ML20151P046
| ML20151P046 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1988 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Bloch P, Jordan W, Mccollom K Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6104 CPA, OL, NUDOCS 8804260073 | |
| Download: ML20151P046 (17) | |
Text
.
W'C A S E ==
214/914-9fM
%~
(CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY)
' '88 APR 19 PS :16 April 15, 1988 Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Dr. Walter H. J h h .,f,}{ y p U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 881 W. Outer Drtve gascq Atomic Saf ety & Licensing Board Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollou 1107 West Knapp Street Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075
Dear Administrative Judges:
Subj ect : In the Matter of Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2 Application for an Operating License and Censtruction Permit Application Docket Nos. 50-445-OL and 50-446-OL and 50-445-CPA Denartment of Labot (DOL) Complaints As part of CASE's continuing efforts to comply with the Board's wishes to be kept informed of potentially significant information relating to these proceedings, we are enclosing herewith two Department of Labor complaints:
the Initial Complaint of James Goese; and the Amended Complaint of Richard Radelich. In addition, we are enclosing a copy of the April 11, 1988, letter with attachment from Stewart D. Ebneter. Director of the tiRC Fr. 's Office of Special Projects, to Willian G. Counsil, Executive Vice Prr, T.
of Texas Utilities Electric Company, regarding the DOL Complaint of Lore m Mario Polizzi, to assure that it is filed in both the operating license WL) proceedings and the construction permit amendment (CPA) proceedings.
CASE believes that on the face of these complaints, very serious questions have been raised regarding such important matters as how the Applicants' reinspection program is being implemented, and who is in control at the Comanche Peak site. CASE is currently trying to evaluate this new information, the two most recent of which appear to concern primarily the cable tray walkdown and inspections, in conjunction with the other new information recently made available, to determine if what these individuals have to say impacts CASE's plan. When our assessment is completed, CASE will be filing a notion in regards to what the impact of these complaints is, but we felt that under our obligation to fully inform the Board we should tell them about these right now.
Respectfully submitted, v' .
.addMh./ &
cc: Service List A rs.) Juanita Ellis, CASE President 8804260073 080415 PDR ADOCK 05000445 s G PDR h(4 )
I
"~
7 Ull1TDrSTATES OF AMERICA DETARTMEllT OF LABOR WAGE AND HOUR DIVISIOt1
)
)
James Goese, )
)
Complainant, )
)
vs. ) COMPLAIllT , 88-ERA-
)
EBASCO Constructors Inc., )
)
Respondent, )
)
)
)
ItJITIAL COMPLAINT Complainant James Goese herein files this complaint against EBASCO Constructors, Inc , pursuant to the Employee Pratection Provision of the Atomic Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amanded, and specifically 42 U.S.C. 5851. Complainant states that he was improperly terminated from his job as a Quality Control Inspector at the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant as a result of engaging in activity protected by the Act, and ic entitled to damages as provided by law.
BACKGROUND Complainant has twelve years of experience in the electrical inspection field, with over five years of experience in the nuclear industry, and 13 years experience in the aerospace industry. At the time that Complainant was hired by EBASCO he was self-employed in a non-nuclear related personal business.
In September, 1987, Complainant was offered a position with EBASCO at the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant. Complainant j )
accepted the position and travelled to Browns Ferry. However, after only eight days on the Browns Ferry site Complainant and several others were transferred to the Comanche Peak site.
Complainant started work at Comanche Peak on October 9, 1987. He was hired as an electrical quality control inspector with the Post Construction Hardware Validation Program (PCHVP).
The PCHVP is a part of a larger reinspection and corrective action project that has been approved, in principle, by the NRC to determine the adequacy of the design and construction of the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant. The PCHVP is the primary program of Texas Utilities (TU) to integrate the results of the design validation program and the Comanche Peak Review Team quality of construction program.
The program was developed by TU to "F.emonstrate that
. existing structures, systems, and components are in compliance with the validated design criteria." The objective of the program is accomplished by requiring either actual physical validation of a component or an engineering evaluation and technical disposition of "all final acceptance attributes" for which 1) the CPRT recommended reinspection, 2) the design validation resulted in changes to the design or more stringent acceptance criteria, or 3) the CPRT program did not evaluate construction quality.
Complainant was a QC inspector whose function was to perform final inspections of specified attributes in the electrical area.
According to the description of the PCHVP provided by Texan Utilities to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") in the 4 -
CPRT "CollectivefSignificance Report," Part V, Section 1.2, the PCHVP is governed by the standard plant Quality Assurance activities, i.e., 10 CFR 50, Appendix B requirement's. According to Section 2.1, the OC inspections, such as those performed by the Complainant, were being performed by certified QC inspectors under the direction of TU Electric.OA.
This process only applied to those attributes'that were accessible. For those that were not accessible a technical dispositica is performed.
The entire PCHVP program is subjected to audits by TU OA programs and to surveillances of engineering and design activities of TU.
According to the Collective Significance Report the CPRT has evaluated the program elements for assuring that the results of the design validation activities and the evaluation of construction quality and found that the programs provide an "acceptable means" of assuring that the hardware at CPSES will
! conform to the validated design. The factors that contributed to 4 the TU decision included, inter alia, the following conclusions relevant to this action:
- 1) The scope and depth of the PCHVP are extensive,
, 2) Appropriate controls govern the PCHVP process,
! 3) Discrepancies are required to be documented, and
- 4) TU Electric QA audits and overview programs are structured to provide assurance that the TU electric progra'n for integrating design and construction are properly implemented.
4
,,,e
F (The entire section :elevant to the PCHVP will be made available upon-request of the Wage and Hour Division Investigator.)
In addition to the specific requirements of the program that Complainant was assigned to, TU and EBASCO also are required by federal law to insure that there is an atmosphere free of harassment, intimidation, or any other type of pressure on Quality Control Inspectors which would result in the failure to identify non-conforming conditions for fear of reprisal.
This is codified in federal regulation 10 CFR 50.7, and the Department of Labor implementing regulations, 29 CFR Part 24.
These regulations apply to all programs that a licensee or contractor undertake < tb implement federal regulations, including employee allegation programs such as the SAFETEAH.
The SAFETEAM is an independent employee allegation program which was instituted on the Comanche Peak site for the purpose of gathering, processing, evaluating, and dispositioning employee allegations regarding the safety of the facility or any other concern that affects the overall condition of the plant.
The SAFETEAM at Comanche Peak is volur.tarily committed to full compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS COMPLAINT
- 1. On or about October 9, 1987, Complainant began work at the Comanche Peak site.
- 2. He was employed by EBASCO Constructor, Inc. as a Qualite Control Inspector assigned to the Post Construction Hardware Validation Program.
_4
- 3. Complainant was certified as a. Level II inspector.
- 4. Soon after he arrived on the site he was required to and did attend an orientation for the nuclear project and training for his specific work assignment. The orientation courses also provided specific instructions on how to fill out certain forms and documents, the site documentation procedure, how the Paper Flow Groups worked, and other miscellaneous details about the project.
- 5. Complainant then was required to become competent in the PCHVP program in the electrical area by reading the documentation provided and familiarizing himself with the site procedures and objectives regarding the PCHVP program.
- 6. Complaina'nt was then assigned to day shift. For approximately a month to six weeks he was familiarizing himself with the project in accordance with the instructions of his supervisor, Mark Bowers. This included doing practice inspections, learning how to find certain coordinates within the site, and learning how to find answers to questions by using the
. various site procedures and documents.
t
- 7. During this time frame, approximately the third or fourth week of October, 1987, Complainant noticed that throughout l the Unit 1 plant area virtually none of the grounding system l
l connectors, lugs, clamps, etc., had the usual coating of anti galvanic paste.
( 8. Complainant believed, based on his previous experience l at other nuclear facilities, that such coating was required for dissimilar metals in order to prevent galvanic action. Galvanic t.
action will result in electrolysis and will build up corrosion and the contact will eventually open up.
- 9. Complainant then performed research of the Comanche Peak procedures and determined that the coating was, in fact, required per 2323-ES-100, Rev. 3, Section 3.4.11 and S 3.4.30.
The procedures also specified that the proper material to be used was e
identified in S 4.4.11.1 of the procedures. (The procedures will be provided to the Wage and Hour Division investigator upon t
request.)
T
- 10. After being convinced that there was a violation of procedures and the resultant hardware deficiency, Complainant brought the problem'to the attention of his lead man, Mark 1
Bowers.
- 11. Bowers told the Complainant that he and Ebben Baily, the Electrical OC Supervisor, would bring the problem to the attention of the "in process inspection group." The in procesa group is another group of site inspectors who perform inspectiens l
l during the on going work process. i i
j l 12. Upon information and belief Bowers raised the problem i
with the Electrical QC Supervisor, Ebben Baily.
l s l
- 13. Complainant next heard about the grounding problem when he received a copy of a November 9, 1987, TU Memorandum and e Surveillance Report, signed by Construction Surveillance lead, M.G. "Curly" Krisher.
- 14. The surveillance report reported that a surveillance t
inspection had been conducted in Unit 1 to verify compliance with I
the grounding section of ES-100, Rev. 3, and no deficiencies had L
n: > +
been identif}ed. (The rwort is attached to this complaint as Lxhibit-1.)
- 15. Complainant reviewed the strveillance report and concluded that the report-was not' accurate an. 04d not fully p
address-the-problem. .He infotmed Bowcrs of his belief.
- 16. Bowers instructed Complain 6.t to gather specific evidence to support his concern, listing the component identification numbers, the room siumbers , the building, etc.
217. Complainant Jndertook that project and over-a period of 3 to 4 weeks identified five pages of problems, including loose grounds, disconnected grounds, no paste of any sort used, improper materiale, etc. Complainant was not conducting a comprehensive inspect' ion, just an overview to find prime examples to demonstrate the accuracy of his conclusions and the inaccuracy of the surveillence report.
- 18. For example, in the Auxiliary Building he identified a piece of equipment that had no antiga^vanic paste. In fact, the ground had not even been connected. It was tucked under a flange next to the floor and not observable unless you looked for it.
. This particular installation had been previously inspected i several times, and Complainant believed that it had been finally
- accepted by QC.
l 19. Complainant added to his list for the next two to three weeks from his own observations and from information pt wided to
.m by a few ether electrical inspectors.
- 20. Other inspectors were providing him the information because he informed them that he was making a list of grounds i
1 that looked really bad, or were all corroded or loose, and asked them to provide the information. The list is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 2.
- 21. After Complainant had the list underway he brought it back to the attention of Bowers, however, Bowers did not indicate any interest in the specific evidence Complainant had developed.
- 22. In late December or early January another electrical inspector left the site to take another job. Complainant and the d:-parting inspector were aware that he was going to have to go through the SAFETEAM exit inter' law process and identify any "quality" problems that the departing inspector had about Comanche Peak.
- 23. Complainant and the departing inspector discussed their dissatisfaction with TU's tesolution of the grounding problem and l
l decided that the departing inspector would take the whole problem to the SAFETEAM.
- 24. During his exit interview the inspector did turn the entire package of materials over to the SAFETEAM, including Complainants' handwritten notes, a sketch of a grounding l connection, a copy of the procedures, and a copy of the Krisher memo.
- 25. Upon information and belief tt.ese materials were turned l
! over from the SAFETEAM to FBASCO for resolution; and subsequently l
EBASCO site management, including Tom Brandt, James Narrin, and Mar's Bc wers wet e made aware of the fact that the grounding l
problem had been turned over to the SAFETEAM.
- 26. Upon information and belief Mark Bowers, Tom Brandt, t
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ - - - _ - _ - _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _
s -
James Narrin, and possib'y others were aware that the Complainant i
had raised the grounding 1.roblems previously, and concluded.that he was the source of the information to SAFETEAM. ;
- 27. Several weeks after the grounding issue was identified l
t) the SAFETEAM, in early February, 1988, Complainant became the '
i- subject of special treatment by his management.
- 28. This special treatment made the Complainant tne target <
2 of special overinspections which allegedly identified problems in Complainant's irspection work, and ultimately provided management with an alleged legitimate reason for his termination.
- 29. Complainant's job had a very limited scope. The inspections conducted-by the PCHVP were done according to two checklists, containing only four attributes. These attributes t
l were cable da;nage, cable indentation, cable slack, and cable ;
overfill.
f
- 30. The inspectors were told duri.ng training that they were I i
- not to go beyond the area they were inspectir.g, but if they found anything in 'he specific area they were review ng they could ,
t write an "out-of-scope observation" non-conformance report. {
- 31. This inspection concept., although excessively redundant and expensive, might have worked if in fact the construction and '
1 corrective action work on the areas being' inspected were ;
I r complete. i t
- 32. However, even as inspections were being completed, ;
t additional work was being performed in the same area and often oi j j the same equipment or equipment directly adjacent to the area that the post-construction inspection had occurced. ,
i h
1 j
t
- . . - - , - . , - ,,,,.-n n . . . , - , . . , , . , . - - , - , , , , , . , ,.,,,,_..,.,,,w.n, n,-,---,,,y, -
..,,_m,,m, , , , , , ,-.-nn.v.,,-- - , - .-
4
. 33. Therefore, the only thing that the post-construction verification inspection actually verified was the condition of the attribute at the time the inspection for that attribute was i conducted.
- 34. There was no control over the-inspected areas that would prevent work crews or other inspection or engineering crews from getting into the area and damaging cables, cable trays, conduit, or other inspection attributes after the post construction inspections were completed.
, 35. Complainant received no complaints about his work from '
i the time he started at Comanche Peak until several weeks after the information about thn grounding problem had been given to the SAFETEAM, and to EBASCO management for investigation.
- 36. On or about February 14, 1988, Complainant was called into the office of Mark Bowers, who had since been promoted to Night Shift QC Electrical Supervisor. He was told by Bowers that he had missed certain things in the field during his inspections.
( He was not told who had done the overinspection of his work, however, he believed that it was a group of EBASCO engineers.
- 37. Complainants' lead man and the Complainant went to the field and reviewed the allegedly inadaquate condition.s.
l Complainants' lead man agreed that the overfill complaint was l
unjustified.
- 38. Ceuplainant also locked at the damage to the cables, which he confirmed existed. He attempted to explain to the EBASCO management that the damage was not there when be had done i'
the inspection, but had probably resulted from the fact that l
l I
I e
construction was ongoing. Complainant pointed out that there was even plywood still sitting on the cable trays within two inches of the damage that he had allegedly missed.
- 39. However, management officials insisted that Complainant had missed the defects in his inspections. Complainant changed his inspection report from satisfactory to unsatisfactory for those items. --
- 40. Complainant was then assigned to retraining on certain inspection criteria.
- 41. Approximately two weeks later Complainant was told by Bowers that there had been another overinspection of his work and that other problems had been identified.
- 42. In thin case the problem was a cable that had been damaged by a grinder. A big chunk had been torn out of the cable. They claimed that Complainant had missed that damage.
l 43. Complainant kr.ew that no such damage had existed when he had performed the inspection. In fact, there had been several inspectors in the area looking at the overfill condition of the cable trays directly below the damaged cable, and it would have l-been impossible to miss the damage.
- 44. Complainant was then escorted to another area in which he was accused of missing an apparent indentation and a cable overfill.
- 45. Upon information and belief, Mark Bowers, the night shift Supervisor, Thomas Brandt, Site Manager for EBASCO, and James Narrin, Site Quality Assurance Manager for EBASCO, had several meetings in late February and early March, 1988, ,
i
regarding this situation. Complainant was not called into any of the meetings, but was made aware of them through comments made by ,
his lead man and other supervision.
- 46. On Monday, March 14, 1928, Complainant was called into a meeting with EBASCO management on the site and terminated. He was told that 35% of all of the acceptable inspections he performed were not, ir, fact, acceptable. Complainant knew that statistically that figure did not make sense and did not believe it.
- 47. He wes then escorted by Mark Bowers to SAFETEAM for his exit interview. However, since Bowers was sitting immediately on the other side of the door and could hear anything that he said complainant made ne formal statement to the SAFETEAM. He did, however, inform the SAFETEAM intervicwer that he believed his termination was a result of having disclosed information to the P SAFETEAM, and took a mail-in form to address his concerns with.
- 48. Bowers then escorted Complainant to the gato. On the way to the gate Bowers informed the Complainant that James Narrin had offered Complainant an opportunity to resign instead of be terminated for cause. Complainant refused. -
s__
- 49. It is Complainants' belief that ne was terminated in retallation for taking the grounding problem to the SAFETEAM, and out of a concern that Compl=.inant had gone or would go to the NRC with either the grounding or other problems.
- 50. In fact, Complainant had found other problems at Comanche Peak which were of significant concern to him, and which Ie was about to raise to management, the SAFETEAM, or the Nuclear ,
Begulatory Commission uhan he completed his. review of the accuracy of the problem.
REQUEST FOR P.ELIEF Complainant herein requests that, should the Secretary determine that a violation has occurred, that he be awarded the following affirmative relief:
(l f Reinstatement to his position as a Quality Cortro.1 Inspector with EBASCO at Comanche Peak, (2) Award Complainant all of his lost back pay, per diem pay, and other benefits that he was entitled to and would have received but for his wrongful termination, (3) Expungement from his personnel record any and all negative information placed there by Respondent, including any and all references to tne Complainant being terminated for performing inadequate inspections, (4) All expenses incurred in bringing this action, togethe':
with all attorney fees associated with oringing this action, ar.J (5) Any other remedial relief that the Secretary deems appropriate ir. this case, including but not limited to the award of compensatory damages for the anxiety and aggravation caused to the Complainant by the Respondents illegal actions in terminating him.
Complainant does not waive the time frame requirements as specified in 42 U.S.C. 5851 (b), and requests that the Wage and H ur Division act on this* matter within the specified time frame
4 of thirty days from receipt of this complaint.
/
Respectfully submitt d, bD' s\w Billie Pirner Garde Government Accountability Project - Midwcat Office 104 E. Wisconsin Ave.
Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 (414) 730-8533 Attorney for Complainant COPY BY FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY:
U.S. Department of Labor Employment Standards Divinion Wage and Hour Division 555 Griffin Square Building, Room 800 Young and Griffin Streets Dallas, Texas 75202 i
BY REGULAR MAIL Christopher Luis, Esq.
EDASCO Constructors, Inc.
Corporate EEO Officer l Number Two World Trade Center 93rd Floor New York, New York 10048 l
l N
1 l
O 1
l l
~ ~
-- ~' -- ~-
, , , - u
- 3. , .--e , ~. - -,- _-- ,_-_________e.
, 'q; - -
[ p w y'-
- * 's f
- 1 *
%jExhibit mnem p"11UELECTRIC ' T?
OFFICEMEMORANDUM T0: D. Tomlin November 9, 1987 Surveillance Report CS-87-0048 The attached Surveillance Report describes the results of surveillance conducted in Unit I to verify compliance to the ' Grounding' section of Electrical Specification ES-100, Revision 3. No deficiencies were identified during tnis surveillance.
Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the under-signed.
\u iL O N '7 i M. G. Eibber //'
Construction Surveillance Lead MGK/ /jmm cc: J. F. Streeter D. M. McAfee P. A. Leyendecker P. E. Ilaistead C. Killough
! L. Strope l M. Bever D. M. Reynerson ,
\
H. Gonzalez J. Salvitti W
_ _ . _ . _ . . . . . . , , ._ _ __ ~
Surveillance Report No. C5-87-0048 Page 1 of ,ft Activity Surveilled: CCMsC/t 4! Aous) /Al4 Bh.s Gookna Surveillance Performed By/Date
k/B7 1f Approved'By)' hate fbs ,) Mho (Survp supe rvi'sor)
Responsible Organization: 04/ $ efvd /04I Date(s) of Surveillance: AOV CA7be4 //(8,/987 toeat1on: Und I dadu wl, Sba.uud: Ari//se,v,: &bolEu,ld,as. .: G />ise Persons contacted: /Y44'e.
Reference Documents: b'/8d [ev/J/oA/ 3,' 2325 4/* /'N3 [cvP.5/ev 7 l 2323 SI- /70.5-0/ Rensiog to . '
Od56tved NvMr440s .p/ tea 5 o[
SummaSeicA elec co/ofvinM Items enl'Observed
. Moks.s /. Reviewed:
hq Miao unaals . itsek s . valve s ,
aowdsa ts . cA %Id ha v.s'. ele . +1bM Rea dske elru sieci decoudoah
~ conw eeliod.s +heasoh bs 4 t/ Nit *I og vitetoJ S ele vn} i.od.L iW A A eA S de-whod sa L ceA%d a bove. . H & were acce.s.s a L Ia wines &
_._5_pecin i ex ta '
f v Dench . ild >>/ i
.!l W ' '/5/94 I " p'
~.
ao e aDem .*
Gi> e +
699 4 h . manue-4NO
,W &
- , , , _ ,e- .. ., . . - - ._ __ _ =.
Surveillance Report No. C5-8 7- 004 8 Fage 2 of 2.
Surnary of Surveillane Results: />/c[v.5/ed c/owd dy // e.s detere// wee
- 5. peon /is i is h l lhe eleekial no<eaudisa svdes Joe Hw.s e i fed
_coured donn e fh:3 .so uei //xc e merf.s Phe tofwx .4a d 4h e.
_ gguaemexh .s'el fodA b1 ihr excidecoxa da wiyas ud .snecificA Jiod Ir.sleil ix +h e fr'e fetsvee ' Dcxume xh a, a 'm oe l 'e f 2 . A'd defia edeir s avege i dral lie d ,asd ihr.s s veieiIlo4Hce t .h .sa-h.3 fordon v . Jd 'nLi '
(A/V /.5/yj
- i e
m =e 9
e
+
Mee as D-9 emo
.\
N s e- - . m e-
"-.,,,,w " p, fffh'
. Ground connection lugs to motors
,EVIDEMOE 03!ERVED FA1,b
'?
? OS 07 .7*,*1DEHOE chall be bolted directly to the / #7# o W# #
icat of motor f rames, lugs / pads 74d '>^'
provided on motor frames. 1.ugs ,g hfu p]}4 a j L .,A} u ,, or samll not be bolted to sole plates PAES 'P 4*W Ed -
or supporting structures. gA /J AC (Pcra. 3.4.9) #[ ,
The frame of each E.ransformer [g[
shall be grounded directly to the g j g j, ground system whether or not so g ,/./gf,, j N
indicated on the drawings. k [cgy,c3, g g[gc[ggy (Pere. 3.4.10)
Conn 2ctions of ground conductors to equipment shall be made by usino
,,, y{ ogg4 AggwJ ggg lugs compressed on the cabic ends and shall be bolted to the equip- o[ Me (_4MyeC5tod [df dype b nent f rame using holes or terminals Ag jh nrovided. (Para. 3.4.11)
CBS[e Pet / 5 Add 5 08 7 - h!
A.
)
At all bolted connections, the joining surfaces shall be (( g"Pgfg / 1g scraped clean and coated with N## !'o#5 bdd j'o#b (94,gg a concorrosive compound. For .
- "' P ^fl dissimilar snetals, use Burndy g
fyj .j, gg[jg g4g , _f fgg s s.
l'enetrox A-13, T&B Catalog no.
21059 or Ideal Nolox.
(Para. 3.4.I1 and 4.4.I1.1)
Avd ego. p% es4 . qA 7 f
f [
shosen on the drawings, cable ay systems shall be grounded th a gg h[ NMddb M continuous cable secured to J_ LZ 3-[/ - / 74.3 dev/Jiod 7 Aw) trav and connected to plant
_ound. (Para. 3.4.13) 257l'Al~/70b'0# #' 3' 8" b- {# # - #[
_ ]-
CS-8 7- 00 4.9
- *:;* a cr _ .
O!ECXI.IST ITDG EVIDENCE 035EXVE') /'
Long rur.s of cabic tray shall be EVAI.UATION OF EVIDCdC2 ;
grounded at each end and at inter- hgd,y1 gl, gg4J g/
- vnlo not exceeding 100 feet. Where #EE##### #!Y ' #^' !" d !# '
expansion joints are used in tray or conduit runs, ficxible copper h b4/ o f Assis nad ef b kAfs $
j juc;pers shall be used. g pag 3 g g,ssJ, J o[ pp#gayfg/g/
(Vera. 3.4.14) !
SO Scol Nlel/AlS.
{A 3 Achy 5
- 1. Where raceway is insulated from cupports to prevent circulating [ W[5 M SN#2 f currents, they shall be grounded WF#P W3*/ [^ ;od- /. gg,f,7pf f, at one point only; the midpoint l chtll be used for long runs. }'
(Pera. 3.4.15) j
. Uhen power cables exit s trays to conduit, the conduit shall be $gg/g, h gg,ggyf pogge4 c g h : 2.
bonded to the tray end. [ q}
(Para. 3.4.16) $T) hkom hanf5vJeca qt ou eided. '
t i Hth UAf' '
'. Nonconductive protective coatings shall De removed before attaching gYgg gf gg,f f, g /
the ground cor.n.ectica. After the connection is attached, any og,j y ,,og p..f s oa coAhed 1 exposed bare metal shall be covered again with a coating matching the ociginal.
o..p an ev .
hh (Pa ra. 3.4.20) '
. As shown on the Engineers' drawings, buried metallic piping Yo [pGAJ GXC A Vn htCd5 AedCl12S which is other than valded shall either be bonded to provide fed A/A//MJ electrical cent.inuity, grounded j g bde/e<l AM!A!!'4. PP'^'9 f/
f
/gy[/g using mechanical ground -lamps or cncased in concrete.
(Para. 3.4.28)
'I 2
. J'
,, rcy, ,1,*T ITE?G t" '. i.i?
N - M EVIDEROC 053ERVED m 95 CVIDEMOE
. 'Jnere grounding clac:ps are to be ,
und, the clamp shall be of the typ2 indicated on Engineers' y,3,) _/a dEos4) /[MJ/
d
/Od-d rrwings. Prior to attaching a g/e//ce/ 130/zir e/ mc b //sc papewg.
cicmp, the pipe shall be cleaned
- of all coating where the pipe and bec ' fC'M do- /3 44 Pof e- 3 al t n e li era 1 * # #5 !# ' ##
coated with a coc:patable coating, es described in Specification 2323-MS- 100. (Para. 3.4.30) -
' , . The grounding system shall be extended and each pigtail shall WO9d kPOM (M[e b19-[4r/5 extend a minimum of three (3) dagg jy ,/jy, f. /
feet beyond the length required d/zswk N#5 g ior pecuanent attachment. gu g ger f/.,qde. OT[ /1gni/{/1 (Para. 3.4.31) .
e
% $ F e
- .. 6
M G4 van le. veo e.fneta o.f +ltes e '
ccpie c.t po oJts .beiuseea fi e_ AG.s o m i Iw wata I s t
ic ; Copp er + sfa'ulo , -
Dotc. :' Tl1Is ccacl'knoto is Soo.S .- ..
Looi k eat ..1%. coa 4Rin ment ~ ..
'an8% % .avns
, uAe.va .f ~-
.s k ,d (e.,> . . Ele.s k ue e.ek .
+ ,.
l_ - = - *
/'. ..
. . . _ _ . . . _ _ . . . - ..h.. / ..
. . .. \ ._ -.
.G Greend .
\
, Serca b.Is. ,. .
6 ave cepper" s .
s -
x M .hfhl4!C55 [C X
- N T
Q ,.
.e'c Ty.va7 s f,~. /
8/
- p '
/ ,
f 0 l .
_ _ _ . . . . ._. u b, y o a g c) , g
. Exhibit #2 ;
mnnemed TD 7 tem B/4 A% Md fomm e uk
>.<t \< % G< baa BewVee %Y Pa l, D4. A'm goae 1rio
_ , _ . . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~- ~ . ~ . , ._. ~ . ^ ~ - - -
Wooc)icAJ Bou Gl'Ec< i>ca e.
(Typucc. 302_ ,
%~ m x. ~-c -.. . .- ~ - ~ . .
u .m ., m O
' "'* Gb(s+,.alc,u ^^'n (Typnca.l)kYouS s eve +e +h e n cable. 3
&an eco Nova e I3 CccM 52 g,oapf (y g(,, 41o tva.y s, ,6reuze gu , .+o 13 G cc M ?t 9^kl00Iunn eze8 +va.y . ec h.
hf vay Qvoonbs In L% anis' yaIvanic matevs'a. l-
- N ~ .____. - v ...- -
_ - s,
.? l &PMC Ul3 ~Ot 1/ tov Mce is612 $ p;,,f, ,, ,( gj,,f j,' f , J ,,9 y, ,
O [ 23.1363-/oo s ---s
- Nm 't s. . % - s ...
s ____. -.s. -t_ s .
~Bx c $ Attil-c 2. cce oz Au >< g.2 ,, & qy ,nj g eennee Q g ,[g.y ?to +0cKed undev flo.a3e No cu'dence of any adl 9*luaNic p sfh on /ug .
%- *~ % -~ ~'
.\ x ~ .. ~ . x .. ~ . ~ . -
fBX C5APPool
- Po5'Y've. J.,p Po w.p
- 3. ,ey 3,o coger 3i,,ct) 2 ),._J., f, a g/A
_. ~ ~. , -
\ #N g . = . . ,,,,,' -'
PK E PERFJT'-29 Hed Ivste hM'> A'107 NONC OVA IO 'N f* 'UE4 Sc .- -
to e e e 4 c c e o f p. ~J a t n:. , .
- m. ._ s -. x _. v -~ _ . . - .
I 1
3 O.
uNd s ;
Yv -
ge ,,,
gif 17,. .,d fa~~ c"E
.g x. m t 3 q. .o z M ov h W S
23' i da"c 0"M h a so h. u "PM e*
p w la t 'u e t v e.u o v e d<
I Mo Ad %l o > e.ek I,a3 s e d Scot 4cn d b
- . , ulv i sa Pa.eY<v k
'f3y E s E uts.ol g,m g Coat Cab h Ib3 90 h e., Cel b OM parM$^rc
~> PI GCD PPc, -O'b 1'O wf$a
- RTC-rb Conc 0voV Sf* b A I3) pga. 'f GaltaNizebt ceado up a (v) rid a,,g .
c,la.ys f,.o,
{ Uice.
4e/G.3)reon w s <de eo bolse f
~
-~-
/ /f t' 'l57'l v~
pic /
5 ~7 0 pave A7 ",g 770 Ab ,40b devie !"^N"L '
sjy ercat
'& W Q] 170 re & [ E W /e'.o A .~
CU;> QN G C'ef Y b N
JLIOV ' #"'
/ %I2 A Goku,vic ma fe r /a N Q
,JJ,Ccf a meit
- i
! c -P .2 323 E J-/c0 Re v 3 (pycsaC H)
! -% vVx m.. y .x . -x _.xys .
OC5 ib ! 12.5 uoc Ltv PuI 5 .f3 pued'<o' Cl(
to ~~
f* 'W - -
- g()
i ST fL+m Yc C. '(*l ELTRN 7 t v Taas <m c v n })oH G
.a. a ',"_ r
u..
WvooNcsN,3 7'D ffem B/4 /fm Ma N femm e"$ _
ITO 4 6 9 ( l ""'Y v7 u e R- 3lo C,ye v Y
AI ,, g '
932- Sheelcl h e
'w ~ w.. , ,
notcoeeej.-IUc-lo><A SJ1lso l-1%osc- Lv"$070s /hd 8IW f*ye '
Gds ch,.sconne<Ye h Tov 732." w ovK o F vatu e-B>eg2_e_ O 8 0 ( t d .o w .>
eoi S.cuc. c.- o f' conc o ro'C (ytank ac hao )
N vv ^% -
( VP- 59 2- ! mid,que. nov R 31* Ilcocc- L'$'b ** '
.. - ~ ~ . . - AW- - ~~ / x. ~.m.-~_.....
cpl-CF AP RP-of 5/s. tod la.7 v p 8 356*
P'7 m,2 . IO n ..~.. m - /m.. - , .- -
IM N OQ 6oyem hor
, t e e d, bro 9 2 e t eene.
-teher.lc'_o.chSkooJiN 5 g s oi, ewos io
~. w g- . . - .. . . ..
- ~ . . .
SPI ELOPEc-oh E.56sy,&/ A g sq,,j
~ ~
'[/ ' ~
_._ _ s ... s. .. . .
~61 C5ATUC-o( Vo\. %d -ka K & '0 9 u, St. , '
nt
~ -
j' % N % \ .. -. A % . _s .. -
Il it bon-t il 1 Ob ot kQ Q ;y f,s,
? 06 X E C 2 ?..;
"f,?y 9 l 0 pih.
c u" u
~
hvounc2iN3 7'D 2 tem B//. /T- MJ t%, ~ n 'b" 36 ss yst g 3. Beg '50 co-L Ala~,au- G b te L (v.
- b GLo(D be No - ox
% Alum,sm.)
Yh.o.'6%ic,~ ' '
" ~ -
%J bj ///V470ti /-i ,4 ej v. ~,r y
-~. - / -' * ^ -~~ ' ~ ~~
oi po r 2 yak t h w/< */ h ecjw N .-~. sm .n m %
" ~- ~ -
di
/ // '1707 Conk.
- -- 1 t _- me A w m^
If p 295 s- y %y j3} G3 5L m
~- -- -
1-ggyo N M #4 /Mu' *~77 jeg Trio l'q 54. 30 to pa,afec0 NIV e w
- ~ -
.. ~ ~~
g .
.P>l'3032 c" Y*
fA0J %tb None (v voch pof wand l'
//N4776 cen-tsv7 e
,. .x
~ . - -
~._ ~.. m Houyby leo,s c
/2 $58D H Co.64 6,>' S- M Neue locsa.
l# C-reoA to Alst~ Csavec fvnylE
_ _. ~ % s -s . %. x.~ x s __. s. _ u ..s..._ ^ ._ _ v --
<3 gscc 70 calle by R,? An G noad s>ot~ceasedI&<
%4 %M#
,,, x -x x i
w wt ~
s i
(_
_lrO ,% Aoem p,4 ,, /
c,,, .
. X GD .2-/ g Ddd Po / /2f Ale Aaedex AJf das ,0 Le..o remevc
. ~ . _ _
C /2$140CY cen}oi/' /2( ,y G>vv
+ swuitc 7) con.oeefe"*Q o Muaerev b o.s ku,,oj ts' o$e
. - . ~-
ems.~.~ ~ ' . - . -
o...u e b - &ji TI2 ASA 94 Co.h le % ,Y 24I N/A od ccan'4c co hI o. Fro. h.-a.e '
+o b a t y~y p- w;+-
~% -
GA bracket -Ic 1129o6440 f couchu f , .2 4 l (JA co d dif A #
counede 4 so.
l CoS e.
h-- %
~
[N C b 12.sdABA 78' Tvo y .24I N/A c-ble a+1ge,(-
ce wy m,,o, ,
d I Y'O
-- m A
'(}.# C1 C CLCC 9eic ?cy Ud i n &v era yeNiv
s lox ALxco - cc\ .30-03 o c- sc Av ,
..amreg + cwa, e/n o-eos9-oi c )
G f
wJ Ae (2iinT-4uv)C) 7 '" 3 v ausun w,na -c~ ca L cem' r% LJ hoo 3 JS cat C P -) 2 g -> g(p3 ,
K oFR -Sm aa "
G y Y ca k. fo e. O /JO Tri c i 'l c' ,'d adh ga hnpic_ at4bs e.s
O m.
l
' .. L.'
3
/
~
e em.*
g
( .
n( -
. ..1
/,h . '
" l,[
De N
/f . '. " . ~s ~ -, ~ . ~ .
L~ tj l V -
s
/
. .h .@
$.- 4-
- t hj, 1, -- 3 (....
/*'*"** e t wY J W
Q c.* 9 .
C l ~s a
f.L LA
.- ~ \
eg-u :> c.
s_
\s~ \
..,. h,,\ .
L k~
- . . , -[ ,j m 9. s \.\. h V I C '
.r - tz
.. o a
I_, '
_l :/
\ t
/
L 3 &
g 6 s
__ .. J
g i
UNITrD STATES OF N4 ERICA f 1:hi'AR'It4ENT OF LABOR t WAGE AND llOUR DIVISION i
)
)
Richard Radalich, )
) r Complainant, ) -
)
vs. ) N4 ENDED CO!@LAINT,
) 88-ERA--
EUASCo Services, )
) .
Respondents. )
)
N'. ENDED COfGLAINT Complainant Richard Radclich berthin files this complaint l
against EBASCo Services, Inc., pursuant to the Employee Protection ;
Provision of the Atomic Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and specifically 42 U.S.C. 5851. Complainant states that he was j improperly terminated from his job as an individual involved in the i reinspection program- at the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant as a j I
result of engaging in activity protected by the Act, and is entitled to damages as provided by law.
I i,
BACKGROUND i
Complainant has over ten years of office and site experience in engineering and construction of nuclear and fossil fueled electo c j Of this time, over 8-1/2 years has been in - !
generating stations.
walkdown/inspoction programs at nuclear plants. Complainant han j worked on six nuclear power plant projects. :
l
i Complainant worked for the Hospondent EDA?Co, ("EDASCo" or "l:oopondent") since 1977 as a senior mechanical designer and lator in inspection programs. t Complainant started work at Comanche Peak in February 1985. He l was transferred to Comancho Peak for the walkdown inspection program Tho walkdown inspection program started in the early phases of a much larger reinspection and corrective action project, which in 1985, had not yet been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (HRC).
The purpose of the program was to determine the actual status of the l hardware in the plant by comparing what was on the drawings to what l
was actually in the field. This is sometimes referred to as an "as [
built" inspection.
During the early course of his work on this program, sometimo in December 1985, the Complainant identified a serious condition regarding the interference between engineering and quality control independonce, and the '.ccu131ng entrance of incorrect information on inspection data shoots. When the Complainant refused to participate ;
in similar activitics, his job was threatened. Complainant took those concerns to Texas Utilities corporate security, which conducted an l investigation.
That investigation substantiated the concerns raised by the ,
Complainant and resulted in TV's disclosure of the incident to the NRC, a 100% review of all of thG work tainted by the incident, and the I
tennination of the responsible supervisor.
Thoroofter, Complainant's assignments on the Comanche Pr.ak siv were limited. It was the Complainant's belief that his work ,
assignments were l'imited in retaliation for having identified tho i
1 2-t
I problems to the TU managem ut, however, he did not complain about the '
assignments for fear of losing his job. ;
Betwcon 1986 and his termination, Complainant did identify numerous other problems and deficiencies at the Comanche Peak site
). which were serious violations of procedural requirements and potentially safety related. These included the identification of the f
use of unqualified and improperly trained personnel for the walkdown I activities, the extensive use of "backdating" on document packages to make all of the dates and inspection and review activities coincide, ;
the improper release of drawings for engineer analysis, and the identification of defects in the CTil walkdown program such that l l t significant hardware anomalies were not being identified.
In January 1988, Complainant was told that he was basing terminated from the Comanche Peak site. Complainant knew that there i
was work for him to do at Comanche Peak, and suspected that there may i t
be a retaliatory motive for his transfer; however, he indicated that he would consider the transfer, l.
!' Complainant tried unsuccessfully to get back to work at Comanche Peak by making himself available for other positions for which he knew i
l that he was qualified and for which he knew there was work to do, l however, he was told repeatedly by EBASCo supervisors that they could i
l not bring him back to the Comanche Peak site.
l On February 16, 1988, he traveled, at his own expense, to the New York office of EDASCo to attempt to determine if his discharga um i l
After talking to his supervisor, Rober, ;
retaliatory or legitimate.
i ,
! Gottzandt, and John Juray, he was informed that he was removed fr:r il I the Comanche Peak site, not transferred as he had been led to believe. [
l T i
t Upon returning to the Dallas-Fort Worth area, he contacted the U.S. Department of Labor on March 14, 1988 after reading in the newspaper about a whistleblower case that had been successfully brought by another former EBASCo employee. It was only upon reading of that article he was aware that he had any remedy with the U.S.
Department of Labor. lie called the Department of Labor office and explained his situation and was told that he should file a complaint on a DOL form. lie was not provided the form on that day, but was told that one would be sent to him. In fact, a complaint form was sent to him, however, in the meantime Compiainant contacted legal counsel who prepared this amended complaint to the oral complaint lodged by Complainant on March 14, 1988.
Complainant seeks damages as specified herein.
In addition to the specific requirements of the program that Complainant was assigned to, TU and EBASCo also are required by federal law to insure that there is an atmosphere free of harassment, intimidation, or any other type of pressure on personnel involved in procedurally dictated inspection programs which would result in the failure to identify non-conforming conditions for fear of reprisal.
This is codified in federal regulation 10 CFR 50.7, and the Department of Labor implementing regulations, 29 CFR Part 24. These regulations apply to all programs that a licensee or contractor l
undertakes to implement federal regulations, including employee allegation programs such as the SAFETEMi.
l The SAFETEAM is an independent employee allegation program which l
was instituted on the Comanche Peak site for the purpose of gathering, h processing, evaluating, and dispositioning employee allegations regarding the safety of tlno facility or any other concern that offects the overall condition of the plant.
The SAFETEAM at Comanche Peak is voluntarily committed to full compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
FACTS GIVING RISE TO Tills COMPLAlt(T I 1. In Febniary 1985, Complainant began work at the Comanche Peak l
l site.
- 2. He was employed by EBASCo Services, Inc., as a Walkdown l
Engineer assigned to the walkdown/ inspection program.
- 3. Complainant was qualified to train other perso:inel in the Cable Tray llanger Program ( CTil ) , write procedures, perform inspecticn::,, review documentation, and report deficiencies.
- 4. In February 1985, Complainant start 9d working on the ccble tray program. Initially the program required that the t:alkcioun engineer and the quality control inopoctor were to work independent of one another, in accordance with federal regulations and the site procedures.
- 5. Complainant noticed that other crews of engineers and inspectors were actually working together. However, because he knew that such actions were a violation of procedure he refused to work l
that way.
- 6. Complainant informed his supervisor of his belief tha t working together was a violation of procedures and refused to wor:4 more closely with the inspectors. Complainant pointed out tha working together eliminated the independence featuro and subjected tin.
entire program to risk.
. 1
- 7. Complainant then learned that his supervisor had made the statomont that if Complainant: did not "work his way" that he would go t rid of him.
- 8. Complainant confronted his supervisor on this throat, and again told him that he was not going te violate the procedures.
- 9. Shortly thereaf ter his supervisor learned that an NRC audit was going to take place on the cable tray program, llis supervisor ,
then had a meeting with the walkdown crews and informed them to do the walkdowns independently.
- 10. Immediately preceding and during the NRC audit, the teams performed their work independently.
- 11. Within a week or two, the teams lost the independent feature again. Complainant again brought this to the attention of his supervisor. However, his supervisor infonned him to leave the problem alone.
- 12. It was the Complainant's impression that, since the NRC audit was completed, that his supervisor no longer cared about the independence issuo, and was again concentrating on production schedules.
- 13. Soon after the Complainant was taken off of the walkdown project and put to work the offico doing paperwork review of the documentation generated during the walkdown process.
- 14. It became clear to the Complainant that the paperwork regarding the channel sizes was inaccurato. The docu:nontat ler i indicated that the channel sires were different from what tm Complainant was familiar with in the field.
s.
.~ - . . .
._._.u-_. _
15.
Complainant and another engineer performed spotchecking on the channel sizes in the walkdown had been wrong, field and dotormined that the initial the overview inspection had been wrong, and that QC had missed the error.
16.
In order to avoid embarrassing the EDASCo program , and because Complainant knew that raising his observations formall y would cost him his job, he identified the deficiencies on "yellow sticky notes" attached to the packages and sent them back to ther,inspecto informally, that had inspected the drawing.
17.
Approximately two weeks later, the Quality Control Supervisor noticed that some packages were being done twi his inspectors why. ce and asked Complainant was then called by his boss and told that it was not his job to identify any problems
, it was only his job to look at the completeness of the drawing package .
18.
Complainant informed his supervisor that he was aware a th t information on the drawings was definitely wrong and that h e was not going to submit inaccurate drawings because his job was ato ensure th t New York received accurate field information.
19.
Complainant was thereaf ter instructed not to go out in th e field anymore.
20.
! Complainant considered going to the SAFETEM4 with hi s concern, but decided not to because he knew that the SAFETEAM investigation would make it obvious that he had raised the specific problem with them, and feared for his job if he was the source of another major cause of rework.
21.
Complainant then decided to take his concern to someone n i
TU management, which he did.
He took the problem to Richard Camp.
7
Camp asked Complainant if he would feel comfortable reporting the problem to Bob Iotti, EDASCO Vice President. Complainant advised Camp that he would not feel comfortable with that. Camp advised the Complainant that he would tako care of the problem.
- 22. Upon information and belief, Camp referred the problem to 'IU corporate security, who then contacted the Complainant about the issue.
l 23. Complainant informed Dave Andrews, of corporate security, of two issues of concern to him:
(1) The f ailure by EDASCo to insure that proper and complete information was not being relayed to New York for analysis of the cable tray support area.
(2) The intimidation of EDASCo employees by Complainant's supervisor and the direct threat of Complainant's job.
- 24. In support of the complaint about intimidation, Complainant provided examples of the types of things that he had heard his supervisor say to engineers. These comments included statements like, "If you guys are not turning out five supports a day, you're going to lose your home visitation," or comments denying people to go home.
- 25. Complainant explained to Andrews that it was impossible to I
have a quota system because each of the supports were individual projects, some harder and some easier.
- 26. Complainant also supplied Andrews with specific names of individuals who had been intimidated, and with specific drawing numbers of supports that were going out wrong.
- 27. Upon information and belief, the TU investigation confirmed I '
the concerns that Complainant had raised through substantiating evidence and testimony.
a
- 20. Complainant uan af ua told by Andrews that if he suffered any retr;.bution for raiuing the concerns that he should report it back to Andrews, and that by talking to him it would be just as if the Complainant had reported the information to the NRC. Andrews assured the Complainant that any retribution due to the incident would be taken care of by TU.
- 29. Notwithstanding TU's promise, Complainant was kept out of the normal realm of walkdown activities since the incident discussed above.
- 30. When the specific project Complainant was working on was completed, the other individuals were transferred to other walkdown activities, however, ha was not.
- 31. Comp 1ainant was thereaf ter transferred to a stress group, although he was the only non-stress, non-civil engineer in the group of apprenimately 30.
- 32. Complainant believed that his transfer was, in fact, diceriminatory, however, he did not want to press the issue for fear of losing his job and because he realistically believed that he would be treated differently for having taken a stand against violations of the procedures. Therefore, he did not file a complaint about being treated differently.
- 33. Over the period of the next two years, Complainant raised several other concerns to management which resulted in corrective action on some being taken. The main incidents are summarized below:
(a) Training. In the spring of 1986 Complainant was given nom responsibility for training. In that position Complainant u n responsible for providing eighty (80) hours of training for new
_9_
individuals on site. Several individuals completed the eighty hours of training, but in Complainant's view were not yet qualified to perform walkdown inspections. This was in part because of the difficulties with the English language, or general compotency skills.
Complainant refused to sign off their qualification and training cheet becaus e he could not, truthfully, certify that they were qualified.
Later Complainant became aware that these individuals were in the field doing walkdown inspections. lie reported the concern to Ron Muldoon that there were uncertified people in the field working, however, nothing was done about it to his knowledge.
(b) Backdating. On or about mid-1987 Complainant also became aware of the practice of backdating on documentation related to the closing out of deficiencies and non-conforming conditions.
Complainant became aware that backdating was a fairly routine and comnon practice in achieving acceptable close-out on document packages. Dy backdating the documents, the document reviewers could make it appear that the sequencc that work was tupposed to be done in had been followed, instead of work being done out of sequence and then dated to look as if it had been done correctly.
On May 27, 1987, TO Electric issued a memorandum prohibiting backdating on any documentations (TU Office Memo NE #8481).
Nonetheless, it was still common practice for document reviewers to ask Complainant things like, "what date do you want on this7," or "what date should I write out here?" Complainar.t always told them to put the correct date, but believed that others woro still engaged in backdating activities, 11 0 consistently opposed the backdating process.
Af ter the memo came out, thoro was a decision that, even in light of the memo, EDASCo could "backdato documents" in-house, and that the memorandum only applied to documents that had already been sent to tho. vault as completed.
Complainant continued to get prossured by the personnel above him for refusing to backdate the documentation, however, ho did not complain about it outside of the group he was working in for fear of losing his job or being sent to copy documents scrnewhere.
(c) Drawing Roloaso. In approximately April 1987, Complainant ran into further dif ficulty with his management for refusing to violate procedures. While in the document review group, he was told that certain cable tray hanger documents had to be in New York for analysis so that the cable tray hanger program could be closed.
Complainant identified numerous OC comments that had to be addressed on each of the documents beforo they would be ready to go to New York. Complainant's supervisor advised him that he should sign out the documents and evaluate the comments lator.
However, this process violated procedures.
Complainant did not want to violate procedures because he was afraid that if he did, he would later be pulled off the effort and then the problems would never be evaluated, or that mistakes identified later would be a reflection on his work and I he could be terminated.
Complainant infonned his supervisor of his concerna, and his supervisor did not press the issue; however, shortly thoroafter the Complainant was contacted by his secondline supervisor who again questioned him on why the drawings could r.ot be released to New York on that day.
Complainant replied that "( t)ho plant is already ten years lato, so another day isn' t going to matter," and also told him that it had to be done right, and that the pressure at the plant to complete work was not right, or words to that effect.
His supervisor then informed him that the failure tu supply the documents was going to cause a problem with Bob Iotti.
Complainant informed him that ho could not help the fact that a ccmmit: ment had been made that could not be kept without violating the proceduros, but that the Complainant was r.ot going to sign out documents as if the procedures had been complied with.
Complainant was allowed to do the work on the packages, and worked overtimo to got it done.
(d) HVAC Duct. Complainant also discovered a serious problem with an HVAC duct which he brought to the attention of management.
In early December 1987, Complainant found a hugo INAC duct, approximately 5' x 6' square, resting on a small cable tray support.
Complainant checked the current drawings, the old drawinge, the computer, and any other relevant documentation to determine if the support reflected the duct load. It was not identiflod cn any of the documentation.
At this point, that particular support had been walked down at least twice by EBASCo, possibly four times, once by OC, and all of them had missed the duct.
Complainant brought this matter to the attention of his supervisor, who informed him not to worry about it, that it would get picked up later.
Complainant informed him that it had already been missed several times and that he did not have any confidence that it would be identified later. Ilis supervisor again told him not to worr,f about it, that the INAC Effort would take care of it.
Complainant believed that the matter was a major source of embarrassment to EDASCo and that they wanted the issue kept quiet. lie believed this boccuse the defect was so obvious, so big, and had been through the whole program.
Complainant's supervisor reasoned that it was "probably" a now duct and that the new drawings would have it on and the prob 3am would be caught later.
In Complainant's opinion, which he offered to his supervisor, the proper thing to do was to check it out right then by issuing some type of documentation.
Complainant thereafter wrote a "speed letter" to his supervisor documenting the problem. Complainant did not write a DR or NCR because the same supervisor that had already passed on the importance of the issue would have to evaluate it.
After Complainant wrote the speed memo, his supervisor assir,ned it to another employee, who, he believes, then wrote nn
? NCR on the matter.
- 34. . In the spring of 1986, Complainant was in a position to evaluate procedures, to writo procedures, and to handle any procedural interpretation questions that arose.
- 35. Very early in the walkdown, Complainant realized that there were a lot of questions regarding cable tray clamps. The purpose of clamps was to secure the tray ,to the structural members.
- 36. Cw.plainant was aware that the procedural group had decided that the most significant distinguishing factor of importance was whether the tray was horizontal or vertical, without distinction as to whether the clamp legs were "inboard" or "outboard. " The entire walkdown was done under this premise. Clamps that were covered with thermolag were to be bought off statistically. When these clamps could not be bought of f statistically, a decision was made to "as-built" them. The procedures did not require a determination of whether the clamps were "inboard" or "outboard."
- 37. During this new walkdown, a question was raised about the correctness of the procedure. Complainant justified the position that had been followed for the past two years. However, a stress engineer was called to evaluate the procedure and determined that the clamp leg direction was, in fact, a critical factor, i 38. Complainant expected that the program would have to be revised and all of the work redone. However, after several days without any change, Cmplainant went to his supervisor and asked him
! what was going to be done about the previous work.
- 39. Complainant was informed that it was not going to be dealt i witn because so many other, more extensive, problems had been found in the cable trays, that a lot of the supports were going to have to be walked down again, j ,i 1
~'
- 40. Complainant continually objected to the inaction because he was not convinced that anyone would, in fact, pick up on the error in all instances.
- 41. In late December 1987, or early January 1988, Complainant j attended a TU meeting as a result of an NRC audit. Apparently, the NRC.had found extensive problems, over 200 errors, in a random selection of 19 or 20 supports.
- 42. Thereafter there was a reorganization of the cable tray effort and a new supervisor was put in charge of the work.
- 43. Upon information and belief, Complainant was specifically
! excluded from consideration for working with the new cable tray effort because of his past activities in identifying problems.
- 44. On January 29, 1988, Complainant received a telephone call from his supervisor that the job was getting a little'"shaky" and l
asked Complainant if he would have any interest -in a job at TVA.
4 Complainant said he would be interested, but would need more details.
l- 45. Almost immediately thereafter, Complainant was called into i his supervisor's of fice and told that he was being laid off that day. '
Complainant asked for an explanation and was told that he should gather up his things and say good-bye. l
- 46. Complainant knew that the other group was staf fing up for ,
the cable tray effort, and knew that he had the most experience in the t
cable tray programs. He, therefore, went to ask the other supervisor j
about a position. He was told by the supervisor there wero no positions available. ,
l 47. Complainant then was escorted off tlm site. j
< i t I
i l !
n.
a
- 48. Complainant tall:od to his supervisor in New York on Februarf 1, 1988 and asked about getting back at Comancho Peak in another capacity. Complainant's supervisor told him to forget about Comanche Peak.
- 49. On February 2, 1988 Complainant called the EBASCo Personnel Office at Comanche Peak and.was told that there were no positions available.
- 50. On February 16, 1988 Complainant traveled to New York to meet with his supervisor to ask him why, after a ten year unblemished record with the company, he was being laid off.
- 51. Complainant's supervisor explained to him that he must have made somebody at the Comanche Peak site angry becaur,e EBASCo Personnel at the Comanche Peak site called the New York of fice and told them that he was being terminated from the Comanche Peak site on Friday.
- 52. At that point, Complainant decided he had been terminated from his job at Comanche Peak in retaliation for having raised too many quality concerns, and in particular, the clamp issue, and because EBASCo management ferred that he would continue to bring up quality issues.
- 53. Upon Complainant's erparience with EBASCo, his termination was not baaed on legitimate business reasons.
- 54. Complainant was and is concerned about the atmosphere of subtle intimidation at the site that prevents others from identifying concerns that they may find. It is his opinion and belief that such an atmosphere exists, and that his termination from the site has sen;
. a message to other workers not to raise safety concerne.
s
i
- 55. Complainant is 01so concerned that the attitude of "ignore !
t it naw, someone else will catch it later on" is dangerous.
- 56. In sum, Complainant believes that he was teminated because he first raised safety concerns about the !!VAC duct 7ue, and after a month raised the clamp issue, and that EBASCo wanted him off of the +
project before they began the.next cable tray effort.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF i Complainant herein requests that, should the Secretary determine that a violation has occurred, that he be awarded the following affimative relief:
(1) Reinstatement to his position at Comanche Peak, i I
(2) Award Cm plainant all of his lost back pay, per diem pay, !
home visitation pay, insurance, profit sharing and stock purchase i
plan, pension payments, and other benefits that he was entitled to and would have received but for his wrongful termination, (3) Award Complainant the pay he would have earned until 1 construction at Ccmanche Peak ceased, (4) All expenses incurred in bringing this action, together with all attorney fees associated with bringing this action, and (5) Any other remedial relief that the Secretary deems appropriate in this case, including but not limited to the award of .
compensatory damages'for the anxiety and aggravation caused to the i
Cmplainant by the Respondent's illegal actions in terminating him. l Complainant does not waive the time frame requiremente as specified in 42 U.S.C. 5851 (b), and requests that the Wage and flour ,
i
\
J 17 -
s l
l
Division act on this mattor within the specified time frame of thirty days from receipt of this couplaint.
Respectfully submitted, b h i Billie Pirner Garde
< Government Accountability Project Midwest Office 104 E. Wisconsin Avenue-Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 (414) 730-8533 Attorney for Complainant COPY BY FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY:
U.S. Department of Labor Employment Standards Division Wago and Hour Division-555 Griffin Square Building, Room 800 Young and Griffin Streets Dallas, Texas 75202 BY REGULAR MAIL Christopher Luis, Esq.
EBASCO Constructors, Inc.
Corporate EEO Officer Number Two World Trade Centor 93rd Floor New York, New York 10048
- 'ILLJ. Q 12, n g6 a .
%, UNITED STATES y g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- W.tSHING TON. D. C. 20555
- l
\,...../ April ll, 1988 Texas Utilities Electric Company ATTN: Mr. William G. Couns:1 Executive Vice President 400 North Olive Street, Lock Box 81 Dallas, TX 75201 Gentlemen:
On June 12, 1987, the U. S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division in New York, New York, received a complaint from Mr. Lorenzo Mario Polizzi, who worked as a mechanical engineer at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) as an employee of Gibbs & Hill, Inc, until December 1986. Mr. Polizzi alleged that he was discriminated against, reassigned to a position away from the site, and eventually terminated from employment with Gibbs & Hill because he had raised safety concerns while performing his duties at CPSES. In response to that compiaint, the Wage and Hour Division conducted an investigation and, in the enclosed letter dated July 21, 1987, the Area Director of the Wage and Hour Division found that the evidence obtained during the Division's investiga-tion indicated that the employee was engaged in a protected activity within the ambit of the Energy Reorganization Act and that discrimination as defined and pro-hibited by the statute was a factor in the actions which comprised his complaint.
The Area Director's decision has been appealed by Gibbs & Hill and the case is scheduled for hearing before Acministrative Law Judge Michael H. Schoefeld during the weeks of May 22-27, 1988 and May 31-June 3, 1988 in New York.
The NRC is concerned that a violation of the employee protection provisions set forth in 10 CFR 50.7 may have occurred and that the actions taken against
! this former Gibbs & Hill employee may have had an adverse effect on other contractor or licensee personnel. Therefore, you are requested to provide this office, within 30 days of the date of this letter, a response which describes what actions you have taken to look into this matter, the results thereof, and actions, if any, taken or planned to assure that this employment action does not have an adverse effect in discouraging other contractor or licensee employees from raising perceived rafety concerns.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of NRC's "Rules of Practice," Part 2 Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
l i
ia v f .
. . t Texas Utilities Electric Company Mr. William G. Counsil f
The response requested by this letter is not subject to the clearance pro- '
cedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.
Sincerely.
Sd~A at Stewart D. Ebneter Director Office of Special Projects ;
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page
[
i i
9 t
. . .t -
W. G. Counsil Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Texas Utilities Electric Company Units 1 and 2 CC:
Jack R. Newman, Esq. Asst. Director for Inspec. Programs Newman & Holtzinger, P.C. Comanche Peak Project Division Suite 1000 U.S. Nuclear ReguUtory Comission 1615 L Street, N.W. P. O. Box 1029 Washington, D.C. 20036 Granbury. Texas 76048 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq. Regional Administrator, Region IV Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels & U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission Wooldridge 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 2001 Bryan Tower. Suite 2500 Arlington, Texas 76011 Dallas, Texas 75201 Lanny A. Sinkin Mr. Homer C. Schmidt Christic Institute Director of Nuclear Services 1324 North Capitel Street Texas Utilities Electric Company Washington, D.C. 20002 Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Esq.
Dallas, Texas 75201 Government Accountability Project Midwest Office Mr. Robert E. Ballard, Jr. 104 East Wisconsin Avenue Director of Projects Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 Gibbs and Hill, Inc.
11 Penn Plaza New York, New York 10001 David R. Pigott, Esq.
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery Street Mr. R. S. Howard San Francisco, California 94111 Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Suite 600 1401 New York Avenue, NW Susan M. Theisen Washington, D.C. 20005 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Robert Jablon P. O. Box 12548 Capitol Station Bonnie S. Blair Austin, Texas 78711-1548 Spiegel & McDiannid 1350 New York Avenue, NW Hrs. Juanita Ellis, President Washington, D.C. 20005-4798 Citizens Association for Sound Energy 1426 South Polk George A. Parker, Chairman Dallas, Texas 75224 Public Utility Comittee Senior Citizens Alliance Of Ms. Nancy H. Williams Tarrant County, Inc.
CYGNA Energy Services 6048 Wonder Drive 2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 390 Fort Worth Texas 76133 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
E W. G. Counsil Comanche Peak Electric Station Texas Utilities Electric Company Units 1 and 2 cc:
Joseph F. Fulbright Fulbright & Jaworski 1301 McKinney Street Houston, Texas 77010 Roger D. Walker Manager, Nuclear Licensing TexasUtilitiesElectricCompani Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dallas, Ter.as 75201 Mr. Jack Redding c/o Bethesda Licensing Texas Utilities Electric Company 3 Metro Center, Suite 610 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 William A. Burchette. Esq.
Counsel for Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell Suite 700 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20007 GDS ASSOCIATES, INC.
Suite 720 1850 Parkway Place
. Marietta, Georgia 30067-8237 Administrative Judge Peter Bloch U.S. Nuclear Regulatoiy Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 4 Elizabeth B. Johnson Administrative Judge
- Oak Ridge National Laboratory P. O. Box X Building 3500 Oak Ridge. Tennessee 37830 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 1107 West Knapp Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830 l-
I f
. . t U.S. Departmerit of Lattor Employment Standards Acministration ,,
[
Wage and Hour Omsion g t 26 Federal Plaza Rm. 2251 ,
New York, NY 10278 /
Telephone: (212) 264-8185 Reply to the Attention of:
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED--NO. P 228 e39 592 July 21, 1987 ,
Michael D. McDowell, Senior Counsel
- Dravo Corporation One Oliver Plaza .
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
[
i i Re Lorenzo Mario Polizzi vs.
Gibbs & Hill, Inc. I
Dear Mr. McDowell:
This letter is to notify you of the results of our compliance actions in the above case. As you know, L. Mario Polizzi filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor under the Energy Reorganization Act on June 12, 1987. A copy of the complaint, a copy of Regulation 29CFR Part 24, and a copy of the pertinent sections of the statute were furnished in a previous letter from this office.
Our initial efforts to conciliate the matter revealed that the parties would not at that time reach a mutually agreeable settlement. An investigation was then conducted. Based on our investigation, the weight of evidence to date indicates that L.M. Polizzi was a protected employee engaging in pro-tected activity within the ambit of the Energy Reorganization Act, and that discrimination as defined and. prohibited by the statute was a factor in the' actions which comprise his complaint. The following disclosures were persuasive in this determination.
Mr. Polizzi's status as a protected employee is clear. In October of 1986, Mr. Polizzi was employed as a mechanical engineer at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station in Glen Rose, Texas. While employed in that capacity, on October 23, 1986, Mr. Polizzi wrote a memo to his super-visors, J. Irons and D.C. Purdy, which was forwarded to the Gibbs & Hill New York office, outlining specific concerns regarding a potentially reportable design deficiency in the
, pipe rupture analysis. Mr. Polizzi's concerns regarding the pipe rupture analysis, and willingness to take his complaint outside the firm were well known among Gibbs & Hill employees at Comanche Peak. In his subsequent work locations in
. New York and Tennessee, he was vocal about his concerns M
. . a with the pipe rupture analysis and his increasing dissatis-faction with Gibbs & Hill's response to his complaint.
Gibbs & Hill's immediate response to Mr. Poli::i's memo was to transfer him to the New York office while all other per-manent Gibbs & Hill mechanical engineers were transferred to different jobs on the Comanche Peak location. No other response to Mr. Poli :i's memo on the part of Gibbs & Hill was provided until late January and early February of 1987 when Mr. Poli::1 was visited on an almost daily basis by an engineer from the applied mechanics group, Mr. Ted Kosmopoulos. Mr. Kosmopoulos and Mr. Poli::i had heated arguments, many of which were overheard by nearby employees on the validity of Mr. Poli::i's October 23, 1986 complaint.
Mr. Kosmopoulos apparently attempted to persuade Mr. Poli::i to accept Gibbs & Hill's position that his complaint was totally without merit and withdraw the complaint.
On 2/19/87 Mr. Poli::i received a memo from D. Purdy and C. Corban refuting his complaint. On 2/24/87 Mr. Poli :i responded to this memo accepting Gibbs & Hill's position on two areas and further stating his concerns on two others.
In addition, his dissatisfaction with Gibbs & Hill's re-sponse and his intention to pursus the matter with the NRC were widely discussed among his colleagues.
On February 27, Mr. Poli :i received a layoff notice in a meeting with Richard Carr and Joseph Alberti. Mr. Poli::i received a package frem Mr. Carr which included a Gibbs &
Hill "proprietary information" form. Poli::i requested a private meeting with Mr. Carr. In that meeting he informed Car: that he could not sign the form as he was planning to go to the NRC and therefore could not agree not to release potentially confidential information. He also advised Carr of his belief that he was being terminated as a result of his October 23, 1986 memo and subsequent defense of his complaint. Carr told Poli::i he would look into his allegations.
On February 28, 1987 Mr. Poli::i contacted the NRC by phone and letter. Approximately one week later Mr. Poli::i was contacted by Mr. Carr's office offering him a job at the TVA.
Mr. Poli::i's resume had been in a group of resumes that were submitted by Gibbs & Hill to TVA during the period 1/17/87 to 1/20/87 by Paul Giangreco. This submission of his resume was done by Mr. Giangreco prior to Poli :i's meetings with Ted Kosmopoulos during which he refused to withdraw his complaint.
Mr. Poli :1 also indicated he was not asked to update his resume as were others who were being considered for the TVA project. His subsequent rehire on March 11, 1987 by Gibbs &
Hill to work at the TVA appears to be the result of two factors. First, Gibbs & Hill needed more personnel than was available to fulfill their TVA commitments; even transferring
t a group of people from the Comanche Peak site. Second, Mr. Poli :1 had clearly stated his intention to pursue his claim with the NRC and his rehire and assignment to Tennessee appears to be a convenient way of forestalling his NRC complaint.
On May 14, 1987 Mr. Poli::1 was officially terminated, receiv-ing formal notification from Richard Carr. While Gibbs & Hill claims he was advised earlier, a June 3, 1987 letter from Kenneth Scheppele, president of Gibbs & Hill to former TVA employees points out that meetings were held with the TVA as late as May 13, 1987 in an attempt to renew the contract.
Thus, the May 14, 1987 termination date given by the complain-ant appears to be substantiated by Gibbs & Hill's own documentation.
There has never been any indication of poor work performance and in fact Mr. Polizzi has consistently received above average raises. Thus, the pattern emerges that Gibbs & Hill responded to a ReguAation 10CFR 50.55e complaint from a compe-tent employee on a troubled project by first getting him away from the project, then terminating his employment as soon as feasibly possible. His subsequent rehire and termination appear to be an attempt to diffuse Mr. Poli::i's allegations and to obscure the actual reason for his dismissal.
As to Gibbs & Hill's cententions that another employee has filed similar cen. plaints without adverse action, our under-standing is nat these complaints have been resolved internally without NRC notification. Therefore, we do not feel the circumstances are the same.
This letter will notify you that the folicwing actions are required to acate tne violation and provide appropriate relief:
Mr. Poli:21 is requesting the sum of S150,000 (three years salary) plus attorney fees.
Mr. Poli::i has been unemployed since May, 1987 and contends that because of this action he will have difficulty in obtaining employment in the industry.
This letter will also notify you that if you wish to appeal the above findings and remedy, you have a right to a formal hearing on the record. To exercise this right you must, within five (5) calendar days of receipt of this letter, file your request for a hearing by telecram to:
The Chief Administrative Law Judge U.S. Department of Labor Suite 700 - Vanguard Building 1111 20th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036
.,m' '
4 Unless a telegram request is received by the Chief Adminis-trative Law Judge within the five day period, this notice of determination and remedial action will become the final order of the Secretary of Labor. By copy of this letter, I am advising Mr. Poli::i of the determination and right to a hearing. A copy of this letter and the complaint have also been sent to the Chief Administrative Law Judge. If you decide to request a hearing it will be necessary to send copies of the telegram to Mr. Poli::1 and to me at 26 Federal Pla:a, Room 2251, New York, NY 10278, (212) 264-8185. After I receive the copy of your request, appro-priate preparations for the hearing can be made. If you have any questions do not hesitate to call me.
It should be made clear to all parties that the role of the Department of Labor is not to represent the parties in any hearing. The Department would be neutral in such a hearing which is simply part of the fact-development process, and only allows the parties an opportunity to present evidence for the record. If there is a hearing, an order to the Secretary shall be based upon the record made at said hear-ing, and shall either provide appropriate relief or deny the complaint.
Sincerely,
/
w.
Thomas Kelly Area Director TK/ chm cc: Mr. Lorenzo Mario Poli::i 100 Spring Street Metuchen, NJ 0a840 Betty St. Clair, Esquire Rabinowit:, Boudin, Standtrd, Krinsky & Lieberman, PC 740 Broadway New York, NY 10003-9518 The Chief Administrative Law Judge U.S. Department of Labor Suite 700 - Vanguard Building 1111 20th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Mr. Phil McKee, Deputy Director for Comanche Peak Project Office of Special Projects Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 W