1 g & -
+ ~A' o lo I hb 5 2 9 g _ - . - - , - , . --s~y.e._w, y
. ~ .=::a m ... = . =. . .
Q.. a .. Observation M %'fJ lill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Record i CheckIlst No. DC-01-01 R evision No. O Observation No. 00-01-01 sheet 1 of I criginated ay S. Bibo pg cate 7/29/83 neviewed my P. DiDonato Q M g g oste' 7/29/83 ) 1.0 Description The CPSES Document Control Center (DCC) does not maintain an accurate listing of design changes generated against drawings and specifications. This was substantiated upon review of eighteen drawings, seven specifications and approximately 112 associated design changes. These discrepencies are as follows: Design Change Affected Document Missing from DCC l.og l Dwg. 2323-5-0800 DCA-12534 (Rev.1) Dwg. 2323-El-0018-01 DCA-16858 Dwg. 2323-5-0801 DCA-713 Dwg. 2323-5-0825 DCA-7850 (Rev. 4) 2.0 Requirement ! CPSES Procedure Number DCP-3, "CPSES Document Control Program," 13.3.1 requires in i part that a list of all active changes be maintained. 3.0 Document Reference CPSES Procedure Number DCP-3, 13.3.1. 4.0 Potential Design Impact ! If the Document Control system does not assure accurate distribution of design changes, the constructed configuration may not reflect the intepded design, thereby impacting plant design. Attachment A. Observation Record Review , E stent I leolated Estenelve X Other (Speelfy) Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 gjg
. .. - .. a _ . = . : = . - .. w ..--:' ' '
z Observation [4M'M annnnnnnnnnnnnu Record Review Attachment A Checklist No. DC-01-01 Rnision No. }
; Observation No.DC.01-01 sheet i of 3 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments 1.0 Probable Cause Failure to implement procedures.
2.0 Resolution ^ The identification of this observation acts as a confirmation of the document control problems previously known to Texas Utilities through the various reviews and audits i performed at CPSES. In fact, prior to the Cygna Independent Assessment Program, Texas Utilities began planning a new document control program which would alleviatt the inaccuracies inherent in the existing system. The implementation of this new system entails establishing tighter control over document distribution and an accurate design change tracking system. The major elements of the new system are:
- a. Centralization of existing document distribution points (file custodians) into eight remote " Document Control Center (DCC) Satellite" stations.
I
- b. Develop a computerized drawing and design change listing.
l
- c. Perform a systematic verification of the computerized data base to ensure accuracy.
i The centralization of the document distribution points has been instituted. A review to determine whether the institution of this new system resolved the distribution control problems was conducted the week ending 10/28/83 by Cygna. The results of this review are documented on Observation Review Record DC-01-02, Rev.1. The DCC computerized drawing and design change data base has been developed by the Texas Utilities Design Change Tracking Group (DCTG) using the Gibbs & Hill design verification tracking system as a base listing. Since the Gibbs & Hill system did not include piping and pipe support drawings, a manual tracking system continued to be used by DCC to control this group of drawings. Once the as-built drawings are completed, DCTG intends to add them to the data base as well. R Approvals i Oriebnster Qg D*'* 6l23f53 pro >ct Enoineer Q(,%,h D**
#/5'd 3 Proact Manager Qggj),]g@
senior meview T**m h$ % M D*'* D
/kM d /6'/8D
- TexasUtilitiesSeNices,Inc.
Independent 8.;sessment Program; 83090 i l
., -_ , _, _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . , . . _ _ _ , ~ , . . _ _ . . _ . , _
.a_ - n _ _,.-_. w - _ .. :_ .=_
i . . .. Observation l M M'M Record Review M H 4 "'"""""""'" l Attaehment A Checklist No. DC-01-01 Revision No. } Observation No.DC-01-01 sheet 2 of 3 l Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments The verification of this data base was conducted to check all Design Change Authorizations (DCA's) and Component Modification Cards (CMC's) issued. This check was conducted in two steps:
\
- a. For DCA's, a comparison of the Gibbs & Hill design verification tracking system output and the DCTG design verification status output was conducted. This comparison was accomplished by cross-checking the two sequential numerical DCA o lists to ensure that all DCA's were accounted for. Any discrepancies or voids were resolved by reviewing the actual DCA and the design verification ,
checklist. Upon completion of this review, the DCTG data base was updated. [ t
- b. For CMC's, all original design verification checklists (from G8H and Texas Utilities site engineering) were merged and are being reviewed against the CMC's. Upon completion of this review, the TUSI data base will be updated to correct all discrepancies relative to the affected documents and design verification status.
Discussions with Texas Utilities personnel regarding the above mentioned data base development and validation process, a final issue review of all drawings (except structural and piping composites) is nearly complete. This review is being done by qualified discipline engineers who make a determination as to whether design changes listed as outstanding have been incorporated into the drawings. Based on the result'; of the final issue review, the DCTG data base is updated to accurately reflect the drawing status. Texas Utilities has initiated a " turnover" program to ensure that all design changes have been incorporated into the final plant configuration on a system by system ; basis. This includes numerous walkdowns by groups such as QC, Start-up, Completions, and Operations, prior to the system being accepted by the Operations Group (TUGCO). , The effectiveness of this " turnover" was verified by the Cygna walkdown of a completed system -- the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System. l l \ BI Approvals o'** Ms.A. c rolzg(s3 Project Engineer Q Cp dgh Date gg/g Project Wanspeth ,@)
- Date hg pf} ~
Senior Review Team' Dateh g TexasUtilitiesSerdces,Inc.# Independent Assessment Program; 83090 l
. .-- - - . .. . = ..:. w . - x . -. x _ .- :. . .- ~ a: .- :::
s -- Observation : PiL @ d Record Review inumummmunmn Attachment A Checklist No. DC-01-01 Rololon No. } Observation No.DC-01-01 sheet 3 of 3 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments As of October 24, 1983 the valication effort was approximately 85% complete. Cygna reviewed this system on October 24-26, 1983 to assure that the document control problems identified in this observation and observations DC-02 and DC-03 had been corrected. Cygna also reviewed the components of the new system and conducted a confirmatory review of its implementation, the details of which are described in the Observation Record Review for Observations DC-02 and DC-03. We have confidence that the newly developed computerized document listing is accurate with respect to design changes outstanding against effected design documents and tha adequate programs have been put in place to assure that the plant is constructed in accordance with the design and associated design changes. Therefore, this observation is considered closed. 5 Approvals o@mator gg cate fr/zr/Y3 Project Engheer Qg C , g,gggfL_ oste fj/f7Q Pro)ect unnager f Q g,c(f }&,p ~ cate j,/q)f3 Senior Review Team [ ff Date ((g3 l TexasUtilitiesSePdces,Inc. ! Independent Assessment Program; 83090 !___ _ - _ :~ ' -., . . - - .-
- = . . . ; :a.x x~ ; :a.1-a.
- ; - = .w.= =
- Observation MW lill!!!!!!!!!Irtrttrirr!!!!!!!
Record Checklist No. DC-01-02 Revision No. O Observation No. DC-01-02 sheet 1 et 1 j S. Bibo orleinated my Jg case 7/29/83 neviewed my P. DiDonato j@ggg case 8/5/83 G 1.0 Description
? ,. ~
The Design Change Log Books maintained by site file custodians did not include the posting of all design changes. This was substantiated upon review of the Document Control Center list of design changes against affected documents versus the site file custodian Design Change Log Books. AFFECTED MISSING DOCUMEhT DESIGN CHANGE LOCATION SPEC MS-208.1 DCA-14781 Purchasing SPEC MS-20B.1 DCA-14026 (Rev. 2) Purchasing ' DWG 2323-El-0018-01 DCA-9222 (Rev. 1) Electrical 3-SPEC MS-46A DCA-11193 (Rev. 2) Purchasing , SPEC MS-46A DCA-11939 (Rev.1) Purchasing SPEC MS-46A DCA-14349 (Rev.1) Purchasing
- SPEC MS-46A DCA-16383 (Rev.1) Purchasing SPEC MS-46A DCA-17620 Purchasing SPEC MS-46A DCA-13037 Purchasing SPEC MS-46A DCA-18073 Purchasing SPEC MS-605 DCA-10413 (Rev. 3) Purchasing SPEC MS-605 DCA-17849 Purchasing SPEC MS-605 DCA-17852 Purchasing 2.0 Requirement CPSES Procedure Number DCP-3 "CPSES Document Control Program 13.2.1.3 requires in part that site custodians post design changes which affect their areas in their respective Design Change Log Books.
, 3.0 Document Reference CPSES Procedure Number DCP-3, 13.2.1.3 4.0 Potential Design Impact The design may be impacted if controlled document holders do not maintain the latest design information associated with documents. Attachment A. Observation Record Review Estent lectated Extensive X Other (specity) Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 - wm-- - - - . .-w-----y-e- ,m y= ----,g %9-- _yw.--*- - ----+. - -y,.--,-.v---em =---e- - - m- y w e - g - + yy y
s -.w. u :..= = . - -
. w.z - ... - . ...
] .. .. r5 Observation [Ceilfd anumumnnninnnni Record Review Attachment A l Checklist No. DC-01-02 Rnision No.
}
observation No.0C-01-02 sheet 1 of 2 H) Yes No j Valid Observation X Closed X , Comments i J 1.0 Probable Cause Failure to implement procedures. 1. !' 2.0 Resolution ~: In order to verify the effectiveness of the steps taken by TUSI (see ~ Observation Record Review DC-01-01) and to assure that the concerns addressed in Observation DC-01-02 have been resolved, a follow-up review was performed by " Cygna at CPSES during the week ending 10/28/83. This verification effort consisted of reviewing twenty drawings at eight satellite locations (73 total drawings and 1005 corresponding design changes). The review process was as follows:
- 1. Controlled distribution lists (computerized) of selected drawings were
' requested from DCC and reviewed to ascertain which drawings were required to be on file at specific Document Control Center (DCC) satellite location.
- 2. A computer print-out of all design changes relative to each drawing was requested from DCC and reviewed to ascertain what design changes were
- 1ssued against each drawing.
- jl
- 3. The files at each satellite location were then reviewed to assure that all required drawings and their corresponding design changes were on file.
J This review revealed that all DCC satellites contain all required drawings and the corresponding design changes. In addition, all design changes are posted against appropriate drawings via a manual design change status log or the
' computerized design change status log. Prior to the institution of the data base merger and validation process described in Observation Record Review DC-01-01, each DCC satellite was required to maintain manual logs of all design 5 Approvals oemi- _,htf1JL, om /o / zir/53
c*ct E"9'"*" Q r, L ( % d b D*
///r/['S Proweiwaneou bJ19/ g h o.ie ff/5/p3 s.nie nevw T..m Qgg Q o.ie fj//fc Texas Utilities N N s, Inc b Independent Assessment Program; 83090
- - - , - w -
g - e- - 9e g--..- ,._mm-,.,,m, .-.,..e.-. m.-#,,-,,,g-,e 9++.-w. , on.-,-,,w,-w-- -s.-e,,,-.m-,, m., go..i, .+
it; .. .. , Observation l [4M'M Record Review l 1111111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Attachment A i ,; Checklist No. DC-01-02 Revision No. } l Observation No.DC-01-02 sh t 2 of 2 13
; Yes No
- 1
? Valid Observation X Closed X 8
], . Comments changes. Although some manual logs are still maintained, DCC satellites now have the capability to ascertain information instantly from the computer data base by remote terminals in the satellites.
, In conclusion, Cygna is satisfied that adequate corrective / preventive action have '~,
been taken to resolve the concerns addressed in Observation DC-01-02 and therefore, considers this observatinn closed. a - 4 n ~
"k
. wo..
%MD' }gW Det* l0j25)Q n.*ei sneweer g c gg,M, o.ie gc-fD o.,en,ish'3 n n et u... e u y _ g f. m-a senior Reykw Team .,
f] Date y'h/g Texas Utilities b ices, Inc.# Independent Assessment Program; 83090
---4 --c w -
--e. . +--e .- g ya e e w w = + +-. -e.- e- m .a- ammy.-w r- -'-JuF-- +- +-me=-+ y-=c---
- . . -. .u. ; . . . - -
j :.=.: Observation
- AlC fd Record 11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i checklist No. DC-01-02 Revision No. 0 Observation No. DC-01-03 sheet 1 of 1 l l
. originated sy S. Bibo pg pate 7/29/83 l } neviewed sy P. DiDonato j% M j7 f e 7/29/83
- I i f
1.0 Description
. 1 ,: An initial review of fourteen drawings disclosed that one (Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-5-0801) was not stamped "THIS DOCUMENT AFFECTED BY DESIGN CHANGES." A
- further sample of 20 drawings disclosed that four drawings lacked the required stamp.
2.0 Requirement l Project Procedure Number DCP-3, "CPSES Site Document Control Program " Section 3.2.1.3 requires that the document file custodian stamp documents affected by
~ ': design changes with "THIS DOCUMENT AFFECTED BY DESIGN CHANGES " prior to issuance.
3.0 Document Reference CPSES Procedure Number DCP-3, section 3.2.1.3 i 4.0 Potential Design Impact i The design may be impacted if controlled document recipients are unaware that design changes have been issued against a drawing. 1, Attachment ! A. Observation Record Review 1 l i Estent isolated Estensive X Other (Specify) I Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
, Independent Assessment Program; 83090
*gy -- - - - - +----W--e** - - - g- - -- y+ - * ~-m*--
-..~
we- Observation [41W fn Record Review uninninninninunun Attachment A Checklist No. DC-01-02 Revlelon No. } sheet or Observation No.DC-01-03 3 3 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments l 1.0 Probable Cause Failure to implement procedures. 1 2.0 Resolution i The DCC drawing tracking system described in the resolution to observation DC-01-01 is the governing reference for determining if a drawing is affected by design changes. When a drawing request is received in either document control or the satellite stations, the computerized / manual listing is checked to determine if there are any associated design changes. The drawing is stamped "THIS DOCUMENT AFFECTED BY DESIGN CHANGES," if applicable. A follow-up review was performed by Cygna at the CPSES during the week ending 10/28/83. During the review process described in the Observation Record Review for DC-01-02, hard copies of 24 drawings were reviewed to verify that the stamp . "THIS DOCUMENT AFFECTED BY DESIGN CHANGES" had been applied. The results of this review revealed that all hard copy drawings on file at DCC satellites contained the required stamp. In conclusion, Cygna is satisfied that adequate corrective / preventive action has been taken by TUSI to resolve the concerns addressed in Observation DC-01-02 and therefore considers this observation closed.
$$ Date lglpqlg$
~ ~ ue~ c G L r n w alafL-- ~
o~ ax773 Proket Manager M j Datefjh/ senior Review Team g4 g este ,) jg,o l Texas Utilities Sekces Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 I j i i
~
- c. .] .
- . . -. .~..u .- .
=
T Observation ! Ati'M lilllllllllilllllllillllllllll Record I Checklist No. DC-01-01 R evision No. O Observation No. DC-01-04 sheet 1 of 1 originated sy S. Bibo RM Date 7/29/83 Reviewed By P. DiDonato g j M j 7 p ate 8/19/83 1.0 Description The Field Design Change and Review Status Log, as maintained by the Design Change Tracking Groups (DCTG) was reviewed for compliance to Procedure CP-EP-4.7 " Control of Engineering / Design Review of Field Design Changes." The review disclosed:
- 1. The DCTG status log did not accurately reflect all outstanding design changes listed (e.g. Specification 2323-ES-100, DCA-9695; 2323-5-0800, DE/CD's, DCDDA's , FICR's ).
- 2. The DCTG status log does not accurately reflect the status of design change documents to be incorporated versus design changes not to be incorporated (e.g. DWG. 2323-5-0801, DCA-81 and DCA-92).
- 3. The DCTG status log contains design changes entered against the incorrect affected document. (DCA-1803 was listed against another specification when it should have been listed against MS-205.1.)
- 4. The DCTG status log identifies design changes as applicable to certain documents when in fact they have been voided.
2.0 Requirement Procedure CP-EP-4.7,13.3 requires that DCTG maintain a " Field Design Change and Review Status Log" in conjunction with Gibbs & Hill. 3.0 Document Reference CPSES Procedure Number CP-EP-4.7, 13.3. 4.0 Potential Design Impact The design may be impacted if design reviews are overlooked. Attachm'nt e A. Observation Record Review i Estent leolated Estensive X Other (speelfy) Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090
az . . . . . a. .a, . : . . .. : . Observation on, Record Review unmmmminmnmni Attachment A Checklist No. DC-01-01 Rniston No. O Observation No.DC.01-04 shut g of 3 Yes No Valid Observation X Clo s e d X Comments 1.0 Probable Cause Failure to effectively implement the DCTG computer system due to start-up problems. 2.0 Resolution At the time of the Cygna Review, the DCTG status log was being developed from a copy of the Gibbs & Hill tracking system. In the early stages of development, its primary purpose was to status design reviews of design change documents even though Gibbs & Hill was responsible for performing this function. This teview did not disclose any problems with the statusing of design reviews. During follow-up reviews for other observations, Cygna did observe the development of an accurate status listing (refer to Observation Record Review to Observation DC-01-01). This listing now serves as the master listing of design changes and design review status for the Document Control center as well 4 as DCTG. An assessment has been made by Cygna that the inaccuracies contained in the listing would not impact design. As a result of the Cygna review during the week ending 10/28/83, this observation has been closed. The basis for closure is the fact that the DCTG status listing has been totally verified (refer to Observation Record Review to Observation DC-01-01) as to content and accuracy. N l
. wo.ais Originator JgQ Date fd7 </D Project Engineer {pg ,, Date /// g d Project Manager j{ Date // /h senior me*= Team 3 /ggwL _
fg Deie ///[/f3 l Texas Utilities seq};es, Inc. d Independent Assessment Program; 83090
- .~..._>.u.- L ,.
y - y 5 - A - 7_3
. (V
# 5 a
~
/
rnou ms essa o,(lo ll'[)
-j ROBERT B. ROTH I
W w I lW k
, ao <\ ~ & p s.h.
e: t2s
<~1 m, M
+
k ) *
?& %+-
.p/9hw & > W ~
ii
.uye w~
a w . as~%#" "h *~e
*g
' F .>9 nA av 4 g %. W m walw n& U s_ .
t
- e
* 'i $
IJ J i
.___.m._m. _._
c. lOhhb , j? gh \\
,\ "-
h t {. -
- x. G s N f:u T
\. & f L[
I
, , fl gb y h -4 s 3 g" 't p" I h~ <%- ,.
o 8 2 Mh s ( I p' s Li w 4 A e D }y 3 1 g ~ A v. M b y s, k. h q v'
~y_- _y- - "'~ - ^ '
_ . _ . . . -1 . __ ._ ._ - FWDAY.blU 0f05hYd'Wl?lSllEJ'- .
~f&ddidlfl*b hr:1.zc th eIA &4. e; Wis
}fttar tor
- s*nO. LaMr - 7?'A Meipirb p MtserAu'r nskesw
>Omf sci our 2ren w soasmrrrk Adio- cosa e.1bra>of Atrnnmcur s un a .>. +b hte tR niTJ toaa+ dM. oit #ttr /Ao tic <!rbAt te tus nt>< M&a eftWN st: 3L Monio,s yo; hkr*}N/Witirk Mnro.
- ActDr od'ptjpton derht FRt/JH (p O M ek. 1.tyn.E 7zb r-
~[ &Ms( allDeLl M\CYiLs ' ink - fl7! lao R/oq o't R/to) wwto ro 6cmr *//tk3 Tsiy Arpatr r< Ma vel. A wout kut'sstx. n vnnrirw 'nles .h Me %k votxe* rot A/A e "4 3 c, o 49.1."7 A VG, Lis n- )
ro CIE.sar w 3*L C*Au cb (o'+ car Annrn-t rs anu dxt*) cobsb stor arr 4m ep fre. ucru m} N . nit.saer aef Mr. 'p. Lcuil ewriorn ry Ar > badro's a- 11 Aa nae >Atorz rwnw + 7 ardi 5.ussviu w sitics rnob Arrer.r -:n czpr.aiaen mr 7xc neto kwr ma n, omw. .eri vic ss wn od ':ru i-asns'simkniarlb.uconn'.e .m. >nisc.is.1Jasrn w me sura
.__ ts wr or Hr.r niurinskrocic l'xer a 'recen,- tardr4.snia wo on vt rair uponr1.> r j for vest yIssees Ac41s.- iuvarisaro) Am su ,seelf*st wr Aqur is'.tua'.mnw y yw jg q sus.bant ,'- 91A'n IM"s> lAGT1 von'=1 Ator A.wQ .
- e O g e **
.6
\
l l
,' l
$)
~ _. ;.;;:-.- ...u.w.: - =.,.,D.n:.a.... ,.'...: . . - . . - . . - . ..-~~.;.-.2... _
, b- ., _ .
~
y A- 73
- ~ , . [l f i
ACKNOVLEDGMENT State of Pennsylvania . )
) SS:
l County of Philadelnhia ) , l I On this, the 14th day of November 19___81 ,
. befor,e..me Daniel F. Eckman .
, the undersigned officer,
. , .y > . . m- known to me personally appeared Josenh J. Lininskv ,
(or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name monears subscribed to the within instrument, a'nd acknowledged that he executed the same for the purposes therein contained. l- \ In witness whercof, I hereunto set my hand and offical seal.
? r
//
- /, :
i . .
- I' ' / // .
, // , ; uGl,
- Notary Public
- r Pli k It ;g * 'l)', 4~'I I!'*! C y . . ., *
- dILPdfA C:;;gy l
Usc.b$. [t ~~ r; ' . . .. .' .*' L2*IIII m:1.":uan at Xm.,,,
..N.
j . .. l . l . b 4 g;y h - - _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , ,
. L.-_'2 ;' L:. L = . =:.: - . a :.. i. :.. a : n . a . . . . . . . .- - . .. .= .~ - - - - ,
Ij - ? l! * [! .. [' On October 14, 1983, Joseph J. Lipinsky, Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc'. was telephonically interviewed by NRC Investigator, D. D. Driskill. During this interview, J. J. Lipinsky was granted confidentiality. During subsequent i meetings with NRC Investigator, H. B. Griffin, J. J. Lipinsky decided to waive l!. the confidentiality agreement formerly given on the 14th of October. - a l The NHC, acknowledging the fact that this agreement of confidentiality had lj been technically violated by J. J. Lipinsky in his speaking thereof to ' third . parties', nevertheless agreed to continue the observing of this
,, confidentiality. However, due to the apparent widespread distribution of Lipinsky's Trip Report and the apparent general knowledge of that report, j ,- Lipinsky decided that confidentiality was a moot issue.
f . 4
,f NRC Investigator, H. B. Griffin, agreed to provide J. J. Lipinsky with a <
- I ' copy of the memo generated by NRC Investigator, D. D. Driskill, dealing with h the October 14, 1983, telephonic interview with J. J. Lipinsky. Additionally, NRC Investigator, H. B. Griffin, agreed to provide J. J. Lipinsky with a copy 1
j .; of the report to be ge1erated by NRC Inspector, Frank Hawkins. J. J. Lipinsky {, understands that copies' of the above documents will be provided only when
- [ those documents become part of the public record.
3 . j h , f f .. 7 , . , if j - J lg g ega. ipins cate / r ' j,
- }
i .1 ll . c .-
- j. i 1 .
I . 6 , e d
= - ,peu,, . .- ,..,-.m., . . - , . . - , , , .,3 -- ,+_,u4
=
- MORNfNG, JANUARY 7,1983 m
- mm.a.
*3'
.e, ,
Com-anche Peakcharges is not quali- to the Nuclear Regulatory Commis- wasfired threescparate times trom Ile said the improperly poured m potential sion because he does not trust the t'onstruction johs at two different basecouldshift omd Ive the con. federalagency toconduct animpar. nuclear pt:mts af ter testifying at the70nton tial investigation. be talking regulatory hearings abotat faulty that supplies cooling water to the Vega said. have Opponents questionc<1 of the nuclear energy welds at romanche Peak, which is reactor to hrcak. commluinn's tmcer. lle's impartiality in hearings before the undftconst ruction near Glen itose. Larry Witt. a former 11rown & ngineering fetteral Atomic Safety and I.icens- Juanita I'ths. president of theCiti- Root front-cod loaderoperator,tofri t e.' ing Appealllo1rd rens Association for Sound Energy, company investigators last August sicnificant Last month a former welding m said at least a rioten nuclear plant that he was ordered to use the re-employees harkad oct o( testifying
?ned safety spector at the pl.mt. who charged before tlicNRt:hecausethey fcated jecteriaggregalematerialhya rior. Investigators talked tosupe two nuld result that he was fircelin reprisalfor testi- reprisals .
lear coreif many he gave hetore Ihe NRC, was other m'en who worked in the area the allega- orderedrcinstated with hack payby One of Dillingham's charges was whosaid they knew nothingof the ent signed a Department of I.ahor administra- that rejectett aggregate material inciderit Witt's supervisor at the tive law judge. was mixed with the concrete that time is dead. hischarecs was poured to form the base for the The inspector, charlt s Atchison, nuclear reactor. Please see (*omanche Peak on Page 22 g hng 'l'hc shavings ran be-d rilleri t hrom:h the meta l rrin farce- ril<f n't havr. thc authoritv to nut thP-
'd m*.ide the reactor, wluch ments Dilhngham claims to have ingham hark to u crk "Bui cven di i
im the fuel cells landi could knowledecof walls hcingweakened did. I wouldn't !ct him hhekmad fuse to the control roris. Dill- hy imptoperly drillcrl holes. us." he sant.
- m said in his statement Danny Grisso, who supposedly te metal particles fused to the witnessed such hoics hetng drilled, Vega said Dillingham lost his job red rods.itispossiblethat they cooperated in the company s Aug- becaute the numberofemployces is prevent the rods from heing inst investigation. In an interview bcInc reduccet as work at tha plant criproperlyandcould causea Thursday.hcsaid heissatisfico naw slows down.
own. he said, that proper paperwork was done Ddlingham, however, questions a - who said he would nced andproperauthorfration wasgiven. the timing of his layoff. IIe said tJilik information before discuss. e allegation - dismissed Dill- tion Vega denied that Vega Dillingham'saccuu. warned him not to work inafter August, when meeting withheBrown returnec 4 to g m*s claims that any of the al. contact the press with his charges. Root officials in Ilouston, he hatt i violations pose a safety lle said Dilhngham called hifn in been stripped of his work crew.
?m.
December and asked'if he could Alter being swigned to work in therallegatlob byDillingham help get hisjoh hack. Ile said Dilling-one area of the shop for several cd the alleged practice of ham threatened to. make the weeks..he calkwl Vega and then g holcs through stbelrein- charges puhlte if he was not put W.M. Rice, group yk'e p'resklent of I concrete retaining walls at . hack to work. f- . ,; ~ ? the Brt1wn & floot P4 wet' Divi < ion, tant. Special autlichirJtion ., Vega, who said his job ,is con- Dillitigham sald. lle taid he was lafd be gived .- before.
, *', boles. .are..
. , ' * . terned
,, ,- .only
, . . *with r .safWty,
,. , i-said he' off the ni2t work day /
, \ ; . e . .t, _ h, . ,; h , c. gl . - l s..., s ' N
? ** .7'gf W & f E L 5 ^3 5 A no s y-8.$ $,5 s ef u-
; .. .,.L. .r;;:EMi z : 3.8 isj54if 2,
-. == gN == rp'
~
.i@
,, - e
'L
._n-.'
fep
'W _ :
$ g5t .
3s 3,2 e jW- ji3,3 S a g 3 *;2 oe ggo x <. E suo-,! 3;
- y: .-
<: it.-4 A < j ~c -3 2 O E253 "-
..;m.'*
9 r7j . h .- m :-*/- -' I p . .- 1
)*
- a P5 35=ie c.d;-
Z := l .:! : ; 3 5-c s:eu3 " o 3 3 '- _2 3 E
. u' d; p ...c.., j
. . . :v
,5 . .
y 3 g 7 =f
.- >: C y
> uIY 0 $ ;3 3 [-cj 3 .]i 3 v - =4 f 8 o , .u .
D3h75CO
*$' 3-a n;;3.8SE
-::.' 23a3 n d =] g x y m -
e 2 ". u o -8 " E E
- Q.8- 2 -
.l '*: ,~,. fGhj; 4 .,..
q T. :.%. 17*e ,. ,* .:.%., ,
*y Q, : , ,.in. ?
., w K'}
' * *tL.%~
'e . .
K ,' _ , l, k .*s. .s . m.- m-
- n. . . . . . .
. .. .. -. . . , -m
~
== - -
f 'E ,
'1 O I- .
; \
mI y .. ,. .!s2
, . _.s . ~ . a -n.
~ - .. ..
, g n
,. e n,-
.-w-.n. ww -
- .a., g, y.. ,, .a -
y .:..=.5qi .s[
- se
~
*J,y m .,e .s .: - e tYy= ~,,
Q _^ -OCC. h:' . Q W i."m**' f' 1;-'%q, . Yfn e-c e -. . . . p ,'- .s . .
> *;. -~
- w wp.e o l .b;* t: "
W L* W f'y. ' i's d '
.Y.i ,;lf': '
w;gf.e. f!.L~ Ide 4r.t j 4 ? yL n.4 6l?'+y$
,' - '.5)V W:g *?y,.>- $ sf g; N y* D /'
4,M'h. $% a A G c ap D_u. I $Q ' w.c M .i E 4i '
@4.=q@@w;-f41#@w iM FEM ~
s, g
) an .N w$=.
v O
-a : f1
([) G . 8s q s
- - if? sf::y?;q' s
r .f .
'* ' f ' # A .*
- I;i
' -# ,3
$ nw -
% - * * . ~
w " fii: {;
~ '
@ $h 3l: .
9.(' r^d A. {l - % '- [' .
,,'.e. .
- I 5l% 5E f.3 f - M[f,f,E M=srW. s .
~,..._ a.-->i:. - <% .- 1L s .j
.c wg e r'3 .f. . . . :, _ v . .
4e. * * *
- on , .%
L,. O, ? $
- jg
- TI~ $ f*
5 OEE caa W* = !.
.,, _[%. O l
Q >, .m >. ?, ' w' c- .q:;n.,+,F),' e: .. 4 ~ m n ,g.g p= 2,. '. :.;.:. '.. :. v*.+'*.-e
,ja..*r .'- M. . '
. . . ~
h p33 4 en '
>==.=.- N ehJ [,* gia*
.1 y,'M ',
4 m- v. 4 jgp "l*tiffW-
.c n - ! n Tk, Yp . e ?y.g"y g.-Se ..'
w+ y= f [ E , b N I.O . ,x. S i,{-- \ ...d-2 ew7: ' , -[s,
- p ,, u -. _.e. m n.. - - 1 . .,
. .. . s. , s.
Yh ~ '", . * % 3 . 2 .h. * * 'e
~: i> . 4 T . & 2 ._.y (? = - _n n l 16
\ -
g s want igan
?M,g Problems cited s
3111' Mellenry, president of the n Valley Unemployed Commit-
, blared antiHeagan chants
,g
, ybeWat nuclear plant HJ.$
D *O M
"- ,? ,
www*2:f
"'Aff ' ' -
By DEBRIE MITCIIELL ough a bullhorn in Point State [i
- 3L*'-T'8'8'8= writer
. *a#: I
-k,teross the street from the ho- 4-p U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis- "OuftsholeContCntion sion inspectors have substantiated I didn't really want to see him
-i h l}
twa allegations of faulty ronstruc- ISING&lNCQUQlill/ had a point to make, and if he m - tion at the Comanche Peak nuclear m't able to see us, his aides car. g .. plant and are investigating a third. GSStITQMCC dh(f Qtf(Ilif[f 1" the message back to Washing- O i according to an NitC report dated
, Mellenty said. T ih 4' p O, . March 28.
COnlTOllSSh01. That's
../ c' ' The report, released on Wednes-i he"Not Quite Heady for Unem-yment Players" performed The J.p{f ' '
day by Texas Electric Service Co., jgTlyICTCOn[2TDIGl!On al of Ronnie Reagan, a skit in
.- y , a;a y oneof theptant'sco-owners analyz-ich the president was tried for yM es three of eight allegations made pfgggggggggg[OU n f
isunemploymentandsentenced last year by Arvill Dillingham Jr.,a -CitizenactivistJuanita Ellis ea " displaced workerlivin' gin a hgV'.
,'y, former plant fore. nan. Dillingham N;,, waslaidoffinOctoberafterhecom-t city for the duration of the de-
, p,,A C1 ; *y tsion." ,
plained to Brown & Root Construe. A Brown & Root investigation in-o arrests were reported. al- tion Co., the company under con. ~ to Dillingham's allegations last fall igh two policemen carried a 4 _g rk ()'.<J ' tract to build the nuclear plant. dismissed all but one of the allega-nan from thecrowd and put her C TheNitCinvestigationconducted tions while an inspection ley Texas patrol van. & sometime between Jan. 7 and Feb. Utilities Genera ting Co. substantiat-side,Heagan said thecrowd was y,,
- 211 specifically addressed three alle. ed two of the a!!cgations.
;,, ,; T I gations Dillingham made in a Star.
ilused" and " frustrated." %'. Brown & Hoot and Texas Utilities
' hey're frustrated all right be- 'c' '
'"C Tefcoram article that appeared on stated last fall that " measures had e they want jobs, but they're ** . **. Jan.7.The_ report released Wednes- been taken . .." to correct the sub-confused. They know right- -
day did n6L a%i~ress the other five stantiated al!cgations. Texas Utili-ass see Protesters on Page 13 ARREST... officer hauls pretester to paddy wagon *** P'"*ham. allegations made earlier by Dilling. ties is an a ffiliate company Ihat w Please see Problems on Page reloped cru.ise mispile could threaten Europia
. 1 rA duled Ior deployment in Eu- might beable to move such missiles 'If the U.S. ImeHigence assess' later this year, has appeared in Penta around relatively rapidly over long dents prnve to
- neurate. such althauch eba ~~+' " gon reports.
. " ' " ~ '" And in a separate siudy relea<cd
- . _ _ _ _ . . - - - - - c -
a m meny tmies laatir than "= *a** a6 awnusu to nenn range Soviet ballatid misstles.SS4s L. Adelm.n. Ihe adminis*
President Itagin, in a retrat and SS5s aimed at Western Eu- sound Neithrrrid3,forstow,hasa me m tuuo totaled 5595 billion,a27 fror.s his original call f:r a mutual rope. system in place that could stop a tion'sembattledn minesfot i.sicent increase over the $W7 bd- ban of European missiles, recently ballatic missile, even though its rectorof the ArmsControlr hon spent in 1971. U.S. Intelhgence reports on the offered to cut back on that deploy- Cruise m,ssiles, i . often hkened to flight is more easily detected. - Disarmament Agency. Problems cited at Comanche Peak . 7. stnall to cause serious problems. inspections are poor. Ingham said in the affidavit. "One C'ontinued frona Page I "Our wholecontentionisthatthe nightwhenicamehome,1foundmy Ilowever,the NitC said the plant operate the plant. had violated NHCregulationswhen quality assurance and quahty con. cat;its head had been cut smooth The NitC investigation outlined it did not irupect the lampposts or trol is shot." said Juanita Ellis, off, and its body was missing. ... m the Masch 211 report, however, their installation, founder of Citizens As>ociationfor I'vebeenscaredtogobackandsign l found that problems cited by Dill. TexasElectricServiceCo. spokes- Sound Energy."That's furthercon up for any unemployment because j I'mscaredsomeonemayshoot me " SA\/E 82 ingham had not been corrected. man George liedrick said the com- firmation of our contention." Ddlingham, who originally re. Hedrick.however said that plant NitCinspectorscited the plant on a pany"is making the necessary cor- m new violation for f ailing to inspect rections to make sure that the ported problems at the, plant to employees are encouraged to re-Thomas Fechan, presi dent of port problems at the plant.IIe de-theunderwateriampsinthereactor "luipment has been installed in Brown &; toot.couldnotbereached med that company employees had < . . - pol achargesimiliartoallegations compliancewiththedesignplans." made last f all by Ddlingham. Hedrick acknowledged that the for comment Wednesday. , participated in any harassment of - 4 .
< o+
In substantiating Dillingham's al. plant had not had a quality assur- Ddlingham filed a four-page so. Mr. Udlingham." , / legation about the underwater anceprogram toinspecttheunder- torized affidavit with the citizms The NitC investigation also sub-lamps, Nlte inspectors stated that water lightmg tn the reactor pool association in which he discuwd stantiated Dillingham's allegation /(- '
/ i,k sk) the plant violated NitC rules by not ' *The lighting snay have been in- numerous examples of faulty con. that rejected aggregate was mixed '
hamg a quality assurance pro. stalledinaperfectlysoundmanner, rtruction at the plant. with concretethat was sppposed to .: ^ gram. but there was not a quality assur- In t,he af fidavit, dated March 31, beusedinthehascof thereactor. 4 - L flowever, the NitC said that alle. Lt EC Ihllingham charged that he was ance program to verify the fabrica- he said he was harassed after Lie N prevented from cleaning out drilj tion and the installation," liedrick Stur-Telegram story appeared so gation was "of no concern in that '
":i shavingsfromthelampposts which Jan 7. the aggregated pale,rather than ac-said. *1 was shot at and have been sa tually being unacceptable, simply
- d :M he said could be washed into the Opponents of the nuclear plant reactor during refueling and cause being constructed 75 mdes south- therun eversince,and have beenin had not been tested prior to use as a meltdown. 'Ite NitC inspection west of Fort Worth have argued touch with CASE a few times by required."
i.\' found metal shavings in the lamp. that quality control programs and phone from different states,"141 The N!!C said it will continue to
? 9e>
ti pusts,butsaid theshavingsweretoo ; investigate an allegation snade I,y Ddlinghamandanotherformerem- A .{U*
"y" -
Only.jRockof Ages allowed r e sasm a mm:=ms va j I' - e the interior reinforcing steel. ( dren went to that concert (by the - itiSPS 206-260) ~ ^ M & Assectated N Heach Boys last yearl and loved it. MORNING-EVENING-5UN(F ~ ~ h comb.nma the Foet Worm 8ar; s WASillNGTON-InteriorSecre- Therearealotof uswhothink they edobt..hed reboory 1, 190 8he I,- l 7'7 77 h tary James Watt says the capital's are a nationalinstitution. Anytxxty annualFourth of July celebrationis that thinks that the Beach Boys are fers Worth Telegram, purchae8 Jaa- i 1 i g cory 1,1909,8h* F*r8 W*'8h*d, g% f '- '
, .3' " ^
' =
being despoiled by " rock bands at- hard rock must think Mantovani Iractm4 the wrong element." plays jaza." 8"'
- 1 'd P9 e, h
,f .i l lie dida t name names, but the lleach Boys have headlined the Wattsaidhewantedtechangethe ,7b8Id P y 'Y 400 W 7e 5 . .
I; L V2 CAR. e show for ehe past three years-and atmosphere around the festivities 76102 S
~h -il 0 inghelementsof theiteaganadmin- twcause of " repulsive" reports in TitiPHONE NU M837
~
EArStNGS: istration landed on Watt with both the pasttwaycarsof *high druguse. Circstation Departme pup d.at DEL i
@7NWf%
p -.
-#/
p feet Wednesday for knocking the high alcoholism, broken botties, 8547 ff REG 9 Closeihed Departme $ popular mudelans known for the some injured people, some fights." Uud d'ol RI $999. e 36-9271 ,y "surfin* sound." $ %. [ i_% , 'I_ ' g_' '1r 'Pl All othee Depo,, , Newton,whomakesLasVegasids ' The Ucack Boys' music has beca EDPRESS banned in favor of " patriotic and home,has long been a headhner at the gambling mecca. Those audi-MEMBER OF AS g,;,,., Monnu, t,, g >gterri MIf 1, i i hgg 9o f**9 tamdyoriented" Wayne Newton, ences are not noted as teetotalers. she Ismg of the 1,as Vegas casinos, corrier only $5.00,Delivery. Mora gnks'. r
,-[ _l [tj g
'the secretary's decision drew either. ,5** 9.o0. w ,se.j W i %. g l
mpport for the Beach Boys fropa .m fa'a e ., prmacut George Bush.,a persona 1 p , _ _, _
,,, gy _ m i
- ~ . _ _ _ _
.~ exq k, , 4 - M. . A - q CASE (CITIZENS ASSN F0FLSOUND ENERGY).
=-
w . m :.v.'. u
, April 13, 1983 t _-
The honorabit Edward Marley
.l 205 Cannon house Office Building ; Washington, D. C. 20515 l
1
Dear Mr. Markey:
4 d SUBJEC : Comanche Peak huclear Fower Plant .; Affidavit of Robert L . Messerly j Ano Supporting Documentation As discussed with Richard Udell today by pnone, we would appreciate your seein; that the attached doctr'entatior, regarding the use of "retar eaters gets into the hands of the proper NRC official in Washington. Our action is not based on any derire to be unecoperative with the NRC or to avoid providing the NRC witn the do:u"er.tation. To the contrary,
. it is an effort on the part of Cl.5E and Mr. Mes' erly to be absolutely 1 certain that Mr. Messerly's concerns will be tnoroughly investigated and
] proper action taken if needed. We felt that this action was warranted due to recent developments regarding the NRC's investigatior, cf Mr. Messerly's 'l concerns . Tne background regarding thi: r,atte is this: 'en 2/3/E2, CASE filed a Sur;;lement to our 1/24/23 Motion f or Protectiv.. Orders fer Pc. Co.is, Les te r 5-i th , a nd F re dd., Pay na rre il . (CASE' 1/N/E3 ar.; /~/E3 ",otions were later stricter., along witr otners. b;, our then-! icer. sing Scarc Cr. airman, w.o recently resigned fro oue proceeding: du= to eye problem:..) Attached to our 2/3/83 Supplement was the affidavit of Robert L. Messerly (the original affidavit was forwardec to the NRC's Docketing and Service Sectier.). Le have attached a copy of our 2/3/83 pleeding elong with a copy of Mr. Messerly's affidavit (along witn a duplicate ccey so that you car, retain one for ycur files ar.d send ent to ths proper MK officiai). As ca n bt seen fro- l'r. Messerly's affidavit, his primar concerns wcrc thc nullinc Q of a 31-in n n=ir e c =- lir= .. inn 9 - n ise cranc_.ang M _f.L or 10.to fo'ce it into positien, and the use of reber meet rnder orde rs ,.f rc:- g. supericrs to cria torouch concr ete and rebar wi thout_thE._D. roper documenta *. 11on anc autnorization by enrineering. As stated in his affidavit, Mr. Messersy Eept sort of a ciary wiUi Ebout a year-and-a-half of docu entation about what percent was cut out of the rebar, when it was done, the date, etc. It is tne documentation which is our primary concern at the moment. Accord-ing to Mr. Messerly, the utility company officials have tried to get the docunentation from him. However, he felt that he should retain the docu-mentatior, until he was contacted by the MRC investigators regarding his co ncerns . We had made it plain that we wauld be requesting to have Mr. Messerly appear as a CASE witness in the upcoming. operating license hear-ings (see p. 4 of CASE's 2/3/E3 Supplement), and. copies were sent to the several NRC individuals listed on the service list of our 2/3/83 pleading (including the Regional Administrator of NRC's Region I\' office). CASE's 6 -13 rm _
m._. . - - - variou: pleacing. were 5truct by 14 Ecarc cr. Marcr. 1. 1 M3. It was not until af ter CEE had filed its 3/2?/E3'Mctio to' Allow Wi tnesses .. Regardinc NR:'s Jr.vestigation of Allegations of Wnistleolowers (copies also attached) that Mr. Me:serly we contacted by tne NR investigators regarding
. his concerns. In our 3/29/83 pleading. CASE stated tnat Mr. Messerly "Is i
e>.pected to testify regarding his 2/3/83 Affidavit (attacned to Supplement j to CASE's Motion for Protective Orders for Roy Combs, i. ester Smith, and 'i Freddy Ray Harrell -- striken ty board's MemoranduT. and Order of March 1, 19S3), and the fact that. altneugt tne concern:. exoressed in that Affidavit I were very serious and although the iGC Region Pi office and otner NRC il representatives received copies of it, he was never ccr.tactec Dy thE IEC regarding i t. } j I was contacted by Mr. Messerly b,s chone on Wecnesday, April 6; he stated that he had been contacted by '% Fegion Pi inve .tigator Brooks Griffin, who sought tc set up a meetir.; bet.seen the !E: and Mr. esserly for the next day, April 7. at 2:00 P.M. Mr. Messerly asked i' I woulc acco73any
, him to his meeting witr. the ta . Le some stranos coincidence, CASE had been contacted on Tuesday, Acril 5, regarcing a conf erence call with thE 1.icensing Board ar.d all parties fo" April 7 beginning at 1:30 P.M.. which J happened to be toe sa e cay and almost tne same time which was suggested , by the NRC investigator for Fr. Messerly to meet with the NRC investigator.
- Mr. Messerly contacted the NRC and postponed the mettie.; till Friday, Aoril E, at 2:0C 0.F.. f.c had so +toin; ein he r.eece: .: co on Tnursday and also wanted De to acccr1pany hir .
O . Friday af tt rnoon,
- Dril E, at 10 r.**,w,
. te ba .; ry anc 1 met M . Messerly at the agreed-upa:. r s:ing s;.ct, Nr.ng. ': -. taurant in fort Ucrth. We werc .ioinec :nortly the<eafter tg R ' M-pie li ir.vertigator Ercots Griffir. ar.d the hcad of the *M Region "i inver gators, Richard Herr. According to Mr. Messerly, a;, the two investicators were being seated, Mr. Herr said ir; an aside to Mr. Brooks sor,ett ir.; about "we won't be able to do w".at te had wanted te and riodded toward rie and ny tape re-corder which was s ittin; or, the table. Mr. Mest,crly r.entioned this to Mr. Brooks and this is part of the tape recordin;. Mr . Griffin and Mr.
herr both indicated tsa iney did not wart ic tall tr e:- at all with us and tne tape s ec:rder t' ere witno.c tq(ir r:v.np a tapt recorder or a stenographer there 6150. It w u ag-ted t%$.. twy wo ic contact M Messerly for a meeting early tw revt weet and i m o , r:.:s t and S n: 1 (and our taoe recorder) couic ai!.c attend. N . After the aborted meeting, we discussed what had hapoened with Mr. Messerly. Us all felt tnat, under the circurciances, we woulc prefer to send the docu-mentation direct to the NRC in Washington rather inan turn it over directly to the NRC Region P,' investigators. There is a meeting scheduled again with th'e NRC investigators for tomorrow, April 14, at 2:00 P.M. It is our intention to give them a cony of inis letter. including a copy of Mr. Messerly's docu-mentation which is attached hereto, and for Mr. Messerly to talk with them candidly about his concerns. We all feel och better having sent this on tc you as well. We appreciate your assistance. .
. , , p m .-%-
-_____s-- _.-._--_l__.._
. L.
I r e r u - -
.= " ". . 9 'im '+. f0 v el .. w. a n . el .i t ta r). i r.;
t e- An . ' : !a il i ri?ia:'., Jr . Mr. Dillingham
- a. e-iginal attivas1* ..!
ha: contacted CASE last Decem:mr an.' we ned taler. ar. affidavit from him at that time. hwve - w v ce una51r to aet bact in touch witt hir M Nin- tr.e a fi idavi t a d + a ls ware 'no M at at a ) css e' te wnat t o do wi tt. tn e a f f i ca vit. ht was concerned about his personal saf ety and we were unable to reach bir. and had to wait for him to get back in toa:h with ut. He aid contact u; again on March 31, and we incoroorated tne information from his original affidavit and included some additional ! informatior, which he supplied tc us into another affidavit. lt is this affidavit whien is attachec. It was Mr. Dillingham to who . CASE referred ir. our 2/21/E3 Motions to: (1) Respond to Applicants' Charges of Misconcutt b.. CASE; (2) Strike Applicants' Feoruary 8,19S3 Answer to CASE Motion (and Supplenent) for Protective Orders; and (3) Inpose Sanctions Against Arolicants , on page 3E, first full paragraph. (See copies attacned. Dar 2/2i/E3 Motior.s and Aopiicants' 2/8/83 Answer were part of tne items stricken by tne Eoard ir, its arch 1 Order.) CASE and Mr. Dillingham had reasor.able assurance that tne NEC was aware of the 1/7/83 news-papar article regarding his allegations, and that they would inve tigate the specific con: erns mentioned tnerein. This has now been verified. c.nd we are attaching a cop
- of the fd?'s invattiostion r?oart 50-445/E3-D? :' 146/E3-01, which include; the NP.C's investigation of tnose allegations.
Mr. Cilling.aT.'s concern! inciuce: reiected aggregate was r.ixed with concrete that was subsecuently poured ic form the base for the nu: lear reactor; he was prevented fr:c cleanin; cut drill shavings f ro undtraster iampposts (for the L:.cis surreu idin; ine rea: .cm a rr: that these ;hasings coulc be washed into the reactor during refuelir.; and coule jar tne fuei cells an: couic ever. f use to the control rod? . and tne practice of crillin; holes nreugn steel-reinforce concrete retaining walls at Co.anche Peal, theret. Dossibly weakenin; the walls. (Tnis is the same concern expressed by Mr. Messerly regarding the use of recar eaters.) CASE is con:erned regardin; ont particular s tatemen; cade in tne nr. 's ISE D=9 ret F1 62 m's 61 regardir.g thi allegations by Mr. ' illi r.; .2- (;. ages 9-12T. Eegarding other iter- t.t.ica " . Dillingha reported in thc uti'.i ty , tne report sta es (page 11. fir:t full parturaph):
: Esgion Pi aitcr.dnb tr:2- Ene cilegations in the ne.ts article should te investigated tst that thost made in the feehan letter and .
in tne telephone conversation with TUG;0 should not. This decision was based on the premise tnat Mr. Dillingnan has had his earlier concerns satisfied except for those appearing ir, the article." However, there is no indication that any attempt was made by the NRC to contact Mr. Dillingham te verify that he was indeed satisfied by the utility's handling of his allegations or that there were no other concerns which he had regarding Comanche Feat.. CASE believes that these additional concerns which the utility addressed should also be investigated by the NRC to be certain that they have been adequately dealt with. . After he contacted us again, CASE discussed with Mr. Dillingham the need for him to turn his concerns over to the NDC. He agreed to allow us to
.- t_o sent thc affidavit to voa tr. turn ov9r to the nroper NPr official it. Washingtor, for investigation. ine ette:nec of fidavit do: riot pu port to be all of the concerns which Mr. Oillinghat has regarding Comanene Peal; they are the ones which he was able to tnint of the day he prepared the affidavit.
As we have indicated previously, we are very much concerned about the manner in which NRC Recior, IV's investicatort have conducted their investigations and the attitude of whistleblowers and potential whistlebiowers regarding a the regional office. Many of the individuals te wno CASE has spokei simply do not trust the regional office to adequately investigate their alle9ations and concerns. Tne comment made by Mr. Herr in Mr. Griffin withir. Mr. Messerly's hearing, honever innocent the comment may have been, did nothine to re-inspire the cor.fidence of Mr. Messerly or CASE. Again, thanks very mach for your assistance ir. this matter. Si nce rely, CASE (CITIZENS ASSOCI ATION FDF. 50'JND ENERGY)
,/,,m. met _ NN g'414rs.) Juanita Ellis
, President cc: Mr. Ric5ard Herr /Broots Griffin - hand delivered 4/14/83
- er attacne: for N;;. i Est i r.gter.
Attachmer. s P. 5. It shoulc be noted that not all of the items on tne attached listin: ' were it, ;r.e category of unappreved by engineerir.g. This is simply a listinc of the re:ar c-illing done or. the days indicate:. Else. i cses r.et pu-oc-t to be a 03 riete listir.; of all the rebar criliir.r Jtic~. wss r cor.e, but is rather c.ls thost dE v- cr. which M . Messerly was able tc Leep 2 recorc.
'* je o
e
+ ~ + - . - -
+es
+-}}