Text

Requests Review of Encl Ofc of Investigations Rept 2-83-038 & Excerpts from ASLB Action (ASLBP 81-463-0601) to Identify Potential Areas of Enforcement Action Re Welding Concerns at Facility.Evaluation Requested by 840822
	ML20136F179
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	08/14/1984
From:	Nejfelt G; NRC
To:	Robert Lewis, Olshinski J; NRC
Shared Package
ML20136F117	List: ML20136F112; ML20136F146; ML20136F179; ML20136F199; ML20136F221; ML20136F365; ML20136F378;
References
	FOIA-85-584 81-463-06O1, 81-463-6O1, NUDOCS 8511220055
	Download: ML20136F179 (32)
	v • d • e

m a _<.; m. - -. - - p- -

- - - - + ~ ~ = -

m u,_ _

s

.:4 j W' AUG 14 884

'[

-l-rdw[]a r-c. -

Memorandum for:

Richard C. Lewis, Director, DRP John A. Olshinski, Director, DRS

. V From:

Gregory M. Nejfelt, Enforcement Specialist, EICS g

Subject:

Catawba Welding Concerns

/)

Pleas

' rect ASLB actI~on, your staff to review OI Report #2-83-038 and the excerpts from

~

ASLBP #81-463-060L dated 06/22/84, provided in the enclosure, to identify potential areas of enforcement action regarding the welding concerns at Catawba (i.e., DPC Welding Inspector discrimination by DPC). Also, an evaluation of the corrective actions taken by DPC concerning the issues addressed in the 01 and ASLB reports is needed.

The staff review and evaluation is requested-to be-forwarded to G.M. Nejfelt (ext. 4192) no later than the close of business g August 22,1984 (pdnesday).

The confidential OI report can be signed out from B. Uryc (ext. 4193).

AA.W' G.M. Nejfel

Enclosure:

Excerpts from ASLB Action, ASLBP #dl-463-060L dated 06/22/84 cc w/o encl:

B. Jones, Regional Counsel J.M. Puckett, Director (Acting), EICS 8511220055 851104 PDR FOIA CARR85-584 PDR j

.a,.

=a

~.,...

a.

,n._

U T

gg

,JL- [

- 141 -

cQg... Ahl3P d F'-%3-a

,f rei. fd La/CADh-M Except for the Ross case discussed below, the Board ds no substantial evidence that Mr.

Davison actually did retaliate against welding inspectors for expressing their concerns.

Although, his cc:rrunications skills with inspectors were somewhat lacking, Mr. Davison played a role in identifying concerns and problems to too managert and in proposing corrective actions.

Having observed and liste ed to *'r. Davi s ce. for mary cays in the witness stano, he impressee tae e.m n es a sof t-spo en n.an of few words, with a lcw-key, ever s:.e.+:t tacit r, r 2..ner.

Mcse attributes may hr.'e centritetec -- hu ::-

':: 4:- c4 f-4:;i:4 er wita the welding inspectors who coulo nave pic. urea Dr.vison as unapproachable.

9.

Retaliation for Bringing Conceres tn the NDC.

An issue r sed by Mr.

olan Hoopingarner (see ;;.

'. ~ 5 - 19 9, belce) and

...e welding s

inspectors whether inspectors and other enployee were discouraged from or retaliat against for taking their. concerns to the NRC, particularly the NRC

'sident inspector.-

This issue was not one submitted to the three ta forces reviewing inspector concerns (Zwissler,Tr. 3589-90; McMeekens,

. 3590; C. N. Alexander, Tr. 3591).

The Board accepts the Staff's'descripti of the facts relt:...; :: tre c

several instances below.

See Staff PFFs 247, 46 and most of 249.

10. Mr. Burr, a welding inspector, raised th issue "of retalia-tion for going to the NRC in an interview with Ms. Gail Addis, a corporate personnel officer, during the second step of the p recourse proceeding.

C. N. Alexander, Tr. 3567-69; Applic. Exh. 8, Addis, Tab 3 (12/3/81 memo from Addis to Owen).

It was not pursued by the task t

.n,

t

.Y 5

1

- 146 -

1 activities," without defining what they are.

In our view, the fRC should promptly develop the appropriate policies on these matters and o

set them forth in a plain English notice for posting it all reactor sites.

Until such steps are taken, it should come as no surprise if individual licensee policies are ambiguous and employees are left in the dark..

17.

The Scard ceduc2s from the evicence as a whole that tne kplicantsfeltancomfortablewithccr.plaintsbeingmadedirectlytothe f;RC and with the impact ccmplaints right have en licensing proceedings, such as this one.

While the Applics'nts urged employees to bring problems to its management, we find no attempt to punish inspectors for going directly to NP.C.

The record shows that some inspectors contacted NRC freely (Staff Ex. 7, Van Doorn, pp. 8, 11, 12,13; Staff Ex. 6, Maxwell, p. 6; Bryant, Tr. 9491-93).

Gene ally, the testimony reflected fe an understanding that employees could contact NRC without retribution, Perceptions to the contrary seem to have been the result of ambiguous messages from the NRC and Duke management and of misapprehension by the inspector.

18.

Retaliation for Stric: 'nspections.

The Boarc heard several incidents where inspectors interpreted instructions to mean " ease off" or " slack up" on inspections.

We inquired into these matters to detennine if there was pressure from management to overlook violations.

Willia urr, a welding s

tor, related a di sion with his sup rvis r, Stani Ledford, in which Mr. Burr nterpre d Mr.

Ledford's remarks to mean e advancement wo ld b limited if h (b

_._ g,,

m s

O t

- 150 -

Technical Task Force Report (See 'i B98 re 01 procedure and B125 re R2 procedure).

r. G. E. ("3 eau") Ross, 25.

Discrimination Acainst " Beau" Ross.

a first line supervisor, claimed he was given a low performance rating by his supervisor, Mr. Arthur Allum because of his role in excression of weTdir.g inspector concerns ( Ap,-

Ex. 3d, F:ss, Att. B).

'e filee IM' ar.c *a 13, 19ei.

recourst pr:cedures on Apr-1 la, 26.

Mr. Ross' initial co.m;: lair.: reads:

! feel that : have bet,

".: -- -- 2: a-=ir:-

7 ;c:

+ ' /.i e v G e. ' r.

-#1 perfo mance ano n'ost rece < >

that Art Allum is prejudicec aga%s: ne bscruse I have en several occasions socken up ahen I felt the prograr..as r.o:

being followed.

Art is ir.clined to go along with some questionable situations and when I question the legality of these situations, I get branded es not de%g, my 45.

I thought that was part of my jeb.

I clso have on numerous occasions told Art that I dic di he [was) suppcrting me on issues where I should be supoorted.

Art holds this against me.

I have questioned some construction practices, on several questionable cases, Art calls this not communicating with craft.

I have found inspectors not properly doing their duties, Art blames c'e for entraprent.

I get deliberate 13 left out of some major cecisions wnien coulc affect my M ilty to properly cover my area and provide inspection ccverage.

I ask questions and don't get answers.

I felt last year that I was retaliated against en ny evaluation.

I felt that I was being punished for ste-die-for what I felt was right.

With God as my witr.ss;,

submitted nothin m what i morally felt was wrong.

I felt that my evaluation 'as pay back because I was not a yes man.

I askeu Art 3.

possible recourse, but ~got no answer from him.

Numerous occasiens arose during the year when I felt intimidated, opposed, and interfered with.

Things had improved a great deal; communications were better, infortnation was being given to explain decisions, I had just about regained confidence in the system when my evaluation came along and let me know in no uncertain terms that I had misjudged...."

_I.d_.

M

--....n--,

-.x.-

r % %._

u

- 151 -

27. The Board adopts the Staff's descriptio. of the record in its PFFs 229-E42. as follows:

"Mr. Ross believed his " fair" ratir. was the result of.questionir.g decisions by Mr. Allum on precedural viclaticr..

In Ross' second memo, he notes that in 7 of 9 years as a supervisor he had received "com etent" or better ratings, but after the inspector conceros were subr.itted he got two ccrsecutive " bad" ra t i r.g s.

He stater:

"This teils e retalia tio<,, reyeec, a~3 o i sc rirr.i na t i on.

3 See als:. Rcss, Tr. 59??-7000."

22.

"'ha otss ac::saticn of re eii?:ir-inveifes c::

eaiy Mr. Allum, but riso Mr. Davisen.

Mr. Rcss stateo that Mr. Aliun agreed that Mr. Ross' prior rating for 1981-1982, apparently by L. Davison --

in which Mr. Allum played only a minor role -- was retaliatory.

Ross, Tr. 6776, 7058.

Ross also stated that Mr. Davison had downgraded a "4"

- or superior rating by Mr. Baldwin in 1980 to a "3 " or competent one.

Ross, Tr. 6996-97.

Mr. Ross believed Mr. Davison was the source of Mr.

Allum's prejuoice against him.

Ross, Tr. 7000."

29.

"The focus of cross-examination in this regard was on Mr. Ross' 1982-1983 rating, as documented in Palmetto Exhs. 36. 50, and 51.

It is difficult to read Mr. Allum's February 13, 1983 evaluation of Mr. Ross (Accountability Summary a n'd Apprai sal ),

Palmetto Exh.

50, or his Personal Performance Plan Worksheet, Palmetto Exh. 51, and get a clear idea of why Mr. Ross was rated low.

A descriptive statement at the end gives some clues:

i Beau's performance in the first seven months of his evaluation j

period were less than satisfactory.

During that period he showed lack of support of management decisions.

This was illustrated by

[6

x..

.,.._. - e_._4

..._ss

.. a...

m s

o y

- 152 -

his failure to accept the explanation given to hin on recertification of welding inspecters in fit PT and his dissatisfaction expressed concerning the interpretation given by CA Te'hnical Services. concerning the procer use of P-2As and Q-1As.

c Commun'ications between Beau, his crew, and craft and Techr.ical Support personnel has improved over the last annual evaluation but is in need of much improvement.

Thi_s was caused in part by his using aaether inspector to investigate problems on concerns of craft rather than J ing it himself...."

Palnet.to Eyb. 50.

Similar statemen*.s are made in an interin evaluation mace approxir ately Seve-oer 1, ise2.

Palmetto Ex..io.

20.

".v.r. Allu-testified that the key factors ir the lew evale W on were:

Mr. Rcss' ure. illir.gness to resolve p cblems wie cra#t anc edt supervision on a first hand basis but rather to do 50 oy senoing inspectors, Allum, Tr. 4522-4, and his unwillingness to give his crew answers to questions which they did not want to hear.

Instead he was said to refer the inspectors to others, such as fir. Allum.

Allum, Tr.

4536-7. Mr. Ross was also said to have mischaracterized the source of a decision not to nonconform a downhill weld (Concern D-23 of Mr. Bryant),

saying tnat it was Mr. Baiawin's idea to remove the weld and correct it by rewelding, rather than "NCI it."

Baldwin, Tr 4539.

According to Mr. Baldwin, this had been Mr. Ross' idea. id.

(Mr. Ross noted that he never stopped an NCI from going forward, even if he disapproved.

Rcss, Tr. 6960.)"

31.

"Mr.

Allum also rated Mr.

Ross low for challenging his explanation for why the inspectors were getting NDE instruction.

Mr. Ross would not accept Mr. Allum's statement that it was not in order to send them back to the Cherokee cons truction site.

Allum, Tr.

4497-4500.

Mr. Allum had other complaints:

Mr. Ross challenged use of I f

- % q.%s it

- 153 -

the R-2A, as taking away authority from inspectors (Allum, Tr. 45:4, 4517); Mr. Ross shouted at :4r. Allen in the presence of Mr. Baldwin ard two OC engineers (Allum, Tr. 4515,4519); Mr. Ross misrepresented to his crew what Mr. Allum told Mr. Ross -- giving as an example, Mr. Ross tellir.g a crew member management turned down a requested transfer, when

r.' Aoss said ha could not afford to lote the inspector 3rce his crea.

Allum, Tr. 44",3-4435.

This last basis for the " fair" ra-ir.g was re ccrru.icatec to Mr. Ross.

Allum, Tr. 4496."

32.

"In resoonse, i*r. Ross e/olained tha. he initially objected tc use of the R-2A because the crocess control sheet had not been changed, ard directed that the Q-1A, not the R-2A, be used to dccument corrective actions.

Ross, Tr. 6952.

He also noted Mr. Allum had never told him before Mr. Grier did on April 27, 1983 that he was supporting his men more than management.

Ross, Tr. 6798.

In addition, he was told by Mr. Allum that construction technical support was doing R-2A reviews; but they were not.

Ross, Tr. 6753.

M~r. Ross said that Mr. Allum was not a good comunicator.25 Ross, Tr. 6775.26, 5

"This assertion was supported by Mr. Rockholt, based on his experiences with Mr. Allum. On June 9, 1983, Mr. Rockholt complained to Barbara Horne, Employee Relations Assistant for the QA Department, that during a recent Employee Forum (one of the "comunications" facilitators implemented as a result of the task forces) Mr. Allum acted disparagingly toward Mr. Rockholt, and, generally, was prejudiced against Beau Ross' Crew.

Palmetto Exh.

87.

In another similar matter, Mr. Allum reacted disparagingly when, on July 15, 1983, Mr. Rockholt asked Mr. Allum why welding inspectors had no electric fans, whereas NDE inspectors did.

(Footnote Continued)

Is

~.-

n.

\\

t

- 154 -

33.

"Mr.

Ross' fair rating was, in

part, a

facet of the corrunications problers which evolved fren dif'ering approaches to use of the QA p'rocedures to ide'ntify and occument construction deficiencies, and continuing mistrust between Mr. Ross and his crew on the one hand, and middle manage-ent, on the other.

Mr. Allum's reasons focused on Mr. Rcss' failures at cer:.ur.i ca ti er.s.

Mc.eeter, the Accour.tability Su r.ary and Appraisal ( ASSA) for ".r.

Ross c:es r.ct provice for giving a great deal of weight to Mr. Allun's reasons for rating i'r. Ross low."

N.

"As we read the AS&A, there ere thrse cate;scies v.tich accear to have a relationship to the orcblems which !!r. Allum idertified as the source of Mr. poss' low rating:

" Interface:

Proper comunications with other groups and departments," " Carry cut respcnsibilities of QA and Construction Department QA Procedures,"

and

" Resolving technical problems concerning quality."

In each of these areas. Mr. Ross was rated "2,"

with a

weight of "3."

The descriptions of his

" Accomplishments /Coments" in these areas are not e. specially strong.

i (Footnote Continued)

According to Mr. Rockholt, Mr. Allum then replied, "NDE inspectors get fans because they work."

Palmetto Exh. 88.

Both incidents suggest that Mr. IlTum was not on good tenns with the welding inspectors.

(After June, 1983, Mr. Allum was no longer second-line supervisor over any visual inspectors.) Applic. Exh. 21, Allum, p.

3; Palmetto Exh. 87."

The Board adds that based on its i

observations of Mr. Allum as a witness, his comunications skills are not well developed.

26 Mr. Ross' recourses to Mr. Willis and Mr. Davison were both denied.

Palmetto Exh. 53; 35.

See also, Applic. Exh. 34, Ross, Attachment B.

1 l

W

m 5

e

- 155 -

However, even if these ratings were proper, it would appear that Mr. Allum did not properly use the last accountatsility area, which is reserved for areas "outside the Principal Accountabilities" (emphasis added), when he cited therein problems which occurred in the three other accountability areas noted above to support his rating.

(Mr. Allum rated tir. Ross a "1" in this emnibus area, which had a weicht of "3."

A ca c*reesii eetiaa rating cf "3" in that category w:uld he' e resch:ec ia of "2.48," or very close to the "ccapater.t" rar.ge cf "2.5 t 2.4."

Palmetto Exh. 50.)"

35.

"To illustrate the poir.t. under " carry out responsibilities of 0A and Construction Department 0A Procedures" reference is made to

" identification of items requiring Q-1As and R-2As " an crea also referenced in the category as having been "outside" a principal accountability.

We note the same double consideration in the "outside" category and the " Resolving technical problems concerning quality" category, with respect to answering questions nimself.

Palmetto Exn.

50."

y 36.

"Two other internal inconsistencies bother us.

First, Mr. Ross C appears to have been " whip-sawed" by the early interim evaluation which g

rated him low for trying to answer a question he should have referred to supervision, and then in the AS&A, rating him low for not answering questions he cou?d have answered himself.

Palmetto Exhs. 36, 50. While it is possible that the two references are not inconsistent, that is, they refer to different types of questions, we would not fault Mr. Ross for being confused by these evaluations."

IJ

.~

~c

,. ~ ~.

-s

- 156 -

37.

"The Board also questions whether faulting Mr.

Ross for allowing an inspector to pursue his cwn disagreer.ents through

/J supervision is inconsistent with informal employee recourse ar.d with the more open access to QA personnel indicated by elimination of the

" technical review" block in the new 0-1A.

Similarly, it is inconsistent tc crcue that Mr.

Ross is at fault bcth for not cursuing his disag eements. tuity tnroupa cnennets, eco also fav i ?.ing nici or not sup;crting managemer.t de:i s i cr.s.

See, A:;1icaats' circiags,

223; Palme::: Er.h. 50."

S.-

38.

"The Board is alw troubled by the apparent intentional failure of Mr. Allum to comunicate, for three months, the November 1982 interim evaluation which stated that without improvement, Mr. Ross might not be continued as a supervisor.

Palmetto Exh. 36.

Allum, Tr. 4579, 4589-90; See also, Allum, Tr. 4574-5, 8; Davison, Tr. 3939-40; 3951.- Mr. Davison conceded that this delay was contrary to Duke policy.

Davison, Tr.

4583-4."

39.

"More to the point, Mr. Davison notes that "a large contributor to Beau's feelings of being treated unfairly resul ted from lack of specific, clear standards for Beau's performance and the lack of fonnal review sessions to go over Beau's perfonnance."

Palmetto Exh. 35.

The Board views these failures in the evaluation to have resulted in unfairness, not merely contributing to Mr. Ross' feelings of unfairness.

The lack of clarity left Mr. Ross without sufficient notice of the basis upon which he would be rated.

Mr. Davison seems to perceive this as well, but suggests only prospective action to correct this.

Id."

-1 Ir

.__.-.._s

,..~..-..-&.,.m_..._.

I

- 157 -

40.

"Another consideration is the testimony of other witnesses j

~

about Mr. Ross.

Even discounting a "we" versus "them attitude bet.<een the crew and supervision, the Board asked nearly all of the weldi g n

inspector and supervisor witnesses their opinion of Mr. Ross.

None gave him a rating lower than "4."

See, Sifford, Tr. 9150; Ledford, Tr. 9108; Crisp, Tr. E415-5; Bryant, Tr. 60:4 6016, 6027. 6029, 603C.

It r.a v also e notee tnat corn Mr.

wiiiis, ano w.

m '. u.s, a,e oc s ci.s.e i-su:ervisir.; Mr. Ecss and his creci.

Oa;ison, Tr. 2257."

41.

The Soaro t ak.e s ecte c# otcer circurstances wnich ce^v';e U

background for our evaluation of tnis matter.

In 1981, Mr. Davison sent a confidential memo to Mr. Wells, then corporate quality assurance manager, about the welding inspector concerns.

Part of the proposed solution was to transfer Beau Ross and C. R. Baldwin (Palmetto Ex.13).

Baldwin was replaced by Mr. Allum, but Ross declined transfer.

This reinforces the conclusion that the subsequent low ratings of Ross, first by Davison and later by Allum (unoer Davison's s upe rv i s icr.'

were intended to discourage strict adherence to QA procedures by Ross and his crew.

42. When Mr. Ross declined transfer, it appears to the Board that an effort was made to build a case against Mr. Ross to justify future action to demote or fire.

The Board cannot avoid noting the difference in the record concerning the Ross evaluation case and the dispositions of harassment incidents involving craft foremen, e.g., Mr. Mullinax and i

Mr. McKenzie (discussed below at pp. 165-170, 173-175).

In the latter cases, the foremen were made to understand they might be fired, but no l

te

,. ~,.

m._.,

.158 -

record was made.

In Ross' case, an extensive record was made that could be a basis for firing, but Mr. Ross was not dealt with completely cpenly.

43.

George Grier, who succeeded Mr. Wells as corporate quality assurance manager, wrote a lengthy confidential memorandum to the file about, a meeting he had with Mr. Ross while Ross' recourse on his rating was penoing.

The menoranoum re60 in part as follows Galmetto Ex. 33 ', :

The last area I discussed was in regards to the hearings.

I explained to Beau that one of our big tasks would be to put the ccacerr.s expresseo by welding inspectors into persoective.

The interver. ors will be characteri::ing these concerns in the worst possible light. We need tc be clear on the significance of those concerns and in particular will have to be clear on the meaning of terms like

" intimidation "

" threats,"

" falsification" and " pressure to approve faulty workmanship."

These a're words that are used in the concerns and could be used to describe very extreme circumstances.

The Board views the allusion to possible problems at a hearing in connection with Mr. Grier's counselling Mr. Ross about his performance as improper.

Although Mr. Grier denied any improper intent (Tr. 3884),

the Board thinks a reasonable person probably would interpret these comments as an attempt to influence future testimony in this proceeding.

M.

Easec en our review of the testimony and exhibits, the setting in which events occurred, and the credibility of the witnesses, the Board finds that the 1981-1982 evaluation, the November 1982 interim evaluation, and the 1982-83 evaluation of Mr. Ross, all at the " fair" or "2" level, were unfair and in retaliation for Mr. Ross' and his crew's

(:

c

- 159 -

strict adherence to DA proceoures and expression of safety conceens.27 The persons directly responsible for the discriminatory evaluations of Ross were Mr. Davison, Mr.. Allum -(as to the interid and 1982-1983 Mr.

evaluations), and Mr. Grier (as to the 1982-1983 evaluation, which he should have overrruled).

Mr. Grier and Mr. Davison occupy senior level superv.isory pcsitions.

Therefore, these actions are fully attributable to the Duke Power (cepany.

~

45.

In retrospect, Duke wculd have been wise to listen tc "r. : ss and the com.olaints of his crew of weldir; insrectors as they develooed long prior to the Task Force Reviews.

Insteao, the comoany chose to let the problem fester and ultimately to accuse Mr.

Ross of being unsupportive of management and acting inappropriately in ouestioning management decisions.

Duke corporate management has chosen to l

27 Palmetto asxs us to find the Ross evaluations to be violations of 10 C.F.R. 50, apparently meaning 10 C.F.R. 50.7.

PFF 254 That provision prohibits discrimination against an employee for engaging in certain " protected activities," as defined in section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 fince there is no clear l

evidence in the record indicating that Mr. Ross himself voiceo concerns to the NRC prior to the evaluation in question, we find no violation of 10 C.F.R. 50.7.

But see Ross, Tr. 6777.

However, the evaluations did constitute discrimination against Mr. Ross on account of his voicing safety concerns. They therefore violated the spirit of section 50.7, if not its letter.

In any event, a retaliatory job evaluation against an employee for raising safety concerns is inconsistent with the thrust of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B and the " reasonable assurance" determinations that must be made under 10 C.F.R. 50.57(a)(3) and the Callaway decision discussed at-p. 20, above. Presumably, a pattern of such evaluations, not shown here, could preclude the necessary determinations and result in denial of an operating license.

[i

.-~...a..-.-

, ~ ~ - --

e

-- 160 -

characterize the problems that surfaced as "ccarunicatiors problems."

E.g., prefiled testimony of Owen, p. 16; Alexar.ce r, p.

5.

The primary responsibility for such problems rests with management; the' changes made later to resolve such problems were not within Mr. Ross' authority or responsibility to change.

Mr. Ross appeared to the Board to have been a dedicated enployee, just trying to do his job.

46.

We aoopt portions of tne staff's FFF s 243 ano 24, as indicated.

. The Ocard finds that. applicants' treatnent o' Mr. Dess was inconsister.t with tneir programa tic resoonses to the welding inspector concerns and inconsistent with effective imolementation of their quality assurance program."

Notwithstanding these observations, the evidence does not suoport a finding that Mr. Ross' perfortnance of his work was negatively affected by the toll of these events en him.

Mr. Ross himself stated that the inspection process was not compromised.

Ross, Tr. 6965; Applic. Exh. 34, pp. 6, 7, 9.

See also Palm. Exs. 63-71.

j

.__.~

,.3.I'*

165 -

The Boar ctes that a violation was written, P ocr.es was ccunseled, l

ar.d the CA depar6 nt cid stand behir ts inscs.ctor:

Tht,s the 5: arc cann'ot support' Intervenor iticism of the har.dling of thi.s ca:e. but the Board does nationcur with Applic that it was inconsequential.

On bala hovieve r, the Scard thinks this 1

at was handled

,, repru*ely.

S.

Tae dec sca

'*Caan? a incictat.

Sectufe :

te'9 C0mDI N ' ?.y O*

4 thi s ir. cider.t. t'.s ~; arc ad::ts the A;clica':ts' *a:tual history in 'ts

re: csed 'indi ;s 2Ef-Ei2 (as zur fi ciacs 9-15', :4 ce it is occurate (with one exception we note), gi es the necessary oetaii, and is still v

concise.

9.

"This incident began on November 11, 1981_ in the R85 area adjacent to the reactor pressure vessel.

(Tr.

8821-22, Jackson 11/30/83.)

Welding inspector Larry S. Jackson (Jackson) was walking across a platform toward a location where he was to make a weld verification when he saw about ten feet below him pipe fitter Fox grinding on a two-inch diameter stainless steel pipe.

Jackson perceived that the grinding disk being used by Fox was not marked with red paint as prescribed by Construction Procedure 170 (CP-170).

Saying nothing, Jackson walked down to Fox's work a rea to examine the disk.

(Tr.

8823-25, Jackson 11/30/83.)"

10.

"At Jackson's request, Fox handed the disk to him, whereupon Jackson saw two red ' Magic Marker' marks on the paper on the backside of l

the disk.

(Tr. 8828, 8901, Jackson 11/30/83.)

By Jackson's account, l

while he was descending to the work area, Fox, having noticed Jackson's i

l' t

,,n,%.

= _ _ -. -

- 166 -

presence, took the grinder to his tool box where he placed the two red j

marks on the disk.",

Qd.)

Since Jackson believed he wouic, have seen the red marks had they been on the disk.at the time he 'first' 'obser'ved the work in progress from the platforn, he decided to initiate an NCI for violation of CP-170.

(Tr. 8828, 8834, 8903, Jackson 11/30/83.)"

1*,

"The type of cisk i Wolved is an abrasSa d eal Free i ::hes ir di:r: cr 3r.:- :s used 0r griactag ta prep m *'ea af p'pe 'otats r e.r 4

we '. c i r g.

Cr. 5E69. Dick 11/:/03.}

3r.dard :rc:edure a: Cata..ta. 2 tr ark tha disks used to grird st:ir'.21s steel Oi;e wi*..

rs:

s.- :;-

caint to distinguish them frem disks used to grind certen steel "ipe.

(Tr. 8755-57, McKenzie 11/30/S3.)

The purpose of the marking procedure v.as to keep disks containing carbon steel fregreats 0" pecticles from being used interchangeably on stainless steel pipe.

(Tr. 8792, McKenzie 11/30/83; Tr. 5669-70, Dick 11/2/83.)

These disks are used up rapidly

'in a few minutes.'

(Tr. 8797, Me%.h, e 11/30/83. )"

12.

"Af ter examining the c p.,

.:kson left Fox's work area taking the disk with him.

(Tr. 8834, Jackson 11/30/83.)

Jackson then met Fox's supervisor, Edward J.

McKenzie (McKenzie), and discussed the matter.

(Tr. 8835, Jackson 11/30/83.)

At McKenzie's request, Jackson handed him the disk from his work pouch, whereupon McKenzie looked at it, comented on its red marks, and put it in his own shirt pocket.

20 Jackson testified that although he did not see Fox mark the disk, Fox must have done so while Jackson walked down to Fox's work area.

(Tr. 8828, Jackson 11/30/83)

W

o

- 167 -

(Tr. 8835-37, Jackson 11/30/83.) Jackson asked for it back but McKenzie refused.

By Jackson's account, he then ' reached into McKenzie's shirt pocket whe'reupon McKenzie stepped back, balled up his fist, and tcld Jackson that if he touched him again, he would knock his eyes out.

(M. )

By McKenzie's account, Jackson poked McKenzie repeatedly in the chest while demanding return of the disk and asserting that he was going te issue sa SCI report.

(Tr. 6766, 8611, McAenz:e 11/30/83.)

iotning further happened and Jackscn then left the work area.

(Tr. 8837, Jackson 11/3C/S3.)"

13.

"A short time later, McKenzie and Jackson together went to Jackson's supervisor, Charles _ Baldwin, who innediately reviewed the matter and concluded that the disk should have been marked with red spray paint.

(Tr. 8772, McKenzie 11/30/83.)

McKenzie then apologized to Jackson and the two men shook hands and returned to work.

(M. )

Later that day Jackson initiated an NCI report regarding the section of

(. Tr.

pipe on which Fox was working at the time the incident arose.

8845, Jackson 11/30/83.)"

14 "The next day, November 12, 1981, Jackson went to the RBS area tc place a red NCI tag on the section of pipe upon which Fox had been grinding the previous day.

{Tr. 8848-49, Jackson 11/30/83.)

According to Jackson, he asked Fox to point out that section of pipe, which Fox did, and Jackson tagged it.

(M. ) As it turned out, Jackson tagged the wrong section of pipe.

Shortly thereafter McKenzie approached Jackson, h

4 4

- 168 -

29 impolitely addressed him and informed him that he hed tagged the wrong

~

pipe.

(Tr. 8850. Jackson 11/3C/63.)

Jackson irc.eciately went to his supervisor and filed a formal harassmeht charge' against McKenric for verbally abusing him.

(Tr. 8853, 8855, Jackson 11/30/83.)

McKenzie went to see Charles Baldwin who sent a person to tag the correct section e' pipe.

(T. E778, McKenzie l'./30/E3.) The next day, Jackson, who had oeen 'on lean,' was returnec to his regular crew eno work aren.

ijp.;

Tr. 9072, 910C, Ledferd 12/1/83.)"

15.

"The 'inal outcoce o' this incicent *:as inat the N~i re art concerning the section of pipe was allowed to stand; however, the piping systen which included this section of pipe was later deleted (cut out) l and remved from the building for reasons totally unrelated to the incident.

(Tr. 6780-81, McKenzie 11/30/83; Tr. 8911, Jackson 11/30/83.)

According to McKenzie, this incident was the only time a violation occurred regarding an ' unmarked' grinding disk.

(Tr. 8791, McKenzie 11/30/83.)

McKenzie testified that he did not know of any occasion where an unmarked disk was partially used, marked, and then reused on a different type of type.

(Tr. 8812, McKenzie 11/30/83.)

McKenzie also testified that he collected all his crew members' red magic markers the l

l day after the Jackson incident.

(Tr. 8781-82, McKenzie 11/30/83.)"

29 The Applicants' characterization of what McKenzie said as an

" impolite address" is euphemistic.

See Tr. 8850.

t

- 169 -

16. The Applicants' review of.the case found that Jackson's actions in attempting to retrieve tnis disk contributed to the escalation of the confrontation and that there was no harassment.

. Dick, Tr. 52;5-25,-

5329.

However, McKenzie and Jackson were both counseled about unprofessional conduct and McKenzie was tol d not to use abusive language.

App. PTF 265.

Both

t Kenzie and his crew got a verbal reprir.and about ridiculing inspectors, Dick, Tr. 5329-34

c wnzie was told a repetition could jeesardiza his jot.

Cick, Tr. 5309.

17.

Interver.or scints cut that McKea:ie ec-ittee he ceser ec

+r.e reputation of being a

bully on the job.

Per.enzie, Tr.

8719.

Intervenors claim that McKenzie and his crew were perceived to have gotten off " scott free."

Palm. DFF. 221.

Intervenors claim this was a clear signal to inspectors that they could expect no support from management.

Palm. PFF 222.

The Staff agrees with the Applicants' resolution.

Staff PFF 270.

18.

The Board considerea the demeanor of witr.:..n. as well as their testimony. We disagree with Applicants and Staff. This is a case 4.

cf haras reet.

The Board is not persuaded that in attempting to retrieve the disk from McKenzie, Jackson violated his person to such an extent (if at all) as to excuse the subsequent threats and ridicule that occurred the following day.

After an agreement that an NCI would be issued, the actions of the crew and its foreman the following day, in the Board's view, were designed to intimidate, ridicule and denigrate the inspector.

W

=-_.,--

171 -

The problem was solved quickly by-the rer.cval of the individual.

In this ca we tnink the Applicart tock a re=serable ap rc The i

effect was abou e same as' firin'g, if not as forthri However, the' Board is concerned about e company's hesi y to fire the iron worker merely because the wrongful c -

occurred cffsite.

To be effective, a C A progrin cier.ct *. ers e of f s; = k.7-3(c9r-t.

' e have r3 dc' bt abcut the cor-autneri*y to c'!c'pae a~ r ; ^; ee s "r "" s i te acts 0:

harassment.

t"-*-

it;cs ':au; ?-

er ratrc !'cie 22.

The Cauthea for " walk-down" inspecticas ir. : e resc er euileias.

Taese are = finai inspection primarily for construction damage en previously inspected and approved syster.s about to be tested.

any deficiencies are noted on an M4-I form and could lead tc

^:: report. (Cauthen,Tr. 6508-11.)

Mr.

Cauthen was harassed by other welding inspectors whose prior inspections approved welds that Cauthen found to be substandard, particularly inspectors from Mr.

Ledforo's crew (Cautnen, Tr.

6511-12),

and especially Mr. Driscoll of that crew.

Cauthen, Tr. 6517-18.

The harassment took the form of " flak" and avoidance by fellow inspectors.

Cauthen, Tr. 6512. Mr. Driscoll cursed Mr. Cauthen ar.: ;...

.a: o r.a e him removed from the job.

Cauthen, Tr. 6518.

23.

Mr. Cauthen testified that he was told he was "looking a little too hard" for defects (Cauthen, Tr. 6451) and that he was only to look for construction damage.

Cauthen, Tr. 6450 and prefiled testimony, Attachment A.

He also said he did not stop looking hard (Cauthen, Tr.

80 O

. ~ ~

,,n.

'172 -

l 6451) and would centinue to note en an'Mc-I anything he fou".d.

Prefiled tes tir.r.ny. At ta:h. A.

2*,

i.;a r. age' ment 's fi rs't reactlor. ~ to crew cc;-41aints wLs to chance' the reinspection systert, sn that deficiencies noted by Mr. Cauthen would be referred to the original welding irsDect0r and his forenan for joirt reirc etticr.

C.= u t 5 er,

r.

H;2.

This urs a

seesit'e c.j e,

t;-

t

. I.'.f'? " 7.t s f. ' ' 1 v0 I"At *II ' i n i s re v a..-s. g 00 ?;!'ai!

!?"*1"u?c.

wcre /Eri'iIt.

Cluttt". T r.

E E '. f.

: ht-t ti t

. ter tre s ::grie-

. ' t? Or:sc:::, :a;;rs-

!r tea s#e~sc Oy Ar: L ' ' t:r (Cau ace,

Tr.

6519-20) anc was reelecec ty aa insrector in wnen Pr. Cautnen hac no conficerce.

Cauthen conceded he had written himself up for r;issing bad welds en a few occasions (Ceuthen, Tr. 65201, and that nnbody was perfect.

25.

This is a case of harassment of an inspector by other inspectors.

Craftsmen were not involved and there is no suggestion o' construction seneouling pressures.

Simply, the inspectors did not like another inspector finding fault with their work.

Transfer of Cauthen may have eased tensions and, consequently, have been seen as desirable in some ways by Cauthen ano management.

However, the Board considers this a case of harassment and that the management did not recognize and deal with it as such.

The Board is perplexed that anyone would suggest an inspector limit observations to only construction damage.

l Fortunately. Mr.

Cauthen was stubborn enough not to heed such a to modify its instructions senseless instruction.

Duke is gructed l

')

O

c-u =

-.a.

= - - - - - - - - - - - -, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

L n

i

- 173 -

1 and procedures, i f_._na ce s t ry, t e v ni ri any such understandinc, (cr misunderstandino, if that be the case).

38 y

~d 26.

The Harris Mullinax incident.

This incident involved a

~,

welding inspector, Lindsay Harris, and an ironworker crew and foreman, Tom Mullinax.

App. Ex. 34. Attachment A, p.

16. and Ex. 67, Harris attachpert, p. 1.

Mr. Harris found that a tack weld acclied in the fi:

up of an atelec. was not properly traneateo.

a+.ess, Tr. e W f,1 W.

.r. Harris tastified that he bad said ha..culd '.. 'te cut er TC* if the it;reperly preheated tack weld was c or. cut : t.

M eris, Tr.

Hn.

f According to Harris, foreman Mullinex threatenec to whic him (or knock l

his teeth out) if he did not leave his men alone.

Harris, Tr. 8968, 8985.30 The matter was referred by each man to his suoervisor and in a subsequent meeting of the parties relaticns were improved.

Harris, Tr.

I S958-69. Harris was satisfied the job was completed correctly.

Harris, l

l Tr. 8969.

In a separate meeting, and unkncwn at the time to Mr. Harris, Mr.

Wall, Joo Suoerintendent, oraily reprimanded Mr. Mullinax ard cautioned against any repetition.

(Mullinax, I.C. Tr. 1041, et seg, and App. Ex. 99, p. 3).

27.

The Applicant woulo have the Eoard find that the Harris-Mullinax incident " amounted to little more than a regrettable 30 There was some indication that the threat to Harris was an attempt by Mullinax to say that his crew, not he, would whip Mullinax.

Tr.

8983.

We find this distinction improbable and, even if based in fact, insignificant.

Y g

.m-._,-

174 -

verbal exchange" PFF 280.

The Intervenor decries the fact that the only actier taken was a ". are verbal re c rima r.c".

FFF 199.

The

.F.' Staff

' describes the incident as one that "on 'its face... scunds saricus". but then downplays it because Mr. Harris has no continuing concerns and there was no negative impact on Harris' ins ection.

The Staff suggests that My. Ha--is' 'ein concsen was that, te his knowledge. ne a:ticr. was tay.sr agairs: Mr. 'u!iinay in support at 6 r. -acris pr.si ion.

Aff 277.

t 23.

The scard 00 :;rs..ith the "t:

ks:#ar as fi ::n g tha'. "r.

Harris ccr.tiruec :: d: his intrectt:r. ;c: '- = way be 'arup.t are:er.

Also, werking r31stiers between Mr. Harris anc Pr. Muilinax and his crew were irroroved af terward.

The Board, however, cannot simply dismiss the matter as a "regeettable verbal exchange."

The incident was a serious case of harassment involving a threat of physical force to induce an inspector to be less rigid.

It makes little difference what part of the anatomy is to be struck and whether the force is to be applied by the foreman or someone unoer his control.

29.

We do not know if Palmetto is concerned that only a reprimand was given, or that it was only verbal, or both.

A reprimand indicating that repetition can result in termination seems a reasonable response to foreman Mullinax.

The Board does not understand, however, why the reprimand was not confirmed in writing, since future job security was purported to be involved.

Furthermore, failure of the Applicant to consnunicate information on the disposition of cases like this to the inspectors could only lead to an impression among them that they would not be supported in an effective way.

Thus, although the Applicants' g

na = =.--.

i 175 -

actions in this matter were in the right direction, the har.dling was so inent it could only hurt inspectors' r.c. rale.

I

(

30.

The Bryant Incidents.

The Board accept 3 the Staff's rEcitaticr.

of. events in their proposed findings, 278-280, as follows.

31.

"Insoector John Bryant raised three incidents of alleged l

l h?rass.e-::

one ' e.

w h i c.6-a vel eje r,

u.

Se a rd, threateaec to puse u.

B yar.: : ' - e s::"cid taey were s taaa'er en, ea "a-e

'n e v.

raf t fccc :ar, ::. Se::cil ct.rsed hi : ':r turr.'.; :::..; a fit-c; due t t-i-r::t r

.r.: -t al..a r&.i 9, a nd a P r : ie.-i:

s ge-eeal f-re a

- ~

ipe fit-ups in the auxiliary building,

.u.

Ellenberg, said that if it were the last thing he did he was going to get Bryant out cf tne l

auxiliary buildirg.

Applic. Eyh. 20, Bryent, Attachment A; J.

R.

Bryant, Tr. 6C50-6057.

Mr. Bryant's concerns focused on Mr. Casiscr.'s reaction, which was that such incidents were just part of the job, and that nothing was done about the incidents.

Bryant, Tr. 6053."

32.

"On cross-examination, Mr. Bryant noteo that the Beard inciaent was satisfactorily resolved when he talked to the craft foreman, and the welder came to Mr. Bryant and apologized.

He stated the men work together without problems now.

Bryant, Tr. 6177."

l

}

33.

"With respect to the Brazell incident, there is little in the record beyond Mr. Bryant's statement that the event occurred and that Mr. Davison took no action.

Applic. Exh. 30, Bryant, Attach. A; Bryant, Tr. 6054-55.

The statement by Mr. Ellenberg came during a period in which Mr. Bryant's inspecting group had identified

'a good number of rejections' and this was holding up the craft's efforts to meet its N

- -- e i.

a

- 177 -

incident had any relation to Mr. Rockholt's work or was intended keep him f ron performing his duty, pather it apcears to be unfriendly ction by. a mean character.

As such ~it is a vestion for the A licants' personnel people, not this Board.

Lanoley i nci de r.t.

For:ner ding inscector Harry Langley 37.

a testi.fied that on.

o :rsion weld.rs th ea*.erce to kick his rear end.

r.gley, Tr. 6593.

Ve y 'ew. aci'i: of tne ircicent are given eno tne timing is uncertain.

'. Lar.gley sa :

that the thrt?t "ser.t raa up the

.11'.

after the."

nd he cor.tirued to de his wc M.

%e re r r::es not su;;crt

.y fire conclusiers about this incident bu, in any event, it does ot appear to have been a major case of harassment nor to have in fered with Mr. Langley's work.

38.

Impact of Harassment.

Harassment was raised by a nur.ber of other inspectors in their concerns, but they do not appear to be as serious as some of the incidents detailed above. "See, eg. Harris, Tr.

8969: Godfrey, Tr. 8307-08 (on incidents sucn as being cursed by L.

Lowry:

"if anything, it made us a little stricter"); Crisp. Tr. 8435 (any harassment did not affect perfomance; he inspected the work, not the person)." Staff PFF 282.

39.

"Mr. Bryant stated that he thought threats from craft were not properly handled, and that some inspectors might be discouraged frcm filing harassment charges after the Reep resolution, Bryant, Tr. 6049, 6012, but no inspector said harassment affected job perfomance.

See, eg., Deaton, Tr. 5800; Reep, Tr. 8685; Crisp, Tr. 8428; Godfrey, Tr.

8307-8." Staff PFF 283.

7

.s 178 -

40.

Some inspectors believed the craftsmen and their foremen were too production minded.

Apo. Ex. 10. Mci'eekin, Attach.

4, p.

6.

At least some of the' time, a poor working relationship seems to have existed between the crafts and some insDeCtors.

This may have resulted, in part, from poor communications about construction procedures and lack of clarity about company policy concerning ouality versus production.

Sone craf tsmen thought inspectors were sne6Ky, trying to catcn Iner. ~ i r.

violation (Dick, Tr. 5390-91) ard sc re inspect -s treurt cra#t were tryir.g te slip cy with substaraced werk.

A::p. E.v. 10, t-if'eeken, e.

and Cauthen prefiled testimony Attacs.

A.

If these attitudes had continued, they had the potential for reducing the motivation of QA inspectors and thereby effecting the OA p eng ram, and ultimately the quality of the construction.

41.

The evidence presented to the Board does not indicate any faulty items went uncorrected.

The inspectors affirmed that they continued to do their work properly in spite of the harassme..

. some instances where the inspector perceived a lack of support, this too did net seem to affect the future actions of the inspector.

42.

The Board was also interested in what was done to improve working relations and reduce harassment.

As previously noted (pp. 57, 60), harassment concerns were submitted by the welding inspectors in response to the company's request and were considered by the Non-Technical Task Force.

Establishment of a QA Department Harassment Recourse Procedure was recomended ( App. Ex. 12, C. N. Alexander attach.

3, p. 5) and implemented. Open lines of comunication between craft and Y

r...i :

1" o

, lyg,

inspection were also addressed.

An employee relations specialist was made available.

The Construction Department amplified its instructier.s to include " intimidation, coercion, or kidding will not be tolerated" and implemented a quality awareness program.

Dick, App. Ex. 24 and.Tr.

5198.

These measures were reported to have improved the situation.

Ross, Tr. 6964; Crisp, Tr. Sc14; P.ockholt, Tr. 6343, 6199-6200.

43.

Conclusions.

6asec on the foregoing ar.6I 515 Of the reCnro tnd f

Dard finds that s:re.:cid' ; ins:e:ters tiere su ;ectec to harassmeet by craf t workers anc cr

rs se fer coing the1e jee.

This varied from insult and shunning to threat o' i nj u ry.

The existence of these incidents indicates that other similar incidents probably occurred in-areas other than weldie?.

However, the testimony reflects that the welding inspectors were not deterred from doing their job by the harassment.

44 Intervenors suggest we find that harassment of welding inspectors at Catawba constitutes a violation of 10 C.F.R.

Fart 50, Appendix B, Criterion 1 in that:

Such conduct... impugns the authority and freedom of persons in the performance of their quality assurance responsibility." (FFF 190,191 & 234.)

The evidence does net support such a conclusion.

The few incidents described did not deter these inspectors from performing their duties, nor was the freedom of the 0A program restricted.

45.

The dimensions of the harassment problem as we have defined it should be viewed in the context of the duration and magnitude of the Catawba project -- some nine years of construction involving thousands W

4 f

- 180 -

(

of employees.

In that perspective, the number of sigrificant harassment incidents in this reccrd is relatively small.

As we notec pre *.icusly (See IA 25, above), the welding inspectors were asked to anc cid list I

virtually all of their concerns, including harassment concerns.

Most of

~

l the welding inspectors had worked at Catawba for several years (a few of them f rom the inceptien of the Dreject! and therefore it is reasonable to assume inat tney wooio nave listeo a.i ncice.ts tr.a t rm.

n v a s s..(ct r

o become generally kr:w-a or.g C A inspec.:*:

t.

ae s'*.a.

Tris was >

vigcreusly corteste: case it w*ica

-"?

-. 9 f+ e Ali tas i

-r rg evidence they could fino.

In trese circurestances it seems reasonaole to conclude that virtually all of the significant harassment incidents that have occurred at Catawba -- or at least all such incidents involving welding inspectors -- are in the re--- ' -' this case.

In any event, ir.

the absence of a'ny indication to the contra ry, we can assume that correspondingly small numbers of harassment incidents have occurred in otner major craft / inspection areas, e.g., concrete and 61ectrical oc.-k.

All of this indicates that harassment was not a widespread phenomenon at Catawba.

46.

In most cases, the Applicants in a reasored -

discourage repetition.

Even so, the Board in looking at the Applicants'

~

31 Our primary concern is with incidents that become well known on the site because they would have a wider chilling effect on the zeal of inspectors than an incident that goes unreported.

It seems fair to i

assume, moreover, that most unreported incidents are of a minor nature.

l Ji

n.

._ ~

,J

,r a.**

181 actions collectively finds then lenient.

A reasonable person could have

~

taken r.cre severe action in each case.

In accition, the Apolicants' failure to publicize their actions or to communicate in a supportive way with the inspectors left inspectors with a feeling that management was not supportive of the inspection activity.

4~.

Lack cf a :1 ear statersrt c' policy ca heressnent of inspecters f

as a ;jer part Of t.".2 ;rt:'er.

Tr.e t;pittart!' paesea-wr'tten policy ggf is air.ec pricarii., a t eqsal rigt.ts/aqu;; c:: rt.r.it;. issues.

~he ocard airects the Acol ttar t t: revist i*.s harst::c *. ;oli :. e.c #ines f c:r.tes an accropriate time for this a: tion. ':e suggest that the company obtain

)

inout from both craftsmen and inspectors in the revision process.

4 VI 1

.

ML20136F179

Text

Subject:

Enclosure:

Navigation menu

Search