ML20137W935
| ML20137W935 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001113 |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1985 |
| From: | Ratner M RATNER, M.G. |
| To: | Jay Collins NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 8510040421 | |
| Download: ML20137W935 (29) | |
Text
-
^
^^
4 i
L AW OFFICES MOZART G. RATN ER, P. C.
1900 M STR E ET, N. W.
SUITE 610 MOZART G. RATNER WAS HINGTO N. D. C. 2 0036 AREA CODE 202 223-9472 August 21, 1985 Mr. John T. Collins Special Assistant to the Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Re:
Ratner and Schiller v. G.E.,
2.206 Proceeding
Dear Mr. Collins:
This letter is initially addressed to the subject you broached in our recent telephone conversation, namely whether the employees at WMD, rather than management, are blameworthy for employee non-observance of safety and health rules.
Your hypothesis reflects the assumption of employee awareness of health and safety hazards, which underlies the Appendix to NRC Regulatory Guide 8.29-7, q. 9, last two sentences and 13, q. 31 third par.
As you know, it was and is my position that G.E.
j management, by an intensive and unceasing flood of propaganda, instilled in the vast majority of employees the pase.ionately held conviction that working a lifetime at WMD is no more 3
i hazardous than having a single tooth ex-rayed (Vaughan, 85-ERA-2, Tr. 2018, 2106-2107) or watching television (Malpass, Tr. 530-533; Lees' letter to Wilmington Star News, April 8, 1985, last sentence, third par; copy enclosed herewith as "A").
8510040421 850821 PDR TOPRP EMYGENE C
PDR t
s 1
~
s Mr. John T.
Collins August 21, 1985 Page 2 According to Lees' latest press release, commenting on the ALJ's decision (News & Notes, Aug.
1, 1985, Lees' statement, p.
2, 6th par., copy enclosed herewith as "B"),
"The total exposure to employees who handle this material in the laboratory is about the same as the increased amount of natural background uraniur. you might receive if you moved from Wilmington to Denver."
(Emphasis added. )
See also G.E. V.P.
Wolfe, at EDO meeting, July 11, 1985, p.
18.
The absurdity of this simile is apparent (albeit not to a reader unversed in health physics), from its equation of " natural background uranium" with the " low enriched uranium" used at WMD (Tr. 2011, 2012, 2017-2018, 2106-2107).
Appendix to Regulatory Guide 8.29, supra, Table 2, 8.29-7, estimates the risk of the latter as four times as great as the former.
See also, id.,
at 12, q.
26,
- n. 7.
This fraudulent and misleao;'q prop,gand a is how G.E.
explained and justified to its employees and to the Wilmington public management's " laxity" toward "implemsntation of [its]
radiation protection program" (Rept. No. 84-17, A LJ 10) cover letter, par. 4, Report Details, par. 2.4 (f), (i),
'i), ( n),
(o), 5)),
P.
Br. to ALJ, pp. 37-38).
By message and by ?..cmple of having management, supervisors and Rad Safety men '.gno re health and safety rules ( ALJ Decision in 85-ERA-2, p.
5, first par., p. 8, second full par, pp. 9-10, last full par. on p. 9 through 1st full par. on p.
10, p.
11; Tr. 1408-1409, 1417,
a Mr. John T.
Collins August 21, 1985 Page 3 1419c, d, j; English Aff. in 8 5-ERA-2, pp. 13-14), management induced the employees generally to accept and adhere to its policy and practice of maximizing production by not stopping to clean up visible contamination.
That indoctrination and example is what led employees to be lax and careless about compliance with safety rules and regul'ations (Tr. 531-541, 570-577).
That is how management convinced Mrs. English's fellow employees that her concerns about violation of safety and health rules were " paranoid" (Tr. 595).
The ALJ, unlike Region II, found that management's attitude was not mere " laxity," but willful and deliberate disregard for " implementation of [the] radiation protection program" (Dec. 5, 1st par., third sentence to end of par; 9,
2nd full par; last par. through first par. on 10; second par.
on 10, 11. 10-12, beginning "neither" and ending " safety"; 11, last third of par.
beginning with "Once," ending with "[i]n demonstrating the malfeasance of others").
As said in plaintiff's brief to the ALJ (pp. 37-38):
"Small wonder that this ' bad attitude' (see Letter, Ratner to Taylor, April 11, 1985, pp. 36-37), led the work force with few exceptions, to contemptuously disregard health and safety rules and standards (Tr. 537, 541, 568-570, 575, 625);
and prompted the three fellow workers who had the same job as she to ridicule (Ron Brown:
She's crazy to fight G.E.,
she 's paranoid ; Tr. 592-600),
and plot (C-19) the removal of the one of their number who insisted on strict observance -- Vera M.
E nglish. "
a Mr. John T.
Collins August 21, 1985 Page 4 Blame for employee non-compliance with health and safety rules is, therefore, in this case, traceable entirely to G.E. management, and not attributable at all to the ecployees themselves.
G.E. Vice President Bert Wolfe lied in his teeth when he told the EDO meeting on July 11, 1985, that G.E.'s
" problem" is "the normal problem of an ALARA program" (Tr. EDO meeting July 11, 1985, p. 18).
In the case of G.E.,
it is a
" problem" created by management's manifested disdain for the ALARA philosophy based on the non-sequitur that "the sources of radiation * *
- are just generally very low" (EDO Tr. 24, Vaughan).
As Wolfe put it, G.E.
sees its " problem of trying to meet regulations and trying to reduce things (sic) as much as possible," as purely technical and insignificant, because "we do not think that in terms of real radiation doses to people, that we have a problem" (id. 19).
G.E.
sold that bill of goods to Region II.
But for Mrs. English, the employees were too unsophisticated or ill-attuned to the long term risks of low level radiation to be capable of resisting management's active deception that there is no risk.
They were also too naive or intimidated to pierce the misrepresentation that management's interest in maximizing profits and their interests in preserving their own personal health and safety were not, as management claimed, coincident, but rather in conflict!
A nd,
but for Mrs. English, they were too afraid of job loss or other
Mr. John T. Co'llins August 21, 1985 Page 5 reprisal to risk resistance, or even the appearance of resistance, to management's position.
Indeed, G.E. management exploited and continues to exploit the employees' fear of job loss and other pretext-covered discrimination illegally to interfere with and intimidate them from communicating freely and fully with O.I (see my letter to Mr. Roger Fortuna, July 29, 1985), to manipulate them into agreeing to boycott the Wilmington Star News (G.E. flyer of April 2, 1985); and illegally to coerce them (NLRB v. Exchange Parts, 375 U.S.
405, 409 (1964)), into signing a letter to the editor, typed in the plant by Supervisor McLamb and circulated on company time with Lees' approval (attached hereto as "C"),
attacking the ALJ's credibility findings and repeating the lies he found that management's witnesses told him under oath at the hearing.
" Employees are not likely to miss the inference" (id.), that signing was necessary to avoid incurring G.E. 's " strong displeasure."
IAM v. NLRB, 311 U.S. 72, 78 (1940).
Under the circumstances, it is amazing that only 17 ("C") out of 40 hourly non-exempts (EDO Tr. 7-8), signed.
Since DOL is NRC's agent in administering S 210, and since "[elach agency agrees to share and promote access to all information it obtains concerning a particular allegation" (47 F.R.
54585), management's lies to the ALJ are " material misreprsentations" (10 C.F.R.
- 140, n.
15 and accompanying
-y---
4
,m, e-,
5 e
Mr. John T.
Collins August 21, 1985 Page 6 text), to NRC.
Having induced 17 employees to commit l
themselves to management's version, can it be expected that these employees will communicate truthfully to O.I?
j The issues in this 2.206 proceeding must now be evaluated in the context of the ALJ's findings, p. 9, 2nd full par., last two sentences; last par. continued to p.
10; p.
10, 1
1st full par., 2nd-4th sentence).
He found that G.E.
senior plant management (Lees, Long, Sheeley, Winslow) fraudulently conspired to oust Mrs. English on pretextual grounds to prevent her from continuing to report violations to NRC, because her 1
reports threatened management's illegal modus operandi.
( Although the ALJ neglected so to find, the record shows that management must have realized that her persistence and dedication also threatened to expose G.E.'s cozy relationship with Region II, and could cost management their jobs (P. Br.
36-40).)
4 This is both a Severity Level I violation (10 C.F.R. 140 (4), n.
15 and accompanying text) a nd, in itself, a demonstration of the need for exercise of NRC's full statutory authority to impose penalties adequate to assure that G.E. does not profit from its past violations of law and NRC rules, and to deter future violations (id., at 129-136; my April 11, 1985, letter to Mr. Taylor, pp. 2-5, 42-45).
It also constitutes irrefutable proof of WMD plant management's disqualification from nuclear operations on ethical grounds.
Vice President Wolfe's lies to EDO, coupled with his unqualified support of
Mr. John T.
Collins August 21, 1985 Page 7 Lees (Tr. 41):
" Gene would not be there if I did not think that his attitude on safety and compliance matched my own,"
demonstrate that Wolfe too is disqualified.
In fact, there is evidence of record that San Jose headquarters participated in the conspiracy to "get" Vera English before December,1983.
"Mr.
Klion [G.E. Nuclear Division Counsel, stationed at San l
Jose] stated that [when] he assumed his present position with GEC in January 1984,
- his predecessor brought Mrs. English to his attention at that time."
(DOL Investigator Lawson's Report, p.
5, last par., C-4A, illegally rejected by the ALJ).
Whether a different attitude on the part of G.E.
management, one which recognized that long before enactment of S 210, the concern of Congress and the NRC was, and still is, "primarily focused on chronic exposure to low levels of radiation over long time periods" (NRC Regulatory Guide 8.29-4,
- q. 5, last sentence, 8.29-8, q.
13), and that it was precisely for this situation that NRC devised ALARA (Vol. 124 Cong. Rec.
S. 29771, et seq., Sept. 18, 1978), would have engendered uniform employee observance is not the point.
The rules, and particularly ALARA (App. to Guide 8.29-13, q. 28, last sentence, second par.) were designed to " develop an attitude of healthy respect for the risks associated with (low level]
radiation, rather than * *
- lack of concern."
Regulatory Guide 8.29, p. 3, prologue, 8.29-11, q. 24a; 8.29-12, (c).
ALARA is the " standard," for low level, as well as high level,
O Mr. John T.
Collins August 21, 1985 Page 8 uranium plants, binding on licensees and NRC alike.
Silkwood
- v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 78 L.Ed. 443, 4 4 9 a nd n.
6, 450 (1983).
Even if the proper management attitude might not have instilled in all employees the fear necessary to assure perfect compliance, given G.E. management's subversive attitude toward ALARA, one cannot shift any portion of the blame from G.E.
to the employees.
Th0 seriousness of the threat management's repudiation of ALARA represents to the health and safety of the employees and to the public should not be underrated. WMD customariky enriches U-235 to at least 44.
" Levels of radioactive uranium
-235 in the metal at Fernald range from 0.2 to 2 percent."
Garrett, Uncle Sam's Hot Spot, Washington Post Magazine, July 28, 1985, pp. 6; 7 (but, says management, the monitors have never " indicated that airborne uranium dust was exceeding acceptable levels"); p.
15 (DOE's Gilbert, "there is no safe level of radiation exposure; * ** the risk * *
- is proportional to the amount of radiation received"; cf. App. to Reg. Guide 8.29-10, q. 22, id.,
11, q. 24); p.
11 (plaintiffs "were never told there was any danger"); p.
15 (radiologist John Gof fman:
"The only safe exposure to radiaticn is no exposure at all"); p.
16 (GAO says DOE's statistics are
" misleading" because its " oversight of health and safety was inadequate.
Worker complaints * *
- were not listened to * *
- Mr. John T.
Collins August 21, 1985 Page 9 (and inspections] tended to underestimate the hazards posed by radiation incidents.").
Like asbestosis, which takes 20 years or more to manifest itself (Brodeur, Paul, The Asbestos Industry on Trial, The New Yorker, June 10, 1985, 49, 59, 93, 99), the cancer hazard of low enriched uranium takes 30 years or more to develop.
(App. to Reg. Guide 8.29-7, Table 2).
Like Johns Manville, described in Brodeur's book, which knew all about the hazards of asbestos but concealed it from their customers to avoid scaring them off (id., at 100), so G.E.
knew all about the hazards of low enriched uranium, but fraudulently concealed it from WDM employees and the Wilmington public to maximize its profits.
This is, therefore, the paradigm case for the most vigorous application ever of NRC's enforcement policy:
a powerful, willful, violator, who not merely fails properly to train and police its employees, but, by word and deed, inspires, impels, and exploits their non-compliance for its own profit, and, when discovered, pleads condonation by Region II in defense (Wolfe, Tr. EDO meeting, July 11, 1985, p. 22, 1.
11-p. 23, 1.
17; Lees, p. 30, 11. 16-24).
Vice President Wolfe and General Manager Lees had the insufferable arrogance and gall to complain that it was unfair of Region II, after illegally acquiescing in G.E. 's misplacement of the single stationary air sampler in the Chemet Lab for ten years (when it
Mr. John T.
Collins August 21, 1985 Page 10 came itself " ender the gun"), to enforce the provision of Regulatory Guide 8.24-3, Rev.
1, in effect since October, 1979, that "the air inlet of the monitor should be located near the potential source of airborne uranium, preferably between the source and the workers" (emphasis added ).
See also, Vaughan's evasive reply to Mr. Taylor, EDO Tr. 21, 11. 19-22.
Vaughan also told EDO that the third time a worker f ails to frisk himsel" before leaving the plant "he generally is discharged" (Tr. p. 28, 11 3-4).
But the ALJ found, on management's witnesses admissions, that "a five day suspension appears to have been the heaviest punishment dealt to anyone" for repeated deliberate failure to frisk (D. 10, n.
6, a nd accompanying text).
" Generally *
- discharged"?
Hal Another fundament of G.E. 's propaganda, designed to gull the employees and the Wilmington public into a false sense of security, is Lees' statement published August 1, 1985, first par. (B hereto), that "no employee * *
- has been exposed to radiation levels exceeding federal safety standards."
Vaughan made this same assertion at the EDO meeting (Tr. p. 20, 11.
11-13; p. 30, 1. 25-p. 31,
- 1. 6).
On this very point, Lees complained to EDO (Tr. p.
31, 11. 1-6) that a Region II inspector " intended to cite us for an occasion that occurred ten years ago in 1975 on the cut of f of a pellet, which we investigated in detail at the time and closed * *
- out."
(Emphasis added).
Attached hereto as "D" is an affidavit by
l Mr. John T.
Collins August 21, 1985 Page 11 Buddy Lewis detailing the facts of this incident.
It proves that management's denial of any excess dosage is a lie and that
" closed * *
- out" is a euphemism for " covered up."
The truth is that dangerous exposures there have been, but management never stopped to inquire how dangerous.
These incidents were concealed with the cooperation of Region II, a nd, as we have seen, were treated by management as if they had never happened.
G.E. defends against Mrs. English's charges
("A",
par.
- 1) and the ALJ's findings (App.
B, p.
2, pars. 3, 7) on the ground that all violations found "were classified by [ Region II] below the level of 'significant concern'."
By pleading Region II's past condonation and minimization by way of confession and avoidance (EDO Tr. 36, 11. 8-9), G.E.
has placed squarely in issue the legality and propriety of Region II's relationship with it, and the competence, intelligence and gullibility of Region II's inspectors and supervisors.
Region II's " cooperation" with G.E., and not merely G.E. 's perfidy, is on trial in this 2.206 proceeding.
Let us take only three examples:
How can Region II justify finding that Mrs. English, by failure to clean up "immediately" uranyl powder accidentally and unavoidably spilled in the normal course of her work, violated a plant rule, in the face of the ALJ's indubitably correct finding (confirmed by management admissions) (D. 11, first 5 lines of I
Mr. John T.
Collins August 21, 1985 Page 12 text), that the rules as interpreted by management call for cleanup of such spills not immediately, but, periodically, in the normal course of work, and particularly before the end of 4
the shift (D. p. 3, n. 3, last sentence)?
Was this a 4
deliberate attempt by the NRC inspector to help G.E.
frame Mrs.
English, or did the inspector simply, as always, credit the Company's temporarily self-serving version of the rules without investigation, thereby misleading (D. 11, third sentence, first clause), rather than assisting, the DOL investigation in i
85-ERA-2 (NRC, Form 3, Rev'd, col. 6)?
Second, how can Region II justify not demanding to see the Wyorcrek and Hendry reports, when it was in possession of Lees' letter to Mrs. English of May 21, 1984 (C-15(f)),
purporting to summarize the findings of those Reports?
And if,as G.E.
now belatedly claims (G.E. 's Voluntary Response to 2.206 Petition and Submissions, dated May 29, 1985, App. 3, p.
79), the inspectors did see them, how does the Region justify not mentioning those internal reports, which overwhelmingly substantiate Mrs. English's charges (Ratner letter to Taylor, April 11, 1985, pp. 5-45), in its Inspection Reports which find no violation on the charges which the internal reports sustain (D. 4, 11. 1-10)?
Did G.E. make a " material misrepresentation" to Region II by failure to disclose (10 C.F.R.
at 140, n.
15), or did Region II illegally cover up for G.E.?
D Mr. John T. Collins August 21, 1985 4
Page 13 Third, how can Region II justify not examining for accumulated uranium contamination on the walls and floor, and on the instruments and installed machines, of the isotopic analyzers room of the Chemet Lab, from June, 1984, when this condition was reported to Region II, until December 3,
- 1984, when Mrs. English, at the suggestion of Buddy Lewis, who saw Inspector Ed Clay in the plant, demanded that Mr. Uryc send Clay immediately into that room to investigate?
The condition Clay and Rad Safety Inspector Rouse, who accompanied him, discovered was so bad and so long standing, that the tiles had to be removed from the floor and replaced with new ones, the instruments and machines had to be thoroughly cleaned, and the walls had to be scrubbed, rescrubed and painted over.
To have accumulated so much and such deep contamination, the room must have obviously gone for many more than six months without any Rad Safety inspection.
G.E.'s Voluntary Response to the 2.206 1
petition, App.
1, purporting to show that "104 points" were surveyed in the " isotopic" room in 1984 (App.
1, p.
10, App. 3,
- p. 42), does not show that ang " points" were inspected before December 3, 1984.
G.E.
adduced no evidence, written or oral, at the hearing in 85-ERA-2 that the isotopic room had ever before Clay's visit been entered by a Rad Safety inspector.
Torres, despite his incredible, self-serving denial, charged Rouse with entering " unauthorized" territory.
Thus, Lees flatly lied when he boasted (App.
1, third par. ) :
"All parts
Mr. John T.
Collins August 21, 1985 Page 14 of the G.E. Wilmington plant
- are continuously monitored"!
See also 84-17, p.
11.
What should happen to such bald faced liars when they are caught in such important lies?
The " ombudsman" situation, which Lees purported to explain to EDO (Tr. 38-41), is a transparent fraud.
Thurston Davis, G.E. 's so-called " employee representative," testified in 85-ERA-2 that his principal function, as a paid employee of G.E.'s Employee & Community Relations Department (E &CR), is to keep unions out (Tr. 2206) and that the employees call him to his face far worse names than mole or stool pigeon for the Company (Tr. 2247-2248).
Davis proved his entitlement to the most derrogatory of titles when he admitted under oath at the hearing in 85-ERA-2 that he had refused to disclose to Mrs.
English the names of her accusers, although he knew them (Tr.
2241); had denied her request to contact a witness, Lewis, who,
she said, knew which employee had contaminated the legs of her table (Tr. 2232, 2250), and had refused to credit her version of the incidents with which she was charged (Tr. 2215, 2235, 2238).
Lees' statement (Tr. EDO meeting, p. 40, ll. 6-7), that
"[o]ur ombudsman program works very well except for a couple of individuals," if true, proves only the degree of Company intimidation and consequent subservience of the majority of its workers.
To be sure, that system " works very well" for management, by betraying the workers.
D Mr. John T.
Collins August 21, 1985 Page 15 Wolfe's representation to EDO that Vera English's complaints and concerns "were formally examined" and
" investigated," is belied by the ALJ's finding (D. p.
10, full par. after c, 2nd-4th sentences; p.
11, third sentence, par.
bottom of page), that the " investigation" was in reality a conspiratorial search for a fraudulent pretext to get rid of Mrs. English because she would not stop complaining to NRC.
Wolfe's version of the microwave incident (EDO Tr. 39, 11.
4-6), is belied by the ALJ's contrary findings (D. 5, top par.
cont., third sentence to end; second par., third sentence; third par., first sentence; fourth par., first sentence).
Wolfe's and Lees' assertion that in the case of Joy d
Malpass no action was taken because "she said she really did not want any action taken" (id., 38, 1.
24-39, 1.
25), is i
belied by her affidavit to DOL and by her foreman's inquiry of her the following day, what did she want the Company to do?
ns Ms. Malpass explained, she then declined to specify a remedy because she believed that ef fective remedy was the Company's responsibility.
She also specified that the problem was not coming from her own group, but from others in the factory.
i Thus, Vaughan's statement (id, ll. 24-25) that "she would not identify who the problem was or where it was coming from," is another self-serving invention.
I have come into possession of documentary evidence bearing on two other situations of interest to you.
The first
1 Mr. John T.
Collins August 21, 1985 Page 16 is a memo relating to inaccurate and inconsistent, out of spec., results produced by isotopic re-runs.
A memo dated April 15, 1985, from Parnell to Supervisors, forwarded by Winslow to Sheeley, is attached as "E".
The other relates to water in BU-7 on the JNF contract.
An undated complaint from Sotomatsu (JNF) to Lees is attached as "F".
A reply from Sotomatsu, dated June 7, 1985, to G.E.
inquiries is attached as "G".
You may have related documents.
Cordially, Mozart G.
Ratner MGR/hej Enclosures cc:
Roger Fortuna, Esq.
(" Eyes Only")
R.
Dircks J. Taylor J. Davis G. Cunningham J. Lieberman S. Connelly H.
Plaine R. Burch i
f 3
.-_.,m__.,_
.v
=-v
---+----r-v
> -te-+--
+- -- --
--*C
- k T
=
~~\\
l CENERAL D FLECTR,C m
...c.. m...
cc,,
."-~,.,dO. p g.y,,.. <.....,,
o.,ety p,
.,",#'ll" r-7.""**"- w o. '.l, ;. ',p.%,..,,,,,,,
j i
^.;~~..
,,-,e.
T. Mr C.,,,,,, A.de r
. Fd..r,r j
..d...,,,,,,, -.....,,,, o,. o t,,,~.c.
i
.. m.,,,,,s,.
u...
o...
r.,.,,;a a-.,,,,,,,,-,,,,,,c,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,, +,
c....t,,,....,,,,.e.....,,,,
t m unc
.,...s
,,,j....,,,,w.......,,,,,,,....,,,,,.-,,h...,~~"~
,-,,4,,,,,,~,.........u h. n
.d
...,,,.....m o...h.i. o,...,,e o.., i,... m...
........ -. ~,.
c.,,,...a,,,,. ;' % s.r..,,,,,,
...<.cr..........e.,....m,,,,.-,,,,...d....,,h...,,......,.-..,,1,,,,,
,;,,,' <*,thm,,,,
a,~,.....,
..re,,,,
U,,
,, N, h,
H *d,a,,,
..... ~,,,,,...........,..,...
.., k d., f.
- ,e.,,4, g 8$ 8' '868 b., b.e...d t.d <es.h II,...,gg*'b,l.98 8b...chs
d h..
,p,
'f.,d
.n.n F,.m h..t.,t.,b...lm,.g.a. pl..t d,,d... I..-
3. h. g3
,,e,
.cy by the N,tC..d by.th.,.t.t.p...........d..,e, y,e.m.
- 8.*e t,t,,,
- d he y
- '" wh,c, %E
,h.,
l,
',.r m.q,
...dd au
- t. GE... q.., y.,,,. N F C...d.,r ed,,0
'* -.. 4 y O, s A.,,"M S *,F.,=n I)u., sh.,s., v...
e,6,4 f 0,9he,h NhC..spwr,.pe.,
n.e,
j
,I', a ri,,,
..,,.d..a..,,>
- f..,py '**IN.m.ygg..v.,,, w f
.e p e,4,e...p.e,.o.= d.n.c.
" 8..mg,,,y
,h.. >,Wu, m.. bo.r.,, the p,...
T h.
.p.,
, NRC...L...is
. The N HC,,..u.ses.n.
D",,,,.n,,,",,e...',,r o,.....,.....,,,,,,,,
- ' '" u.d t
$...,. s..,.e.e,,ty A di.,14
..c,
., M a t...eNRC t,,lo..h* iew,., ~,.,,~~,.,,,,,,,,,,,,+-....*o,,..,,.,',;,...
~ ~ ~
~...,';-..,,,,.;..--,,..,,,~.s,..."..a.
..o.
..,,,e, o
,,,,m.e, p,..,...,.. u,,,dby,,,u.,,h.....,.~,..~...,m.
-..d.,,,,,,.>,,,,,,,.
....,,,,.,~_h...~.,,,...id.,,.,-
f
.......,,..,~.,,,,,,.d.,,,,.
,~..
,. p..
~.,,,, g, 'u...h.,g,o...
,;, ~ -..,
-......,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,...'.u..,,
o,,,.........,.....
..h....o...
,,,,,,,...e,..-.....,,,,.. ~,....
m,,.....,,,,,
., e,,,, ;;ui,,,,,,..,,,
,,,,,-......m,,,,.....d.....,d.,-,,...
o,..........-i,h...,,,,...,,,,,,,, -,................
- .,., ~..,,g,,..,.,,;,,...,,,,,,,,,,,, ~.,,,,,, ; ~
d..,...,
..... h.,
..,,,,,n-,h.,-u.,.,,,,,,,,
.......,,,,,nr.,,m.,,,,,,,,,..
i
,,,,,,.,,~............,,,,,,c........r
, ~.....
..,h,.
m...........
........~...,....s....-
E~a
.....~.,m..,-,.....,.....,........,
..........e.........,_
t t,, -, c..,,,
.,,,, ~,,,,,
N.,~,,,.,,,,,,,,,,=.a.,
..o,...,..u,,,......
..o..,...o,.-,,......,,.. o,.......,..
....,,,w,,,
,o,
. -..~..., ~,
1,..o.,,,.....-
o,.....,,....,......,..~,,,.
,,..,..d....,,,i.,
I
- "'.voa na,===o s,., e namd.y. 4,,e s.,ses 3B u_
]
.el'*
w_
(
sium o iueme l
l L
NEBO/AEBG 1
n!
WILMINGTON, jf((/)ff /jf{}$
NORTH CAROLJNA August 1, 1985 GE REFUTES RECOMMENDATION IN VERA ENGLISH CASE Nuclear Fuel Manufacturing Department plant of ficials were notified today of the recommended decision of the employee complaint brought by former Chemet Laboratory employee vera English.
Gene Lees, general manager, called the award that was recommended by the Administrative Law Judge " unfounded, unsubstantiated and without merit.
We deny any wrongdoing," he said.
Ms. English, who worked in the chemet Lab until she was put on
" lack of suitable work" status, filed the charges eight months ago.
She said in her complaint that GE removed her from her job in the lab because she threatened to report some alleged safety violations to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The recommendations announced today by the Administrative Law Judge were the result of hearings held in March.
As recommendations only, they will now be forwarded to the U.
S.
Secretary of Labor for a decision.
The Secretary can either accept, reject or modify the recommended award.
A decision ic expected within the next several months.
The text of Gene Lees' statement at a briefing held for news media on August 1 follows:
Earlier today, the Administrative Law Judge hearing the matter of laboratory employee Vera English notified GE of his recommendations in the case.
As far as GE is concerned, we consider the recommendations of the Administrative Law Judge unfounded, unsubs t an tia t ed, and without merit.
The Administrative Law Judge recommended that English receive $70,000 in compensatory damages, and back pay and reinstatement.
She had sought $2 million in damages and payment of her salary through retirement.
English's l
counsel sought legal fees and expenses of more than one-haif million dollars.
The Adminis tr:s tive Law Judge recommended a payment of approximately $73,000.
p (continued to reverse...)
D Recommendation... continued The complaint filed by Ms. English to the U. S. Departmen t of Labor alleged that she had been mistreated by GE officials because she had reported alleged violations by this facility to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The sole issue before the Labor Department is whether GE did, in fact, retaliate against her.
It is our contention that no retaliatory action was taken against Ms. English.
We believe that the company acted fairly in taking action when Ms. English admittedly violated plant and NRC safety rules.
As a result of Ms. English's many allegations to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, this facility has been under almost constant scrutiny by NRC inspectors.
The majority of these allegations were dismissed by the NRC, and none' were found by the NRC to be "of significant concera. "
I must stress that this is not a case of nuclear materials mismanagement.
Nor is it a case of employee or pubilc safety.
This facility takes pride in its safety program.
Our safety record is one of the best in the nuclear industry.
It is important to remember that this facility processes only slightly enriched uranium.
Th_e total exposure to employees who handle this material in the laboratory is about the same as the increased amount of natural background radiation you might receive if you moved from Wilmington to Denver.
Furthermore, it should be understood that this facility has n'Yver been cited for _ a viola tion which the Nuclest.
Regulatory Commission considered to be significant.
As I said before, the matter of Vers English is an employee complaint which charges discriminatory employment practices by GE management.
GE denies any wrongdoing.
The recommendations of the Administrative Law Judge will now be reviewed by the U. S. Secretary of Labor.
We believe that in reviewing the case the Labor Secretary will find the recommendations of the Administrative Law Judge without cause and will reject them.
The Secretary of Labor's decision in this case can be appealed by either party.
We expect his decision within the next several months.
ici L
tiA Wiltmngton Morrung Star / Saturday, August 17,19e
,,,,se e WILMINGTONS
\\
Star Den R.WNeuenh, puesener chartee at. Andereen, Eduur Wusem J. Coughen, Meneghg Edmor Chereas W. Rooma Jr., Edennef Page Ecssor OurReaders Write
. g ~=~~_"=L";_
i Mrs. English deserves no thanks from GE i
..: e I
()
Editor- % people of Wilmington, ne to be healthy, General Electric will
"~
l General Electric, and the employees of conanue to operate, and the Chemet j
the Chemet laboratory at General Elec. Laboratory employees will continue with j
tric do not owe Vern English any thanks. theirjobs. We e:Qoy thesejobs and would Her" whistle blowtag" has not helped her not do anything to harm the community i
follow employees.
or our fellow employees including Ms.
English but Ms. English deserves no Everyone ta the Chemet laboratory thanks and she will get none.
i has the same right as Ms. English to call Ben h the NRC. General Electne has never de-i nied anyone this right or harnea-J em and la other GE employees Wilmington playees for speaking out.
Safety and ha-have always
' emme before production. When there has j
been a need to clean any contamination, Produchon stopped and every employee cleaned.We work with uranium but we also have a great roepect for it and for you to say our attitude is casual is perfid-nous on your part.
I Every article that has appeared in the Morning Star has been biased toward Ms. English. Why? 'they are obviously written by - with little knowl-edee of our work here and the great i
ability to distort the facts.h only accu-rate statement was"this lady was a diffi-I cult employee." We feel the Labor De-Partment judge was wrong in his deci-
,O: aum. He is only a judge and judges are j
'. people too and people make mistakes.
N neocle of Wtiminston will contin-O
l NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D. C.
20555 Arthur Schiller and NRC 2.206 Proceeding Mozart Ratner v.
G.E.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
)
) ss.
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
)
Affidavit of John C. " Buddy" Lewis John C. " Buddy" Lewis, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
1.
This statement is concerning employee contaaination in the Metal-lurgical Laboratory at General Electric Company, Wilmington, North Carolina.
2.
I have been employed at G.E. Co. for f ourteen years.
I worked in the Metallurgical Lab., a non-controlled area, for eight years.
3.
Frank Eschenlauer was my supervisor in the Metallurgical Lab.
4.
The three areas in the Metallurgical Lab that were contaminated (a) the cut-of f wheel, (b) the grinding table, (c) the polishing were:
table.
5.
In an affidavit offered to the court in the Vera English vs. G.E.
trial, Bill Bullard stated that management had authorized the processing of concentrated radioactive material (pellets) in the non-controlled Metallur-gical Lab.
6.
I was one of th'e employees who was working in the contaminated areas of the non-controlled Metallurgical Lab.
I was contaminated. At the time, I was not aware that radioactive pellets had been cut, ground, and polished in the areas where I was working.
However, I was soon informed by
2 another Metallurgical Lab employee, Bill Bullard, about the contamination.
I did not believe the accusations about contamination, and requested some lab work to prove the accusations false.
I shockingly found the accusa-tions true, and learned'that the area tested was highly contaminated.
7.
When Radiation Safety was notified about the Met. Lab contamina-tion and investigated it, my supervisor became very angry at me.
I was threatened with dismissal, because I had revealed the contamination. I had inadvertently revealed the contamination to other lab technicians, but another employee, Bob Hudson, had notified Radiation Safety about it.
8.
The contamination was at such a high level that two technicians, Toe Evans and Waync Gainous, had to decontaminate the areas at least twice to make them safe.
9.
Recently, I was told by Bob Hudson that in a discussion about the Met. Lab contamination, Frank Eschenlauer, the Met. Lab supervisor, had i
stated that before cutting the radioactive pellets in the Met. Lab, they had wrapped the pellets in tape to prevent contamination.
- 10. Wrapping uranium pellets in tape does not prevent contamination.
Because by sawing the U pellets with the cut-of f wheel, uranium f ragments and dust particles are scattered, with some particles falling into the cutting / cooling solution, causing all future operators of the cut-off wheel to be subjected to radioactive dust and sist.
11.
All of General Electric management who knew about the Metallurgi-cal Lab contamination chose not tos Reveal the extent of the contamination to those employees s.
either definitely or possibly contaminated.
f e
,r
,n_
.------ Ap--w
O g
3 b.
Have any confirmation testing done on employees who were known by management to have been contaminated. There were no urine bioassays, no feces bioassays, and no lung (whole body) counts ordered by management on those employees contaminated. At the time of the contamination, I did not request a bioassay or body count on myself, because my supervisor had already threatened as with dismissal over the revelation of the contamination, and I was fearful of losing my job.
'12.
On February 18, 1981, during a meeting with Employee and Comasinity Relations representative Thurston Davis, and Cheaet Lab manager, Preston Winslow, I requested information about the Metallurgical Lab contamination incident (copy attached hereto). I never received this information.
13.
I was asked to give my first urine bioassay seven years after the Metallurgical Lab contamination took place.
- 14. Metallurgical Lab employees were contaminated in this non-contro11-ed area by:
a.
Inhaling the radioactive dust and mist which comes out of the cut-off wheel aschine when it is opened to adjust or change a sample.
b.
Swallowing the radioactive dust and mist.
Splashing radioactive contaminated cutting / cooling solution on c.
bare hands and clothing.
d.
Contaminated trash was thrown into Met. Imb's non-contaminated trash containers. Even though the individual cutting the radioactive pellets in the Met. Lab may have disposed of his contaminated trash in a properly labelled trash receptacle, the employees who were unaware of the contamination of the cut-of f wheel, polishing table, and grinding table had no reason to and did not dispose of their radioactive trash in the proper receptacle. The trash was sent out as non-contaminated trash to the regu-lar trash dump.
.._._---..,_,--._____..--_,_____._,_,__,.,..__,.m._
,... _. _.. - ~
D 4
- 15. Also, it is conceivable that Met. Lab employees who were working in the contaminated areas and were unaware of the contamination may have carried radioactive particles into the eating areas where the radioactive contamination may have been picked up by other.G.E. Co. employees.
- 16. The processing of radioactive pellets'in the non-controlled Metal-lurgical Lab had also been observed by lab employees Gary coronado and Vera English.
17.
Several months ago, in an interview with C. M. Hosey, NRC employee inspecting the Wilmington, N.C., G.E. plant site, I requested that he inves-l t
tigate the Metallurgical Lab contamination incident. Later, Hosey told me that there was a " gap" in my exposure record.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT.
cnL, C. "&d&M gf4ohn C. " Buddy" Lefs Sworn to and subscribed before me this 26th day of July 1985.
I Notary #ublic My Commission Expires: [
h7[
e i
6 p
y..
y q -. 7
..... ig el;-
.a i..;
. i i
.f.
v i
l r-
.r; <
)
l i.
i
.n t
i
-l' i
?
g >.
t
- 4. '.
1 e
i
- 1. >
-t
.v l-
.:. 2
'W
- pt% $tr/H 'YL i $' 7~kh I
I N
l l_
)
'I
.i-i
- i.. j' s l l
t tI bdA :Wadd !Ci k
h.d'LL% Adli
~
^~
fL J
!./
l 1,
.i
- /
1.
l -
i/l l
1 4'
~ M r!! n / L L d r A d d ' l
i'V l
19 i
/l 1
t T
- 4.LLwifd k/J h/ 4JA L. Dia'6/, l.L, cd
- //
L
~ ~ -
u.-
- oi 9.
t.
i,. :: (.. ;
y
- o.
a-i'^-
iu/d to.i da/M / W 6 JArLL;4/: ~.(/P.'ktik i'
_i i
+
l.
. I:... ).
t.
.i.
r 16.t,;'s d kidi& /d cdd/AJ'a.J MddLL i
o:
to :
t.
i.
L t*
d h.-psdy,4 4 AN L. j%,l M&. w& * !-
t
.i i
4..
$# twik-L 8.ed[1u (. W IL f u % L L w g.I p
.t l
l.../
I
- v. I v
il.
.?h
[I
?.';^j f 'k f PrN f N f,!
'f f
h l'
ff '
'J A h 'al A u i de J n t/ st.
- 1-l_
i..
>i
/!
1-t 4
.' 1
% d d.Lthf%rhw 8tJ.IN Ld Q /.wE
\\
1 I4 i
ei
'p, f 4'
i Iyjk e dfQ,gclykt,-
l l
.g _ _
n l.
1._.
_ r.
1 Q'{~uf e%.L(' _f l Cluf, L Lflip' ha:!L/ Q~~
K' D
- ~
-l 9~.;
o
.; y9..
.n..
.t1;;.f4 2.g M,
l i"
L.
po j -
l j.
- 7i j
j r,.
.v.
i e,t. N d zt'g % J c /W dwJ Iadfiki V
3.-
i-
..p-p f
X-
\\ &4 '/. d & nd a i s thd~4,1
'l l-t
. =..
j
- i..
.I i
i j.
i.
_u
.x
/
4,t. i u k k f E d ' h s H ' % la - 1 9.... /x c & d__ d
+ '%
~
_I-t jf..j,_
..lp
.o i i
pt i
v
.i
.,3
_.. i
.i.... i
C
- 7 j.
W e
I j
i g
e l
I i
f i
e
.i 8
l l
1 g
e I
i l
,A 1
l 1
l N
l i
r l
f si i
I. l w m..
s_
o a-u cmwr
/
lfd_L_b_mb.f y ML^:3N Y AJi. U Y 2l/Y-b i
4 Y
Y-i
. EL-O f.-
$L Q -_._.'
tj i
t 4
,f\\
- 1 s
a i
t I
I l
$ l e, _
F
, N !-
[
l.
, /g i
l I
i i
i i
i
-.a,,
1
.__.=
i i
f i
g l
j j
,, e l
i 1
4
.]
g i
__ __i_. _.;. _...,
i j.
..g.. _ _
l i
l
._ _ _ i i
_,.-....___.._a-i
.,i\\
6 i
i 1
l-l t
I i
t
.I
. p. --- ;
l l
i
\\
1 I. ___ f
.[
f i
l l
l l
i l'
i 1
i i
l
-u f
l I
l l'
e r
1 i
t t
l l
l l
l l
i I
---h M,
- t u
I l
l l
l-j i
t I
a i
p.
2 l
e i
. _6 t
4 i
-l e.
f
).
1 l
I e
\\
' ~ *
- l l
l
.l
-l
/
l i
g
+
i f
. p.,
l l
t l
I I
W
_r' l
_f.
I l
_I.
I l.___,i J
i i
l l
l i
i i
l 2
g I
1 l
e 1
l I
l l
[-.
I l
l 4
e
.r-I
,I l-l l
5
s-
,.a g M&-~~
C)
M4
^^ M ^ #
~
y As~
A
- q. 9 go % 4
~
T Q a,*s,_ $b
'b b
=
SUPERVISORS A.
SCHAEFER
(( C.
ROCHELLE SUBJECT : ISOTOPIC RERUNS -- FEBRUARY THRU MARCH TO : 'PRfSTON WINSLOW f ATTACHED IS A ftEPORT LISTING ALL THE PERUNS PEPFORMED ON ENRICHMENT ANALYSES FOR THE TIME PERIOD SHOWN ABOVE. THE WORD
" MAT" IN THE OUTLIER COLUMN MEANS THAT NONE OF THE THREE VALUES REPORTED FROM THE SAMPLE WERE WITHIN THE EXPECTED ERROR RANGE AND THEREFORE IT IS MY OPINION THERE IS A STRONG INDICATION THAT THE SAMPLE RECEIVED WAS NOT HOMOGENIOUS. THE COLUMN " ORIGINAL REPORT NUM3ER" SHOWS THE REPCRT NUMBER FRCM WHICH THE ORIGINAL ISOTOPIC WAS WITH-HELD. MANY OF THE FIRST SAMPLES DO NOT SHOW THIS REPORT NUM8ER SINCE THIS WAS ADDED AS AN AFTER THOUGHT. AT THE END PERCENTAGES ARE CIVEN FOR THE DATA ANALY2ED.
ROBERT PARNELL t
,F'
.t.
REcggygg
?,
APR17 g5
- O. BRECHittig 3
U i
RECEtVED
- O APR H "*
l n A saen.Y E
3 1
QW CI2VELAW^
]& hedhhin
/
h>y e l
hhxu fye-vt OUV
/
by Yb*
\\
pct-as-Rica vef y 6
j SUBJECT WATER IN BU-7 REF.
d) YOUR BAPIFAX DATED 3/19/'$5 6,p / g, ) t d
7 ay ba d) PDT-M 'i'013 DATED 2/20/' 55 g g p g g. y w,w'
/3) PD7
'J.d
.'.21.5 173 DATED 2/7/'05 i
THISI$,T,0y;071FY?L*{C CGr FINgINGy CM DEEP WATER IN EU-7 X-7$71 O!
F1-M1,
!A,.
O N BOTTCM OF 5-3AL CAN NO.
CML3980 RA9 BEEN AW7!.LY ROMTRD INSIDE THE BU-7.. JNF IS CHECRING THE POWD7;P IN IT FOR McISTORE AND C/U.
YOU ARE MERf4Y FOREWAPRED ABOUT PossIBLE OBLIGATION TO PAY FCR RE*40RK CT T]!3 70WDER.
IT25VNRYREGRITTABLETkATWEMAVEENCCWTEREDTHIS RIND OF '.
WATER INCLUSION SEVERAL TIME 8 AND REQUESTED YOUR TROUBLESHOOTING BUT RECURRENCE WAS EXPERIENCID l
REPEATEDLY.
WE NEED TO MAVE WRIITEN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING.
- 1. WHETMER NFMD RAS INSPECTION FOR ANY WAT5R INSIDE i
j SU-75 PRIOR TO PLACING INNER PAILS OF POWDER IN
- 'THEM.
HOW AND WRERE OF PROCESS Is IT CCNDUCTED*7 j
.:. WHAT WAs FOUND AT SUCH INSPECTION OF THE BU-7 IN QUESTION 7 PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF THE INSPECTION RECORD.
4
- 3. MiAT IS THE DATE OF THE ABOVE INSPECTION 7
- 4. WHAT I5 THE (CONCEIVABLE) CAUSE OF THE WATER INTRUSION j
IwIo. THE 3U-7 7 5.WHATC0hrVEAcTIONWILLBETAKENANDWEINTo
- mEErnCT, mEsT RzaARDs, n
n SCTOMATSO - JNF
.~
1AFIFAI JUNE 7, 1985 N YAMASHITA JNT LIAISON CE W11MINCTON FDT-85-T107
SUBJECT:
WATER INTO BU7 RET.
- TELEPHONE FROM YOU OF JUNE 5 TRIS IS CUR REPLY TO YOUR QUESTIONS B" REF. WITH RESPECT TO SUBJECT.
- 1. TAMPER SEAL WAS HEALTHY, BUT THE NUMBER OF SEAL WAS NOT KNOWN.
- 2. ANY WATER COUI.D NOT BE FOUND BETWEEN OUTER LID AND INNER LID
- 3. ALL HOLES FOR AIR ESCAPE LOCATED TOP OF BU7 kTRE COVERED BY TAP
- 4. GASEET WAS PUCES CORRECTLY AND ANTTRING WRONG ktRE NOT FOUND.
I S. THE WEATHER OF ARRIVAL DATE OF UO2 POWDER AT JhT WAS FUE.
- 6. ALL BOLTS OF INNER LID WERE TICHIENED.
1
- 7. ALL BU7s CONTAINED UO2 POWDER MUST BE STORED IN WAREHOUSE DUE T JNF FABRICATION LICENSE APPROVED BY STA. OF COURCE THE BU7 IN I
WAS STORED IN WAREB0USE.
- 8. THE WEATHER OF UNPACKING DATE OF BU7 IN QUESTION WAS RAIN.
BUT TRE PLACE FOR UNPACKING IS RECEIVING ROOM IN IST AREA 0F PLA So, THE WEATHER OF UNPACKING IS NOT RILATED TO THE CACSE OF WATER INTO BU7
- 9. ANY PINHOLE WAS NOT FOUND.
110. THE DEPTH OF WATER IS MAE. 1 CM, MIN. 1 NN.
i
- 11. WE CANNOT CONDUCT A SHOWER TEST FOR THE BU7 IN QUESTION, BECAUSE THE BU7 IS READY FOR RETURN TO CE.
IF WE CONDUCTED THE SH01.tR TEST, WE THINK THAT WATER WOULD NOT ENTER INTO BU7 THE 807 IS DESIGNED AS WATERTICHT CONTAINER AND TEST RE I
SHOULD BE CONDUCTED AT F.ABRICATED..
l I
?
BEST REGARDS, t
e T $070HATSU - JNF i
1' 1
ei er
-