ML20141G495

Further Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re NRC Investigation of Allegations of Intimidation & Harassment of Inspectors by Pullman Power Products Employees.Forwards App D Documents.Documents Also Available in PDR

ML20141G495
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	03/25/1986
From:	Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Fowler L AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
FOIA-86-42 NUDOCS 8604230413
Download: ML20141G495 (2)

Text

hh h

[* 'o

~,, UNITED STATES

! n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g a WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s., ...../

Docket No. 50-424/425 m,,

Laurie Fowler, Esquire Suite 220 - Grant Building 44 Broad Street, NW IN RESPONSE REFER -

Atlanta, GA 30303 TO F01A-86-42 _

Dear Ms. Fowler:

This is in further response to your letter dated January 15, 1986, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (F0IA), all records related to NRC's investigation initiated in May 1983 regarding allegations that Pullman Power Products employees intimidated and harassed quality control inspectors at nuclear facilities, including the Vogtle plant.

r The documents listed on the enclosed Appendix D are already available in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) located at 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555. The documents are also available in the Vogtle Local Public Document Room (LPDR) located at the Burke County Library, 412 4th Street, Waynesboro, Georgia 30830.

The NRC has not completed its search for and review of documents subject to your request. We will respond as soon as those actions are completed.

Sincerely, Sk y h At N7 D. H. Grimsley, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration

Enclosure:

As stated 1

3 8604230413 860325  ?

PDR FOIA -

FOWLER 86-42 PDR 4 d

Re: F01A/86-42 Appendix D

1. 10/26/83 Summary of 01 Report 2-83-005 (8509200228)

2. 06/14/84 Inspection Report 50-424/84-05 and 50-425/84-05 (8407180188)

3. 07/23/84 Letter to H. C. Dar.ce from D. O. Foster (8409240379)

4. 09/19/84~ Inspection Report 50-424/84-23 and 50-425/84-23 (8411140549)

5. 03/04/85 Inspection Report 50-424/84-36 and 50-425/84-36 (8504170570)

6. 10/10/85 Inspection Report 50-424/85-49 and 50-425/85-36 (8512050219B)

7. 11/15/85 EA 85-117 (8512050219) n

'~- Law Ofpces cf BRIAN SPEARS SUITE 220-GRANT BLDG.

44 BROAD STREET. N.W.

ATTORNEY AT t.AW BRIAN SPEARS ,

ATIANTA. GEORGIA 30303 (404) $22494 LAURIE FOWLER January 15, 1986 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Office of Freedom of ACT REQUEST Information Act Requests Nuclear Regulatory Commission h M .- % g 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 h[p g Re: Freedom of Information Act Request NRC Investigation of Intimidation and Harrassment by '

Pullman Power Products, Inc.

Dear FOIA Officer; se Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C.

552 as amended), the Georgia office of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) requests: copies of any and all NRC notes, records and information, including, but not limited to:calendars, letters, memoranda, drafts, minutes, diaries, logs, tapes, transcripts, summaries, interview reports, procedures, instructions, engineering analyses, drawings, files, graphs, photographs, agreements, handwritten notes, charts, maps, studies, data sheets, notebooks, books, telephone messages, computations, interim and/or final reports, status reports, and any and all other records relevant to and/or generated in connection with the NRC's investigation (initiated on May 19, 1983) regarding allegations, findings and orders that Pullman Power Products employees intimidated and harrassed quality control inspectors at nuclear facilities. (See attached Atlanta Constitution article for reference.) This request includes, but is not limited to, investigations of intimidation and harrassment by Pullman employees at Plant Vogtic. This request also includes, but is not limited to, the NRC Conference of September 25, 198S, on the investigations. (See attached NRC memo for reference.)

Because the ACLU is a non-profit or8anization established to protect the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, we believe it is appropriate for you to waive copying and search charges, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 522(a)(4)(a).

In this case, " furnishing the information can be considered as primarily benefitting the general public."

For any documents or portions that you deny due to a specific FOIA exemption, please provide an index itemizing and describing the documents or portions of documents withheld. The index should provide a detailed justification of your grounds for claiming each exemption, explaining why each exemption is r f e

a4

relevant to the document or portion of the document withheld.

This index is required under.Vaughn v. Rosen (I).- 484 F.2d 820 - '

(D.C. Cir. 1973).. cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974).

I look forward to hearing from you within 10 days as the law stipulates.

Sincerely, Laurie Fowler Cooperating Attorney, Georgia ACLU LF: Jy cc: NRC, Region II o

o 4

2

Group snyrVu,,..,..gde" inspe'ctors hatassed

..and intimidated UN b that forward I have, with the('d better come it," e added. .

3ll *'*" Grace became regional admin-The head of the Nuclear Regu- Istrator last spring, replacing ,

14 tory Commission's Atlanta office James P. O'Reilly, who joined said Wednesday that he was em- Georgia 1%wer as its senior vice t,arrassed at the length *of time it president in charge of nuclear op-v:as taking his office to reach an crations.

enforcement decision concerning Grace and members of his Z the intimidation and harassment of staff met Wednesday with officials o

quality control inspectors at the from the Georgia Power Co. con-cerning an NRC investigation into s"* , Vogtle nuclear power plant.

) ,

Nelson Grace, administrator of allegations that construction su.

b $ the Atlanta Regional Office of the pervtsors harassed and intimidated H iE NRC, said that the problems at 'lity control inspectors at Vog-y 1n,- Vogtle had been corrected, howev-er, and .ebemently denied charges them.

in an attempt to manipulale d

() .: that his staff is allowing nuclear De investigatics was begun in .

H 4

I p ,

power plants to be built in the 1983 and completed during the Southeast without proper regard ,, suminer of 1986, with NRQ lay l Z g- for safety. '.l.,~. .t!gators reaching the copelas ..

j u Meanwhile, { Washingtos ."that employees of Pu!! man Power t,ased public laterest organizatico Products Inc., which is t=f aNg s $-

< ,5 charged Wednesday that inspectors pipes at Vogtle, were intimidating and harassing some of their own

o at Vogtle are can'inuing to be ha- '

rassed and intimidated The group, employees, who were responsible H, the Government Accovatab!!!ty .for quality trd safety inspections j 8 '

Project, has opened 4mt Aug"ata of f .at the plant.

~

fice to investigate kilegations that Pullman transferred its project subcontractors are punishing worh- manager to a new assignment, and .

ers who report constructice or in ' the NRC investigation Indicated l spection practices that could be that the action was sufficient to I compromising Vogtle's safety. correct the pmblem, Grace said.

The nuclear plant is being Bat the NRC has yet to decide 1.cilt near Augusta. It's current whether to take enforcement ac-projected cost is $8.4 billloa. tion against Gectgla Power as a Since last November, the Gov- result of the situation.

ernment Accountability Project "The problem's been fixed "

has interviewed more tha'n 80 Grace sait ' Tor some reason, en-workers at Plant Vogtle who have forcement action was delayed un.

charged that goality control in- til this spring. We could have 101-spectors who cite safety concerns lowed up sooner," he said. "The at the plant often end op being timetisess of our enforcement ac-fired, demoted or transferred, ac- tion is embarrassing."

cording to Billie Garde, citizen's Georgia Power officials have clinic director for the Project. denied that harassment ever took lastead of responding to thS place at Vogtle, a contention com-complaints, the NRC has ignored pany officials repeated Wednesday them, she said. Ms. Cartz charged before the NRC.

that the NRC's Atlanta office has Ms. Garde said the Govern-responded to worker complaints ment Accountability Project, about nuclear power plant con- which is to years old, has re-struction practlees by contacting vifwed the way in which each of the utilities buildsag the plants, in- the NRC's Sve regicaal offices re-stead of lattistlag MRC investiga- sponda to workers' concerns about tions that inight result 13 itive ecclear power plant coast wetloa.

measures being taken the De response from Regios II's of-

' flee, the Atlanta office that admla-utilities.,

"We. do not ceD the utility,"

isten NRC functiom in the South-said Grace. "I have sever done east, has been " absolutely that, and if they can find eviden:e terrible," she said.

x.; gy.aw.. M .h < m s..+ e... w.. N, , s .A. .m rw,m.a;gs , , ,

~ *

.gf '

.p. aa g UNITE 3 STATES

,, g NUCLEAR REEULATCRY COMMISSION - -

p- -

, ,Ea.oM ,,

y. j. 101 MA34ETTA STREET.N.W.

• 2 ATLANTA. OEORGI A 30323

• s.,*... / w .2 sas .

+

Georgia Power Ccmpany ATTN: Mr. R. J. Kelly Executive Vice President P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302-

-Gentlemen:

SUBJE'CT: PLACEMENT OF DOCUMENT IN PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM Enclosed is a sumary of an investigation conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations, Region Il field office. The subject of the investigatio'n.is "Vogtle Nuclear Plant Alleged Intimidation /Harrassment of QC Welding Inspectors

'and Possible Falsification of QC Inspection Records by Pullman Power Products, Inc." This Document has been placed in the Public Document Room and may be of use to you in preparing for the conference on September 25, 1985.

Sincerely, '

q u

G r

w--

J. Nelson Grace

- . [ - Regional Administrator

Enclosure:

Cover page and sumary, dated 10/26/83, 7 pages cc w/ enc 1:

R. E. Conway, Senior Vice President

.. Nuclear Power D.,O. Foster, Vice President

~and General Manager Vogtle Project H. H. Gregory, III, General Manager, Vogtle Nuclear Construction 1 G. Bockhold, Jr., Vogtle ' 1 Plant Manager  ;

L.?T. Gucwa, Chief '

l Nuclear Engineer ' '

. Ruble A. Thomas, .

Vice President-Licensing Vogtib Project 1 >

-cc w/ encl: (Cont'd on page 2)

_ . - , , _ , _ . . . - _ , . _ , , . _,- _._.- _. ,~y , m .m. ,, ...~. -

/

2 D

Georgia Power Company SEP 12 P

~cc w/ enc 1: (Cont'd)

'Ed Groover, Quality Assurance Site Manager C. W. Hayes, QA Manager J. T. Beckham, Vice President

& General Manager - Opera.tions J. A. Bailey, Project Licensing Manager George F. Trowbridge, Esq. ,

Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Bruce-.W. Churchill, Esq. ,

Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Ernest L. Blake, Jr.. Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowb;idge James E. Joiner, Troutman, Sanders, -

e Lockerman and Ashmore James G. Ledbetter, Connissioner Department of Human Resources Charles H. Badger, Office of Planni_ng and Budget, Management Review Division Deppish Kirkland, III, Counsel Office of the Consumer's Utility Council Douglas C. Teper, Georg'ians Against

. . Nuclear Energy Laurie Fowler,-Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation

~ Tim Johnson, Executive Director Educational Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia Morton B. Margulies, Esq., Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Dr. Oscar H. Paris, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr., Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel

,.e-4-m,y _ &.

UNITE 3 str.Tas ENct.O'l_tj u t*

.l ,

NUCLEAR RECULATCRY CO*AMISSION OFFICE CF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE. KEGloN 88 1M MARIETTA STREET. SUITE 3500 ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303 .

Date: October 26, 1983 i

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION _

9 TITLE: V0GTLE NUCLEAR PLANT ALLEGED INTIMIDATION / HARASSMENT OF QC WELDING INSPECTORS AND POSSIBLE FALSIFICATION OE, QC INSPECTION RECORDS BY PULLMAN POWER PR0f)UCTS, INC.

SUPPLEMENT:

50-424 I

. I 2-83-005

~ ,

CASE NUP.3ER:

l 01: Region II STATUS: CLOSED

., CONTROL OFFICE:

(

' i REDORTING OFFICE:

01: Region II FERIOD OF INVESTIGATION: May 19 - July 9,1983 REPORTING INVESTIGATOR: 444 R[ ben k. Buk Investigator Office of Investig tions Field Of fice, Regior.11 REVIEWED BY: .

- v --/24 E. L. W1111ams , Acting Director

.ce, Region II Office of Investiqtions Field Of

//?A41 blfiut1 u - y v William J. Wardi,YDirector l.

Division of Field Operations Office of Investigations

. l

p

'~

\, #6$ ..#

^

p*

_4 = ,

\

i ,

h

/ I

, [fe4. 4

\ f

• tot R09" ). tuna 9phtyD -

of Oi 1992 sg

,,, , - f)t/ t

,- 1e. *l*;' g sof t sty'.' '-

4 30 l

l l

l h

i

1. 0 l

4

I

• • • • hhuhmou wgggg, , , , , , ,

(

a r

l 0

1. 4 SUK%RY h

e e

o 9

e4 l

i t

i e

I i

t e

" w .

m

- ,- m ._. _ . . . _ _

L 1

J

$ f e- ,

p: , .. t is investigation was initiated to identify and docume'nt. alleged intimidation aYd harassment of Pullman Power Products, Inc. (PPP) Quality Control (QC) welding inspectors by the company's construction management personnel. PPP, head-quartered.in Williamsport, PA, is under contract to install all piping and piping supports associated with the construction of the Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant "

(VNP), in W4ynesboro, GA, a licensed facility'of the Georgia Power Company.

Additionally, it was reported to the NRC that the intimidation and harassment experienced by the QC welding inspectors may have resulted in possible improprieties regarding inspection records prepared and maintained by these individuals.

o The allegation pertaining to intimidation and harassment of QC weldin'g inspectors by the Project Manager at the VNP was first reported to the Senior Resident Inspector (SRI), NRC at the facility. This initial allegation was substantiated by the SRI'during the subsequent interviews of four additional QC welding inspectors employed by PPP. ' Additionally, a Coafidential Source alleged vast PPP material storage problems, records improprieties and incidents of intimidation by the Project Manager and his construction superintendents. The SRI obtained 9

information that QC inspectors were being manipulated by the Project Manager through threats relating to adverse personnel actions affecting employment and salary matters. Additionally, the Project Manager allegedly interfered with the utilization of QC welding inspectors and attempted to influence the reassignments of inspectors whose work histories did not f avor production and scheduling. An onsite incident of assault in August 1982 -upon a QC welding inspector by a

'donstruction superintendent, both employees of PPP, was also reported tc the SRI.

A review of pertinent regulatory documents, stancards, proceoures .anc contract requirements was conducted pursuant to the investigation. It was disclosed that PPP committed to cooperate with the licensee to ensure QC standards for the VNP are enforced at all times. Further, this review disclosed that the line of authority regarding administrative matters for the QA/QC manager at the field office site of PPP is ti. rough thp Project Manager. It was aetermineo that PPP or

^ - - -

~ - . . _ . . . .. . ._ -

m. _ ~

2 a subsidiary company was the subject of previous inquiries regarding intimidation and harassment of QC inspectors at the Seabrook Nuclear Plant, Seabrook, New Hampshire and at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, Avila Beach, California. A Itcensee initiated self evaluation in late 1982, utilizing Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) criteria, identified that the QA/QC administrative reporting to the Project Manager is an area of weakness in the PPP field organi-zation. .

During. the investigation, nineteen field level QC welding inspectors in PPP's '

field office at the VNP were interviewed regarding intimidation and harassment, interferen~ce by the Project Manager and inspection records improprieties. .Five of these individuals confirmed vast material storage deficiencies which are compounded by the overt refusals on the part of construction managemen't to divert craf t efforts to correct the roblems. These inspectors viewed the construction superintendent's negative .itude toward Storage Inspectinn Report deficiencies as a form of intimidation. oome of these inspectors also related instances of interference and intervention into QC inspector assignment matters by construc-tion management to favor scheduling and the production ef fort. All except one of the QC inspectors interviewed reported variously that the Project Manager has e attempted' to influence the utilization of, and decisions rendered by, inspectors; that the salary administration and other benefits for QA/QC personnel controlled by the Project Manager is unfair and inequitable; that he arbitrarily adjusts recommended salary increases based upon subjective criteria; that he is frequently publicly non-supportive and negative towards the QC f onction; that he anc construction superintendents publicly chastise and embarass inspectors and that he employs remarks which threaten job security as a means of intimidation

'and harassment . The lone dissenting QC inspecter was deterrined to be a personal friend of the Project Manager and had been the recipient of preferential treat-  !

ment regarding a job assignment on site. Those inspectors with knowledge of an ensite altercation, in August 1982, between a former PPP Construction Super-intendent and a QC Welding Inspector indicated that the superintendent disagreed with the inspector's perception of the non-conforming item being discussed. One

, inspect'or reported.an offsite altercation in December 1982 between a Construction

, Superintendent and a QC InspectorfSupervisor during which the superintendent held an open knife on the QC supervisor.

l

. 3 Tw3 currcnt and ena former QC sup2rvisory personnel were interviewed and each substantiated the claims and percep'tions of field _ inspectors regarding inciden cnd acts of QC negativism by construction managers, intimidation , harassment, adverse interference, verbal threats, embarassment and chas'tisement of these individuals by the Project Manager and his subordinates.

All of these individuals indicated that production and scheduling appear to take precedence over the quality functions, an attitude nurtured by the Project Manager and his construction staff.

Authorized Nuclear Inspe'ctors at the VNP also confirmed ~

intimidation and harassment of QC welding inspectors by PPP construction ment. ge- man Inquiries were also conducted among the OC inspection personnel who all engaged in visual inspection practices which were not in accordance with e 8 procedures'orwhosignedinspectionreportswithoutassuringco'rrective$ctio nad been completed. ns One QC welding inspector admitted that he occasionally failed to conduct visual inspections within the distance requirements as specified 1'n'PPP and ANSI /ASME procedures.

Except for this one procedural violation, all inspection personnel who were interviewed regarding record preparation and maintenance improprieties advised forthrightly that they had never signed or. initialed an inspectior. document without first performing the actions in the manner prescribed by the appl.icable procedures.

~ Ten welders or

. pipefitters employed by pPP were interviewed and, except for one reporting that QC inspector had occasionally failed to visually inspect within the distance requirement set forth in the PPP and ASME procedures, none were aware r of reco d improprieties by QC welding inspectors.

I

• he Project Manager and, two construction superintencents we w eandinte all vie ed i j

ategorically elding denied any form of intentional inticidation and harassment of OC inspectors.

T.he Project Manager and one Superintencent admitted actions hich could be interpreted as interference into matters which arey QA/QC unctions.

purel '

The Project Manager denied any improprieties regarding the adminis-ration of- QA/QC personnel matters.

All claimed to be s'upportive of the QA/QC Jnction but acknowledged that they had failed to do so openly in a publ-ic ,

nner.

I 1

I i

m

- -  :. n 4

Eight licensee management officials and QC inspection personnel at the VNP were interviewed regarding their knowledge of intimidation and harassment of QC l welding inspectors employed by PPP.

No disclosures pertinent to the investi-gation were revealed during these interviews. Observations of PPP material storage areas tended to support remarks reported by QC inspectors regarding the l

general disarray of materials and common utilization of these areas by several major contractors onsite. A review of QC welding inspector salary data disclosed

, l j

that there does not appear to be a specific correlation between the amounts of  !

recent weekly increases received and longevity, related experience and education '

levels of these individuals. ,.

.0

.