ML20138G570

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Nonconformance Rept Re Improper Intermittent Fillet Welds on Various Raceway Supports Throughout Power Block.Block Not Installed,Per Aws D1.1-75.Related Info Encl
ML20138G570
Person / Time
Site: Wolf Creek Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation icon.png
Issue date: 03/02/1983
From:
DANIEL INTERNATIONAL CORP. (SUBS. OF FLUOR CORP.)
To:
Shared Package
ML20138G131 List:
References
FOIA-84-291 7158, NUDOCS 8512160355
Download: ML20138G570 (16)
v • d • e


Text

--

3 ..  ;- . G ~

~? ,eni m e ..

E2C- /6,/7 \

, w.Awnw u ~

l

' @M'_.h3 .

/,

N NONCONFORMANCE REPORT (NCR)

ACTION REQ'D BY CONTROL. METHOO O N NCR MIMfTR

. . FROJECT NAME/NWBER.

/ DOL F CLEEE - 7/58  % Nc2 )( .15M 9/ 30 i FtTTEM ID g/A IDENTir1 CATION OF ActEA AND ITEM T};tou3 henf PowEg BLkk ' '

&2sAy bt< goth 5 conTnOu.ms r>OcuuENTs

' TnAvEtEas NO. N/A

}&)$ DX/- 75

  • QCP-)(-302 Eca /2
  • c'c*~" c' ""*"'*""*"c' %crbreo L (hsis/w .Tx/e<in Has/ 5,Lta>

watJs ch UM/Du$ CEulAf typotlC 'bh/0kfdou/ $2 kxaER

~8tock Aer ad ins /nlla;o w _ /. xsex _

g, g,

" LA 0I&t2tptwpx=%/tP' JecoxgSff o,ves C044Alus/solw $4 sC(/Sf )A /J D 1.1- 7 T. ~# TM M

' - OR$1NATOR RECOMMENDED D:SPOSTDON & BASS FOR RECOMMENOClON:

O aEwOan' .

6 O nEmn j i

. O us:as s I i.

O nExcr

)

4 _.

DAUTHORIZED NUOLEAR INSP **

CAUEE Or NOncONrORvan;E ANDA::TIOt*TO PREVENT RECURRENCE:

~

-< .  ; 7. - .' / -

s - ACTION 1AKEN.TO CD.' TROL NONJ'DNFORMANCE :

~

  • PDTD.'TIAL 50.55 LL) / Ft.RT 21 l

,a . ,9 t

ROUTE 10 FDR CORRECTIVE ACDON: ,

SITE APPR. TITLE Ot.TE E1::TEVENT CF COMPLETED ACTION:

l . 8512160355 PDR 851107 --

l FOIA ~ '

'" I BROSIUs84-g91 4

PDR

)

I T4TLE ACTOrd VER. FED TITLE A"TE scCN CNP ETED E4T_E p

DtST RIEUTIOh .

't TACH (14OT'

'.. O ,.

Sl~ lS, /7 07 .1-2 '

.1/21/32) -

2>P.k1 M conthaties sh s Page of _

NCONFORMANCE REPORT (NCR) u .a. . .,, o_

m-s --

wotr caroc .7158

_f ggr 9/80 E Sc2/D/iox ohAbitecWbRsrAscs D-Y-3o 2. 280 /Z fALajAA/ V /S 3. IV, 9'L 5, f Y Z. 7 7f9,,p; agj,y SE ta AccotDaweg ua //1 JV /J 6' Dt./- 75.

k/AclE A 5. of)1/J5D/./-7r 5dr/rs ispsd: ~4);LJisy .

of

/>1bois Sbyi& bx Erosx SAsda is 'AK ledt.s/ Edifus Vs.A2 v, ". As//ck 9'L / o/A7tJs Az. Y sla/es sopse/

670 /4Arxsii//ro/ AlWisn/isp is testo by i/sxil,' fax ,

sniboi sadics&cs /As/ /sez.cnxd/.s s h n k b z 4 co fr/ s /

' L l

jr sads o//k dimeas<oEdlesy/L ~/fLSs ~/4rfic/swt .

lrpicAsa s/))tJa 42.y 0~7. Id s/n/cs : % ende ain Js sJ as o 0,Joisl.

  • YAssas % 9 Bu,0, meas aMzioy is/r<s,,/Ars/

l'td wgtl.s , sact s.s ax4 zs t e-ovoi Jch,c is, c-over ks,c C-OGo5 etc/pils 7 3A, 83, f 8c Ana C'-OGor derG<cs 7 V9~

cobknw lo,/ds &=paiscbirsA' s.0olW a o< DD s i s s a i.s G. $ 5 i e ' Nbx Jo a/dt , % e

'ock. Ser coadouAsa sArrJpgax z .0,c Ar 7.p.csxda6,a .

niup.tc.

//fsVAsd'sifospsdos : 14.sas& _.

. . .. .$.26$ $. . . . .

di.e

......,...n.......

~ ~

~

~

l YE S $ . % W. . .: $. o . 4 / A ,f -

sA/s.z),

\

i j-j-

7

.m. ._ _ _ _ .

! . ~ '. : - q n fEC~lh;ll

.-2 .

_.QRQ conu=uen nut Pa98 - of _ --

FORMANCE REPORT (NCR) acuan age syi n** .

.m f S# T/30 0 If CF114 - 7158 W Ik" ,, I 'd .

, 1M" l ~-

WELD l WELD '

2 h: - -

Q t

WELD WELD . .. .

I%~ .. 1 Yv~ u. .

,X ,, in- .,,

N 4

i 5" ,

N R.T s. .

, s e

1,c_fo x th AlsouE 2rpusDJ NsK heru9 S"ffl*/ !s u5 1~M M ho4h

os_ be h a g. Tho.s a'c/ nit cou s hox W So

~

--- . c 2 e .- . '

Y T 2' s ' j 'j.opy 5 cuff _e le cuhe .

. }g / .1 - 3 ' _

~

kJA.It $/ '

/uq ozu. ..

LEQ3 Fxheo3// fuy#

- e. ;- O . .. :

. . < . .i. ;; . -

. . . ' ' ..;;. ; .: '.~

5. *: :. .

S i

7, y

. _ _ . _ . ~ . .

-1 - .-

-9 ws

's..

Allegation No. A-E2-44 (Date Openec: 7/26/82) <_ l

.. 1 ALLEGATION REVIEW

SUBJECT:

"WHISTLEBLOWER" FIRING FAdILITY AND DOCKET NO.: Wolf Creek 1

ALLEGER NAME: Dean Lingenfelter ADDRESS:

s TELE. NO.: ,

f POSITION / TITLE: Former DI employee SOURCE OF ALLEGATION: Contact with SRI DETAILS: Details contained in QA-82-0012 enclosed ACTION ASSIGNED TO: Investigators DISPOSITION: Case 4-82-0008 CloSEO -

-O 9

0 S

A - 30 i amm - . =

/$'

\

ASEGITJONREVIEW CASE NUMBER 4-83-A-78 DATE OPENED 08/25/83 FACILITY NAME Wolf Creek 50-482

~

SUBJECT Allegation of Intimidat- ,

ioni SOURCE OF ALLEGATION' Former KG&E QC Inspector (Technical Auditor)

NUMBER OF ALLEG.

ASSIGNED TO RPS C ,

CROSS REF. NO. Q4-83-24. . l ACTION SCHEDULED Await DOL' Ruling FIRST/LAST NAME W. Johnson ,

DATE ASSIGNED 10/25/83 :

REPORT NUMBER 1st:

2nd:

. Lst: .

FTS NUMBER 8-728-8100 DUE DATE ALLEGATION SUBSTANT SCRT CODE C DATE CLOSED ACTION OFFICE RIV MAN HOURS REPORT PREPARATION l

l ASSIST -. I DETAILS: Former QC Inspector alle'ges he was terminated for writing letters concerning generic defects. 00L (Wage and. Hour Division, Kansas City).has ruled in Well's favor. Findings have been.appea, led to administrative law. )

Judge. '

\

l \

$-3!

Am z

65)

N ALLEGATION REVIEW CASE NUMBER 4-83-A-45 '

DATE OPENED 07/08/83i FACILITY NAME ' Wolf Creek  ?

50-482'  !

~

SUBJECT Improper handling of NCR SOURCE OF ALLEGATION P. B. Hale, OI QC Inspectori NUMBER OF ALLEG. 3 ASSIGNED TO RPSIC CROSS REF. NO., Q4-83-14 Report in preparat ACTION SCHEDULED -

t i o'n .

FIRST/LAST NAME W. Johnson DATE ASSIGNED 07/08/83 REPORT NUMBER 1st: 83-28 2nd:

' Lst:

FTS NUMBER 8-728-8100 DUE DATE ALLEGATION SUBSTANT SGRT CODE X DATE CLOSED 10/19/83 ACTION OFFICE RIV!

MAN HOURS REPORT PREPARATION ASSIST ..

DETAILS: The alleger states that: (1) NCRIISN11213 PN was !' closed in " process" but that work-had been performed w.ithout an apprpved dis;iosition which seems.to be contrary to site procedure AP-VI-02, Revision 15; (2) a QC ' surveillance report was written that indicated welders ways quenching SS welds with' demineralized water without a site approved procedure. An NCR (ISN 10594PW) was initiated but cancelled by site supervisors and the surveillance report was dispositioned as "ro site approved procedure was: violated"; and (3) three QC -

inspectors have been threathened by craft personnel, one man was fired after admitting the threats and no further threats have been made. Closed by IR 50-482/83-28 as being unsubstantiated or without technical merit.

kw - _ _ . - . -

3

1 -

r2-2

~

d A t .z / r ',s .- / c --

I /

? - E 2 - c I t.

{ct: E ric

/4 ,n c ~i~o4 N s e m fe c m : B;// . 7e h ., s e - -

'i~4, v . B:ll Se:J/t fq L63: VJo/F C,eek ./) //e3 e,-/ic,, s Fou < for m e,- Da,,;e / e w p/oyee s ne~ enp/,ya d b y Ka ;re, E ny , n e e ,. , ., f 14 e 2i ,,,,e, s;/e nude Lo a //cy c } /*n s '/c Yh e- 2;- - < < AIK C S'A 1 m n d , .4y /elepAe n e , /o Tr - t/c n de.l.,

t h e. Idalf Cre e k 5'R I .

~

7~ hey we<e CD C.

e

,, s,-o se L.s- w ;/A .Da ,,ie / anf
/

'fAsy ,,es:p ed d u e. -l. d rsdi rfe e--/; e , w,fA w e < ,e ? ,, 3 d; /i ., s . '7~), ,y % lley e. .-

c.e

1) b -re/ ~

yme,m3enen+ <e-f ~;f4 ocjeJ.ro,,-eI c, t wo I-f C-e e k . 9-f idi.

m e ed: ny 1he. -f e )/e n:,,y ,, , /;cy _ .c sf.:/ed 16 c, Oc i , sp e e fo<- w ;il ,,0f s y n oh

~ > ,  : p eeA' - f'ep, A:.r .s p,ests.

  • ~ ' /ne s,b e ca//ecl.

, i .r 7~~h e syers:ss.c .

i r f . ,o e, % _ fA c. ;,,,p - e / 'c n an.

ssy ,  :/ o f~f. l'X e. Oc , .

gp ee 1's, i s' s f. La , <-f e e s' n e j . ,-, J

-ll re.ce<J:[: e d.

/ 4 e ;-,,y/: < J: en w a.s 7$d i4e ree.e d:S:<a/.e , 4- f a :t'

-,oreces.r m;3) sd re s o // :n dism:s.sa/.

\

$-4

\

(, _ c r/m FD Q e,Q g.9 \.a n a u. _

a . . .... .

...c . . , '

/ . .

} a ) D u ,, : e.1 nw ,, ay e - u d 'a .s c .r .y y. ;)

] noe ,,cs Y o;, b yf a s .s o, c L ,,3 e '

oc o J wy/e proc e L , e .c

  • w,44 o -) -l'c, fer ,,, : n3 . 1 h -e p ,o p .c ,

_l ,se eL-c O c.

,! 3 -e f , c c e. s s _ .

w ://:

b

.? TAe f~ < o < e 3 ^1'w d alk w:/ A

.s 1A e /JR C . Two o f' % - ~ 1/~ d e. I 3aaJ v a-2 .. 4 tk.e
/>am.e. yr a ;40,, _ - ws x ,, -

.M

~

Y. I j '

M "Y'

Pi

, p:;

~ ' ,',.: .. .: . . . -'k ..m,~.....,.~....~.... _-

..3 ..

. -l

. 7 Keg ace,.. . v.,.., . day; .,. n '

m.n , cn:t, ,m 14e ,^ n , .

.] e vTss' e .,

it

" > c ... ,

Y . ' : ;;

~^

. ;.. .... .. .- --~*

4

~

... c.M...ks%-,-w%'Mi;;;,;A 6 ~. r c'ff e 8 ? ~'e

[ T A G Ly A e. d Ju c h.d -f+e-4:3o7 .

,_3 4

. *W

~

n

~;.

h 1 .

l

. 1

s. w -

ee

': .

  • e ti. f

.. 'T

~, O

^

4 4

~. .* .

, .. a .

.  ; .3 . . . .

s . . . .

k *

, , IVL Y.A . .V '

y.. ..

...... . .-... - .-.-. ~ . . . , . . - . . . . . . - -..

- . = --.---.-.: _.-

m,wwmmennww~.nvre q-.mm=ag; : yew %g.n; .

y.:xm w .; ---, . e.,~

.p .

c * -

Allegst ion tio. A-82-6t, (Date Oper.ed 10/?O/SP) ,

AL L EGAT I0f *- REVI Ek'

SUBJECT:

PRESSURE O!? QC liiSPECTORS

.r. _

F ACIL1TY AtG DOCKET ND.: Wolf Creet -

~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~

' ~

8.

. . ~

aut.

-:.rp g_3;;;t

c..:.:x
  • NNy+ iW syggdM*W,,-g*.

. :h w. _+; y w.& v

, ec W t J

)0 [ v (4' ./.

' ~

ALLEGER NAP.E: '7

'3;i! ! -~

. - i.= ,7 g

..p 4:: ;

ADDRELS:

E.s >

9. i !;. ,

- t:. ... .. gy li$,y r- . , , . .

34 r..

TELE. t:0

~

W *.. .s ;:J% - s:!w; .

._g. age.s-o s.bsselsew:ss06BsudiiSE.IdiEUlPh*";^

POSIT 10!4/ TITLE: Former ~Daniels, Int'l- QC Inspectors at Wolf Creek SOURCE OF ALLEGAT10fi: Via SRI atslimmer. .

DETAILS: It:ese four former D1 employees allege that Daniels put out the word that .if a C ~ inspector will hot sign off .an inspection step, his supervisor was. to be c alled who would then perform the inspection and sign-it off. The QC inspect - would then be retFained and recertified, implying that the recertific6 tion might not be automatic and would lead to termination of the individuai ..

Action Assigned To: Investicators.4-82-016-

. Disposi tior.: .

.~

e ul. e

- G.S

e. 9 e .

. . . g. s

. A ag .yA a>n 'l 3

- - - . . . ._. .e ... _- ,. .. .. _ _ . . . . . . . . . .

.Weemw aucu AR nt CULATORY COuumac d DALE'

' n. ' - u.;4MK0IDIscCOSE Q>

xco mo z-f-f1 TELEPHONE OR VERBAL CONVERSATION RECORD TWE -

/p ,, ;,

@ INCOMif4G CA1.t. , O OuTcOino gtt O visit  :

PE RSON CAL:.tNG ~~""~'b OF F ICE /A DDR ESS . /,,,,_3

{ ^ -~ ~

MNfA N- p&.y.;. _, ,

\.2ERSON CAltED N' OF FI '.E PA 6D RESS N 8

~

PHONE NUMBER l EXTENSIO

/k/, O-

  • A5 ,  ;

./ CONVE RSATION "h -

' ~ '

  • sf&g.r/ad - /yg/ dlah i o,,_

~

SUMMARY

. _ . .g ---- - .- .n-., ,.. ~ .~ x.,-. - h j i - - - . .

D

.w . . .im..e S'""l'*l' 47 Y gYt{ p*f/. 4,,] } jge *

$ W S-f.4ddl. <Gi u fNW itac4 l&gN sp*/ sup%t h Yk Z f 4'/ de-n:t sc. ed(,($ fu ggf- ;g, a y&

6 ~ 2%

WA u a u s a m . k er x 4 ( [..... * . ,. a r a < & .

<./ff. g. g ,gg___ h gfyQ _azg-g

//

Y S' Yth N AM Y c.. )C19 f.f//dd/d <-c'4 d r' f

. . . .""Ed/ ~u'.agoud WSfs fW*t'$[ ,

, .Msrgudes-a

- .~

Misf-t-C.-

msud i 64 a

$ k ($ $$ff' /* -

'$dd//-4 f /k -&eck gf&

./.e d<M M A.fa4a/A A paa& 2, "* w/4.p,a<a p. ' "

E FERREO TO:-- > ,. -.M a s. <a v f / ~ ~ ~,A, O ADVISE F ACTION REQUESTED g. ... ACTl KEN.

? 4/f W e-u cggj .g lNITI

*b M ~F #~

TE ACTION TAKEN ENITIA LS k-fCYa'f/ N MS ->t&$l~ Wf( 'k~ ' DATE loi 76 -

~..c ,ca o . ....I g 79.g .

y

. D m

9 - w . - . .

  • = . * * * " "

..;..o .

m .m ,, _

s.m . . , , , . . . . . , ,  ;-._.3,,,. .

~

l' , .

.- s g..- , WGii'/ 0' dJM i SEfUl 4 Alif.GATION REV1LW CASL NU!GER 4-83-A-08.

DATE OPENED 02/03/83 '

F ACILITY NAME Wolf Creek ,

50-482 '

StGJEC1 Improper Procedure Revision -

SOURCE OF ALLEGATION h . g.

\ a ia . i;M2.:sm.> 2:p.R - -

NUMBER OF ALLEG. 1 ASSIGNED TO RPS C CROSS'REF. NO. A4-83-03 Aci!ON SCHEDULED -Closeout by Inspect-ion, 5/15/83 FIRST/LAST NAME W. Johnson '

DATE ASSIGNED 02/11/83 REPORT NUMBER 1st:

~

, 2nd: .

Lst: I

.FTS NUF2ER 8-728-8100 DUE DATE ALLEGATION SUBSTANT -

SORT CODE X DATE CLOSED .

ACTION OFFICE ' RIV MAN HOURS REPORT PREPARATION ASSIST

~'

,-not DETAILS: The alleger states that while grading a recertification exam _ .. e . - -

[ , ed four questions that were wrong because of a recent procedure reV%f' .

equested guidance on how to handle this and was told by speed memo to "

~ Mettte the questions - s,ince this method of revising pr,ocedures vio1'ated the j_

administrative proc.edures which requires review and .apptovg of revisions ( ,

isupe.rvisor's u '

questione~d instructions or' the '1egality of this and was toldbto follow {y IR be fired for insubordination. ' Closed t 50 482/8313

~,/. ....

~Vi; . .'^ log

\

h

. 'y? ,

/ . .. ,

. +

.' N

. A-]

, ..' Fo @ 71-h3 \ - _ _

.-n ..,n .,n. .

M 3/e/F 3 gc., . . . _ .

~ n o a u .n. gy

'"'WIIl CCiGM+5.!nryrrrG ne engg;nnorut w .

B.u d _  ;-._

r .. .- .

NY & . . Jn Aw Y

$IR )921 - B3- o o 5 W'A/cfjg3)

O JL . =;1 i

D i^

da Y -

d, i k.

L y& . p : ,. c ~ L / a o a N .

un.__e Qg -

"[ + .

. + Ssrev . .w ..c<wr , a m.. .

,q.

/3 _<I/

9

  • ~

1 f r_ r 4 7*r .

J IMERn.L COMT,rk:$ lca::::Y CMimCLtLTIhr sntmc5 '

l 1

1 B-S 4 64%.'j

~

. v8

- . , . . . .--.... ... _ ,. .. ,___. ._ ..._ . . ._ _ __fo r 6 ( 1- a 9 l

9 iC 9-....

_ALL..EGA110N i:EVIEW <.

CASE NUMBER 4-83-A-20 DATE OPENED . 03/01/83 FACILITY NAME Wolf Creek '

482 .

SUEJECT. Pressure on QC Inspectors -

by. Supervisors SOURCE OF ALLEGATION .g.

, n;; .-

~.

'!- . . . . . . , . . . ;.s *

~ ~ " ~ ~ ~

NUMBER OF ALLEG. I ~

ASSIGNED TO Inv.

CROSS REF. NO. 4-83 ACTION SCHEDULED Investigation com- -

pleted, report in review. 3/18/83 FIRST/LAST NAv.E R. Herr '

DATE ASSIGNED 03/08/83 e L

REPORT NUMBER Ist:

2nd: J

. Lst: -

FTS NUMBER 8-728-8100 00E DATE ALLEGATION SUBSTANT SORT CODE X -

DATE CLOSE0 -

~ '

ACTION OFFICE RIV. '

-MAN HOURS REPORT PREPARATION ASSIST DETAILS: The alleger states that a DI Supervisor in the electrical department is threating people .in the department to sign false statements or they will be fire' d. On March 8, 1983, 01 contacted hiin and he retracted his allegation.

Opened.an investigation, determined that the problem was one of poor corcunications bitween supervosor and the QC inspectors which has now been -

corrected. POV being issued in Ispection Report 50-482/83-32.

e.4

?D F0iA Si.;Lq g 1.5,

. . . , . . . , , .....na...~-m.-- m----- g - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - ~ - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ^

~

.M U% 1 1 C ._

mm # ~  ;

l 7% __ s Ltd 6. )

i uom ea,- w. 4-sm. mey h.we1a. l  :

1 so n. m .r  :

Am.W ) - ~.~t.a ,l.,.

e J h ,. Sorc.e a h om  % .r a i  % ttr $ irs - y ou -  !

cese.s (so-wa).

hm G.') mac. Tam nur Tc.*rm her so -eez /m-o7 ser.cc w- cmsc Pone -

i. T*o ,wc M.ud wA. & Amac hpc (wom* w A.3 PS@) d. .A=d La_ ess s uy.ct.d -k t e hl ar64 c&'

psr- w3% A h erwm # co-e eleAn s dqued M e,wvik15 ' Jor.uate q t b 9e.c hstae.fm . tk ra.y%d %4  %. wea. M s PF tu L 82 nd

- ta d L.a. weed he. <e.k w,.J i. o b v4 30 % ,. &

l bud %d o.dven4. sif.< ud1TE ux s edu A4 L km p>,=.u..uu2 rawl 44 p c.co&_d *iar"

! ks h =ee dah .F chmA k k I  % -

.c es*c meonAs -ta%ubswe% .

rds-a %a.st= cad dh. +w.s A a.ff = .< .

l 2. Tw ssma o.LAdTu.va3?.q Qad %f kr. Q aba.s = -hio.4 %  % fore- a t te

% wth., h 9er R9x A 6 (Re.r) l yer=,me.L.d iw a -N. sk. .

b h

c - l-

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ' - - ~ ~ ~ ~ '

PAGE 1 of 2 i

~

c.

0FFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS INVESTIGATION' STATUS SHEET

  • e '

NO. 4-82-008 CATEGORY ** C OFFICE Dallas ASSIGNED T0: GR.IFFIN

SUBJECT:

ALLEGED DISCRIMINATORY PERSONNEL PRACTICES : WOLkCREEK, KANSAS DATE:

July 28,1982 - A11eger contacted Construction Branch Supervisor and alleged improper personnel activity on the part of Daniel International Corpor,ation DATE: July 30, 1982 - No change

""'E.* August 4,1982 - Interview of alleger; expande' d investigation to include willful duplication of safety-related pipe hanger from NONSAFETY-related material DATE: August 31, 1982 - No change .

f DATE: . Septenter 30, 1982 -

No change -

scheduled investigation on 10-18-82.

DATE: October 29, 198'2 -

Investigation complete. ROI in preparation.

DATE: November 30, 1982 -

ROI in review p" M-;

DATE: . December 31, 1982 - Mailed to 01:DF0 12-21-82 for final review. {

......._....- .. o u .i .,u.u ,... i.u i. .. , _ . _ _ _ _ __

PAGE 2 of 2 IIRC FORM 305 U.S. NUCLEAD RE1ULATO?.Y COMMIS$1CN

~ ~

INVESTIGATION STATUS RECORD 18sSTRUCTIONS: This form is to be completed whenever significant activity has occurred relative to e case or at least every 30 days. If no change has occurred durmg the 30 doy reportog perHMf, IndiCete **No Change in the status block. Keep the original with the case file and send one copy to Headquarters, Office of Investigetkms.

  • NuugER CATEGOmv OF FACE o .onEn rinc aEacroa i =oiviouat u*"'

_ _ 01 FIELD OFFICE 4-82-008 _ * %lI "cW5" __

= wavEainosaut' REGION IV V VENoOR X - OrME R

^"

  • GRIFFIN WOLF CREEK, KANSAS : ALLEGED DISCRIMINATORY PERSONNEL PRACTICES STATUS (Specify dete. arut provide a bref cheeripten)

DATE: January 31, 1983 - This investigation has been completed and a final draft has been forwarded to OI:DF0 for final review and approval on January 31, 1983.

DATE: February 28, 1983 - No change DATE: March 31, 1983 -

Closed by OI:DF0 on March 15, 1983.

4 mr 1

l l 1

p.J  % UNITED STATES j' 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. .x .

! OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGION IV

,',' , # '""IElNG10N.TE S DATE: March 15,1983 REPORT OF INVESTIGATION.

TITLE: Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station ALLEGED DISCRIMINATORY PERSONNEL PRACTICES

~

SUPPLEMENTAL: DN 50-482 CASE NUMBER: 4-82-008 CONTROL OFFICE: Region IV STATUS: CLOSED PERIOD OF INVESTIGATION: August 2,1982 - January 10, 1983 REPORTING INVESTIGATOR: -

H. Broots Griffin, Inve tigator b

01 Field Office, Regiofi IV PARTICIPATING PERSONNEL: D. D. Driskill, Investigator 01 Field Office, Region IV -

REVIEWED BY: # gfA/ _

_Richarb K. Herr, Director 01 Field Office, Region IV

  • APPROV O

BY: h William J.'

46 Ward, Director p- Division of Field Operations b([6 d ,

n , g l ,u , , , _ -

y Jr/ ff]

IEpp. .

% 9D C3

SUMMARY

An investigation was initiated at the Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station, New Strawn, Kansas, following the receipt of allegations from a former emp-loyee of Daniel International Corporation, construction contractor for Kansas Gas and Electric Company. The alleger stated he was terminated because he had provided information of a violation to the NRC. He further alleged that his supervisor's standing order to him and his crew members was not to talk to NRC employees. The alleger stated his personnel folder had been improperly altered after he was terminated. Daniel employees in management, personnel, ~

and construction were interviewed and stated that the former employee was terminated during a general reduction-of-force. Two personnel officers advised that the employees terminated were selected based on their record of attitude,' workmanship, and absenteeism. Both personnel officers stated the alleger's personnel file documented he had received a written reprimand from his supervisor one week prior to the January 1982 reduction-of-force (ROF). A review of the allegers personnel file showed the alleger received low marks on attitude, quality of work, workmanship, dependability, and judgement on his

" termination appraisal" which is executed after an employee is terminated. In addition, the alleger's file disclosed that he was given a reprimand for wasting time and loitering. Further review of the alleger's personnel file showed that the alleger's foreman listed him as eligible to be rehired; however, the superintendent changed the evaluation form to read "not elfgible 4

J .

for rehire" due to alleger's low marks. Three former co-workers of the alleger stated the alleger had developed a bad attitude and his work had '

n'oticeably deteriorated during his last two months of employment. Four former co-workers of the alleger were interviewed and stated their Daniel supervisor did not discourage employees from talking with the NRC.

l . ..

W e EMS-t 9

4 e

0 9

9 9

w - -

~ , - .-r y , ~ ,. - - - ,, - - - -

.4 9

  • e e

O e

O 9

9 9 m

h e

DETAILS e

  1. 9 m eeem O O

EP

(

1

,. t Purpose of Investigation This investigation was conducted to determine if Daniel International Corpo-ration (the contractor for Kansas Gas and Electric ~) management personnel unlawfully discriminated against and/or terminated an employee because he assisted in an investigation conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, _

and determine if the employee's supervisor instructed personnel not to talk to the NRC.

4 e e e-4 e

e 1

e e, 4 S , r**e 0

9 e

. l 1

t . .

i

-.,1 , - , . -. -, , e-,-..nw. , . - . ,, - - - , _ . n .., . , - - . , .

2

Background

On April 10, 1981, Dean LIGENFELTER provided information to the NRC of an unauthorized duplication of a safety-related hanger at Wolf Creek. The subsequent NRC investigation resulted in the issuance to Kansas Gas and Electric of a " NOTICE OF VIOLATION" (50-482/81-07). Or. January 14, 1982, LIGENFELTER was terminated during a general reduction-of-force. LIGFNFELTER -

! stated that he did not complain to the Department of Labor because he believed

! he would be rehired a few months later. On July 28, 1982, LIGENFELTER con-i l tacted the NRC., Region IV, and stated that on or about March of 1982, he learned that he was not eligible for rehire. LIGENFELTER stated again that he

! did not complain to the Department of Labor 'within the required 30 days. -

l LIGENFELTER stated that he believed he was discriminated against as related to being rehired because of the information he provided to the NRC in 1981.

LIGENFELTER further alleged that his Daniel foreman tgld his crew they were ~ ,

not to talk to NRC employees. LIGENFELTER identified '

~ ~

as persons who could substantiate his cl[ aims. These allegations were first dddressed in an NRC Report of Inquiry, Attachment (1), and subse-

~

quently expanded to this investigation.-

i I ..

i o . . .m o 9

e a

. 3 Interview of BILL BURNS -

On October 26, 1982, BURNS, Personnel Director for Daniel International, was interviewed by NRC Investigator H. B. GRIFFIN at Wolf Creek. BURNS stated his only involvement with Dean LIGENFELTER was a telephone call LIGENFELTER had made to him in March 1982. BURNS reported that LIGENFELTER told him he (LIGENFELTER) -

had been told by Ollie FRANKS, his former foreman, he would be eligible to be -

rehired within thirty days after being terminated. BURNS stated he told LIGENFELTER'he would check into it and would return his call. BURNS said he reviewed LIGENFELTER's file and discovered that he had been listed as not recommended for rehire by Harold McINNIS, LIGENFELTER's superintendent. BURNS stated he contacted McINNIS, who told him they had problems with LIGENFELTER's workmanship, and he did not recommend him for rehire. BURNS' stated he returned LIGENFELTER's call and advised him he was not listed as eligible for rehire.

, BURNS said LIGENFELTER's file contained a performance appraisal which was made -

after LIGENFELTER's termination, and that such appraisals were used following R0F's to determine who could be rehired if any employees were brought back on the job. Burns stated that he did not think that LIGENFELTER was aware that he had been listed as ineligible for rehire until he (BURNS) told him.

G 09 4

S s eMh 9

D 9

9 f

4

+ 6

- , - - - , . - , . - n +

4 Review of Dean LIGENFELTER's Personnel Records On October 26, 1982, LIGENFELTER's personnel folder and the reduction-of-force list containing LIGENFELTER's name were provided by Steve FOLLICK, Personnel Officer, Daniel International, and were reviewed by NRC Investigator H. B.

GRIFFIN. The personnel folder included a performance appraisal for -

LIGENFELTER dated shortly after nis separation from Daniel. The performance appraisal bearing the signature Ollie FRANKS rated LIGENFELTER as "less than expected" in the areas of workmanship, quality of work, attitude, dependa-bility, and fudgement. In the area of attendance he was listed fully ade-quate. The performance appraisal contained a category which indicated the -

employee's rehire eligibility.

had been marked and then crossed out.The eligible for rehire box in this category The box which listed LIGENFELTER

- ineligible for rehire was marked and initialed adjacent to the box. The

. initials were identified by the personnel officer as those of Harold MCINNIS. '

No date was observed next to the initials. The reduction of force list for January 1982 was also reviewed, and LIGENFELTER was one of sixty-two people

' terminated during a reduction-of-force (ROF). Nine employees of the sixty-two terminated were welders, and seven of those were pipe welders. LIGENFELTER's personnel folder also contained a written reprimand bearing the signature Ollie FRANKS issued to him one week prior to the general R0F, The reprimand listed wasting time and loitering as the reasons for the reprimand..and bore the signature of LIGENFELTER.

personnel information. LIGENFELTERs files contained no other adverse 9

8 O e 0*MO 6

9 I

e 9

5 Interview of STEVE FOLLICK On October 26, 1982, FOLLICK, personnel officer in charge of craft hiring for Daniel International, was interviewed by NRC Investigators D. D. DRISKILL and H. B. GRIFFIN at the Daniel International personnel office, Wolf Creek. FOLLICK stated LIGENFELTER's file documented he (LIGENFELTER) had received a written -

reprimand on January 7 1982, for loitering and wasting time, from Ollie FRANKS, his foreman. He also stated no other disciplinary information was in LIGEHFELTER's folder. FOLLICK stated the general reduction-of-force which included LIGENFELTER was assembled on a selective determination of employee attitude, workmanship, and attendance. FOLLICK said craft employees rated poorly in these areas were the ones selected for termination. FOLLICK stated LIGENFELTER's personnel appreisal, which was prepared after he was terminated, listed him low in a number of categories. FOLLICK said Harold McINNIS, LIGENFELTER's superintendent, listed him as not eligible for. rehire because of '

. his low marks.

e 89 e

9 9 e sam e O

9 e

l 1

s 8

,w - ,- , - -. , .-m,-

y ..e 6 -

6L Interview of OLLIE FRANKS On October 26, 1982, FRANKS, Pipe Hanger Foreman, Daniel International, was interviewed by NRC Investigators D. D. ORISKILL and H. B. GRIFFIN at Wolf Creek.

FRANKS stated LIGENFELTER had worked for him from April 1981 until January 1982.

FRANKS stated that in the latter part of 1981, he was asked by his supervisors -

to come up with individuals for a reduction-of-force. FRANKS stated that at that time he had four welders working on his crew, and he selected LIGENFELTER's nane because he thought LIGENFELTER had a bad attitude. FRANKS said that over a period of months, 'LIGENFELTER's work had gone into a slump, and he had counseled him on a number of occasions. FRANKS stated LIGENFELTER's work was unsatis- -

factory and the quality of his work was steadily dropping prior to the ROF.

FRANKS said the inclusion of LIGENFELTER's name in the R0F list was ultimately decided by his superintendent, Harold McINNIS. FRANKS stated he remembered that

- at sometime during that period McINNIS had asked him if the inclusion of -

LIGENFELTER's name on the R0F list was all right with him, and he (FRANKS) said, "Yes, that's. fine." FRANKS was asked whether the reprimand he had given LIGENFELTER only seven days prior to the ROF was documentation to support his inclusion in the ROF. FRANKS stated "no," and that he had counseled LIGENFELTER

, on numerous, prior occasions about his unsatisfactory work habits. When asked about the circumstances surroundino the issuance of the reprimand to LIGENFELTER, FRANKS said he thought he remembered either McINNIS or LINSCOME (Daniel Construction superintendents) had told him to write the reprimand after LIGENFELTER had been caught loitering and wasting time. FRANKS said he pre-

- pared the performance appraisal on LIGENFELTER at the time of his termination as required. FRANKS stated he listed LIGENFELTER on his performance appraisal as eligible for rehire. He stated he did not remember saying anything to 4

LIGENFELTER about being the first available to be rehired, but that he may have said something of that nature. FRANKS stated that several months ago someon~e in Daniel management called him and asked if he wanted LIGENFELTER back, and he said "no." FRANKS said that just prior to the ROF he and LIGENFELTER argued, --

and LIGENFELTER threatened to appeal the situation to " higher-ups." FRANKS said he igreed this would be a good idea. FRANKS said LIGENFELTER changed his mind and decided he did not want to appeal the situation. FRANKS stated poor work performance and not arguments was the reason for selectjng.LIGENFELTER for the ROF. FRANKS said he did his best to try and get along with LIGENFELTER, but LIGENFELTER's work had deteriorated over a period of months. -

~

FRANKS said he never had any problem with LIGENFELTER regarding the earlier, duplicate hanger investigation conducted by the NRC. FRANKS stated that during that earlier investigation, Fred EASON (Daniel General foreman) tried to place the responsibility for the fake hanger on him (FRANKS). FRANKS stated LIGENFELTER had been involved in that investigation, but they had both been blamed and then exonerated. FRANKS remarked he and LIGENFELTER had both suffered false accusal, and he (FRANKS) had no reason to harbor ill feeling against LIGENFELTER over the earlier incident in that they both had been treated unf airly. FRANKS denied ever having told any of .his crew members not to talk to  ;

i the NRC. -

t l

9 h

4 r _--- - , - -

, .,,.,,.,4 ,.v-. , , ,,.,v- -

---...,,n.- _ . _ . ~ . , . - . - . , . -

- ,.n e., .a . -

~

7 Interview of HAROLD McINNIS On October 26, 1982, McINNIS, Superintendent for Daniel International, was interviewed by NRC Investigators D. D. DRISKILL and H. B. GRIFFIN at Wolf Creek.

McINNIS stated he was told by Jan LINSCOMB, a Daniel General Superintendent, to

, select personnel for an upcoming ROF. McINNIS said he was aware that LIGENFELTER had been disciplined and counseled on prior occasions by his fore- ~

man about improper workmanship and work habits. McINNIS stated he reviewed LIGENFELTER's file and found LIGENFELTER had received a recent reprimand, and this reprimand was used as a basis for his selection in the reduction-of-force.

McINNIS stated that to the best of his memory, the reprimand was issued because LIGENFELTER was caught loitering on the job. McINNIS said he instructed FRANKS to write the reprimand on LIGENFELTER. McINNIS denied that he instructed FRANKS to write the reprimand knowing that it would be used as a basis for including LIGENFELTER in an R0F. McINNIS said that following the reduction-of-fo.rce in e

which LIGENFELTER was terminated, a performance appraisal was made of LIGENFELTER's work and placed in his personnel file. He stated such appraisals were used as criteria for determining who would be rehired. McINNIS stated LIGENFELTER's foreman had recommended him for rehire on the personnel evaluation form required to be filled out when an employee was included. in an R0F.

Jic INNIS stated that when.he saw LIGENFELTER had been listed as eligible for rehir'e shortly thereaf ter, he (McINNIS) overruled FRANKS and listed LIGENFELTER not eligible for rehire because of continuing problems with his workmanship. McINNIS s'.ated he was aware of LIGENFELTER's involvement in a prior NRC investigation, but that LIGENFELTER's inclusion in the reduction-of-force and his exclusion from consideration for rehire was not because of any prior involvement with the NRC.

e M p eN Se O

9 e

  • 4

$ 4 4

4

, , ,4-..- - -

8 ,

4 Interview of JAN LINSCOMB On October 26, 1982, LINSCOMB, Daniel General Superintendent, was interviewed by NRC Investigators D. D. DRISKILL and H. B. GRIFFIN at the Daniel International personnel office at Wolf Creek. LINSCOMB stated he knew a general reduction-of-force was to take place about a week before it actually occurred or was made known. He said it was his belief the number of employees selected for the ROF _

were determined on a straight percentage basis or were a specified number determined by personnel. LINSCOMB said he instructed his foremen to select the names of employees who had reprimands, excessive absenteeism and/or related problems. LINSCOMB stated he did not issue LIGENFELTER the reprimand in his personnel file, but he did review all reprimands that involved employees on the -

crews which were subordinate to him. LINSCOMB stated that it was his belief when Ollie FRANKS picked LIGENFELTER's name, he (FRANKS) did not know the request was for an upcoming R0F.

9 d

t I

,m,,% .ww = - + - * **

ww-- - . - .,e-,s, .g-f , ya - -- - w -m-- -

-+--s-p ~

9

~ Interview with GARTH WILLIAMS On October 26, 1982, WILLIAMS, a Daniel International welder, was interviewed by NRC Investigators D. D. DRISKILL and H. B. GRIFFIN at Wolf Creek. WILLIAMS stated he was a welder on Ollie FRANKS' crew, and that he had worked with LIGENFELTER in the past. WILLIAMS stated it was his personal opinion that _

LIGENFELTER worked "too slow," and that he didn't do as good a job as he was capable of doing. WILLIAMS stated LIGENFELTER had done much better work in the past but in the last few months his work had gone down in quality. WILLIAMS stated he never knew of anyone who got into trouble for talking to the NRC, and he had never heard anybody in management, including FRANKS, say not to talk to the NRC.

. e T

e m

9 9

e es e

4

  • e * * * . I e

9 e

e s n

10 Interview with EUGENE R. MC CULLOUGH On October 26, 1982, MC CULLOUGH, a Daniel International welder, was interviewed by NRC Investigators D. D. DRISKILL and H. B. GRIFFIN at Wolf Creek.

MC CULLOUGH stated he had been a welder for 21 years, and he worked on Ollie FRANKS' crew. MC CULLOUGH stated that to the best of his knowledge LIGENFELTER _

was a very good welder, but his work in the months prior to his termination had been less than adequate. MC CULLOUGH stated it was his opinion that LIGENFELTER had developed a " bad attitude," and had not gotten along with FRANKS during the last few months. EC CULLOUGH stated that during the last few months of LIGENFELTER's employment he had witnessed LIGENFELTER and FRANKS involved in -

some heated arguments over the quality of LIGENFELTER's work. MC CULLOUGH said that as far as he knew, LIGENFELTER had not been singled out for any kind of

. mistreatment or received any trouble based on the prior NRC investigation on

- hangers. -

e 1

4 4

Ow

  • l .

9 e

6 0

. e _ g . _ . . , - , . - - - - - . _ . m - _ _ _ , . - . _ - _ . , ,

y; ...

11 t

Interview oft

. v -

~

~ _,

On October 26, 1982, a Daniel International t was.iltipry.iewed by NRC Investigators D. V. [%ISKILL and H. B. GRIFFIIT

. stated he._had. 'sorked._as3 .a welder for Daniel for ~~ ~

_ _ _ _ . . 1 stated that during the'last months LIGEN LTER was on the

. ~ job,the ~~hy 'of his work tqd steadily grown worse.i ~

~

st:,ted he had worked as ~~jand he personally knew LhiEN LTER's work had degenerat .

stated LIGENFELTER's. attitude had gotten " bad" during this period of time, and that he had numerous,prohlems with their foreman, Ollie FRANKS, about the quality of his work.'t Isaid he had witnessed arguments between FRANKS and LIGENFELTER on severti occasions, and he recalled that on one occasion LIGENFELTER kicked a lunch box while they were' arguing. ( ,','

stated he did not remember hearing FRANKS,or LjGENFELTER curse each other, nor -

does, he remember any threats being made. stated he had never had anyone instruct him to not talk with the NRC, noPhad he ever heard of anyone getting in . trouble for talking with the NRC.

t e.n 9

O

  1. W e

O e s *9e JP D

W e

B 4

12 Interview with' ,

On October 28, 1982, for Daniel Construction Company,

.was intervieye_d by NJC Investigators D. D. DRI5 KILL and H. B. GRIFFIN ( ~~

.reqyested and received confidentiality, Attachment _f2). _During tTIe Ynterv'iew,l

~ ..

' stated he had worked with LIGENFELTER, and'that FRANKS had been his foreman. stated FRANKS and LIGENFELTER argued a lot. He stated that during the timp. he .w'oded with LIGENFELTER, he. believed LIGENFELTER took pride in his work. -

haid'he did not know why LIGENFELTER had been terminated. '

When I/as' asked to provide the names of Daniel employees who knew LIGEtFELTER well andand would inion ofop/

his stated work. he had neve Gene give a truthful,I unprejuficed he identified Garth WILLIAMS MC CULLOUGH.

heard FRANKS tell anyone not to talk with the NRC. ' -

4

_m

  • i o

.o e

AP

'4 l

_ . _ _ _, - _ l

-4 13

- . _ _i Interviewof(

On January 10, 1983, a Daniel Internationali ."."'~~ '.

Iwas i .erv.iewed by NRC Investi_ gator H. B. GRIFFINI

~

. . Isaid that when the NRC discovered a duplicate hanger at Wolf Creek (April of 1981), LIGENFELTER was working on Fred EASON's crew PF-04). said LIGENFELTER told him that EASON had told him to transfer a weld'numbe'r to the scrap _p_i,ece used in the duplicate hanger, and that he (LIGENFELTER) refused. i ' said he believed LIGENFELfER was a good worker and an excelle%t wel' der.

l . stated he was not aware that LIGENFELTER received a writtea reprimand.

, stated that LIGENFELTER had told him.he believed that the incident -

invol/ing the hanger "got his job." l .

stated he was unaware of MC INNIS N having any reason to fire LIGENFELTER, incl'u' ding the 1981 incident involving the duplicate hanger. lstated he didn't have'any direct knowledge of i

' LIGENFELTER's termination but that he talked with LIGENFELTER often and recalled, during the spring of 1982, LIGENFELTER had asked him if he would

~ support him if he complained to the Department of Labor. ; explained he told LIGENFELTER he would support him to the extent of hi's knowfedge concer-nin,g the 1981 duplicate hanger incident.

o .

I w -

a' S

., N ,

J P

0 e

. O*

' 1 l

\

14 Status of Investiaation The status of this investigation is CLOSED.

e e

O

  • 4 Y

S 4

e 1

  • . . = . .

e 9

____ - ___~ ____ _

P 15 Attachments Attachment (1) - Report of Inquiry No. Q4-82-012 9-04'-82

) Attachment (2) - Confidentiality Agreement 10-28-82 1

4 .

i, L

{ .

i  ;

e 9

1 a

1 eg e

e S gg 89 Se g

' e l

e I

1 4

p I

i .

I

[^ ,

f .

wh --- -d w -ahe* er e+.,_l 7m g = -me-u.-..,-, er -*' w4-- -- N-- sdew-- w-+ s t m e -y e - T wm r - g yew myte elmm++NT'gwhg- y9&t4mTem-C-T FN- we--Ty-""c=*

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20138G570&oldid=2867216"