ML20197C510
| ML20197C510 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1986 |
| From: | Vorse J NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197C457 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-43, FOIA-86-A-140 NUDOCS 8611060206 | |
| Download: ML20197C510 (1) | |
Text
p** u' *g m UNITED STATES -
.~ (
p S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O\
OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGloN 11 $P
\,,,,./ ' S
- 1^ENIf M"o'RJiA EE" MAY 0'84RS MEMORANDUM FOR: J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator Region II FROM: J. Y. Vorse, Field Office Directcr Office of Investigations Field Office, Region II
SUBJECT:
V0GTLE: POSSIBLE HARASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION THROUGH DRUG SCREENING PROGRAM (Q2-85-013/RII-85-A-0016)
I have reviawed the following allegations which are associated with I subject inquiry: 2850016-007, 2850016-008, 2850016-009, 2850016-016, 2850016-017, and 2850016-018. I have also reviewed reports of interviews of the three allegers, which took place on March 22 and 23, 1985. I found no information which in my view, meets the threshold of an 01 investigation at this juncture. Therefore this inquiry will be CLOSED unless, during your review of the technical issues associated with this matter, informa-tion is developed which would be considered of 01 interest. If so, please advise this office.
cc: ELGilbert. 01:HQ e B. Uryc, RII:IACS I
8611060206 861023 PDR FOIA FOWLE86-A-140 PDR
-- -~~ ~ ~~ ~ -
, , _ w. A . . . - . .
UNITED STATES nanaoug
}/ , jo,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON b n REGION ll
- 101 M ARIETTA STREET, N.W.
N $
8 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 "g .
%,,,,,+ June 20, 1985
~
Mr. James B. Register Route 2, Box 265 Vidalia, GA 30474
Dear Mr. Register:
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATIONS REGARDING V0GTLE NUCLEAR PLANT, RII-85-A-0016 Enclosed please find the write up I made regarding the interview I had with you on May 23, 1985. I am forwarding a copy per your request. ..
The information will be provided to the Technical Staff for review and any follow up action. I would also like to advise you that there may be some concerns which you reported that could be referred back to..the licensee for follow up which would be subject to audit by the NRC.
Please review the enclosed document and if there are any changes or corrections that you would like to make, please call me collect at 404/221-4193.
I appreciate your cooperation and assistance in this matter. I'll be in touch with you regarding the resolution of your allegations, and if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
& l Bruno Uryc Investigation / Allegation Coordinator
Enclosure:
Results of Interview, 4 pages e
~
0 (.6 Y d M U r
3 p Mioq UNITED STATES p,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMiss!ON
$ o REGtON ll
. E g 101 M ARIETTA STREET, N.W.
o, [ . ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30303 June 20, 1985 Mrs. Susan B. Register Route 2, Box 265 '
Vidalia, GA 30474
Dear Mrs. Register:
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATIONS REGARDING V0GTLE NUCLEAR PLANT, RII A-0016 Enclosed please find the write up I made regarding the interview I had with you on May 22, 1985. I am forwarding a copy a.s per your request.
The information will be provided to the Technical Staff for review and any follow up action. I would also like to advise you that there may be some concerns which you reported that could be referred back to the licensee for follow up which would be subject to audit by the NRC. .
Please review the enclosed results of interview, and if'you want to make any changes or corrections, I would request that you contact me regarding thoses changes. You may call me collect at 404/221-4193.
I'llabe in touch with you concerning the findings made regarding your allegations.
If I can be of any assistance, please do not hesistate to contact me. I would like to also thank you for your gracious hospitality during our visit. I would also like to thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter.
bh Bruno Uryc Investigation / Allegation Coordinator
Enclosure:
Results of Interview, 6 pages 1
9 d
k^
-, .c e
.* = UNITED STATES
, $8 p Krog% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON
[ n R EGION 11
$ ,a 101 M ARIETTA STRE ET. N.W.
- 2 -
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30303 June 20, 1985
% . . . . * +# .
Ms. Leslie A. Price c/o Route 2, Box 265 Vidalia, GA 30474
Dear Ms. Price:
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATIONS REGARDING V0GTLE NUCLEAR PLANT, RII-85-A '6 Enclosed please find the write up I made regarding the interview I had with you on May 23, 1985. I am forwarding a copy per your request.
The information will be provided to the Technical Staff for review and any follow up action. I would also like to advise you that there may be some concerns which you reported that could be referred back to the licensee for follow up which would be subject to audit by the NRC.
Please review the enclosed document and if there are any changes or corrections that you would like to make, please call me collect at 494/221-4193.
I appreciate your cooperation and assistance in this matter. I'll be in touch with you regarding the resolution of your allegations, and if I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
OAD G Bruno Uryc Inves tigation/Allega tion Coordinator
Enclosure:
Results of Interview, 8 pages w/atch
m F
', ,7 5jo atg'g NUCLEAR REOULATERY COMMISSION 3 e CElloN 11 j
~
1 d1 CARIETTA STREET,ND, k U R
- ATLANTA,CEoRIIA 30303 l
' $s ,..../
o June 12,1985 )
\
l MEMORANDUM FOR:
J. Vorse, Director, Office of Investigations Region II Field Of fice FROM:
B. Urye, Investigation / Allegation Coordinator SUBJE CT: V0GTLE - ABUSE OF DRUG SCREENING PROGRAM AND CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCIES l
CASE NO: RII A-0016 l
)
The enclos.d hesults of Interview are forwarded for your review. These interviews were conducted in - during the period May 22 and May 23, 1985 with the individuals indicated. our review of this documentation % appreciated as is the l cssistance you provided during the interviews.
Should your review indicate any OI interest, please advise me so that I can initiate cppropriate referral action to you. I would also appreciate a reply if you find that there is no OI interest at this time.
L4 k
' Bruno Uryc
Enclosures:
- 1. Results of Interview with S. Register
- 2. Results of Interview with J. Register
- 3. Results of Interview with L. Price
- . s /L ^
T QON I jf)$fh y , soSM
e (BSAOO161.IAC)
BESQLIE QE INIEBVIEW CONSTRUCTION CONCERNS; ABUSE OF DRUG TESTING PROGRAM
SUBJECT:
FACILITY: VOGTLE I DDCKET NO: 05000424 DATE OF INTERVIEW: 05/22/85 TIME: 1430 BRUNO L'RYC INTERVIEW CONDUCTED BY -
AMES Y. VORSE
} ..'
PREPARED BY: BROND URYC r DATE PREPARED: 06/10/85 ALLEGER; N B.
e f
PHONE:
CONFIDENTIALITY NOT REQUESTED EWdd8BY QE INEQBd8IlRN.
- 1. QQNgEBNBEQSBQ1NQSEIILEdEUIQEGyllb(GSyDylkplNQ she was a construction aide and a junior Ms. REGISTER stated t')at instrument person at the Vogtle Nuclear Plant. She stated that she May worked on a survey group in the Aux 111ary Building f rom 1980 until 9, 1983.
She said that she was responsible for line and grade She said cocsurements which were used by craft during constuction. utilizing a T2 that she shot line and grade measurements for tants, curvey instrument.
She said she also was responsible f or computing and other general olevations, computing and surveying as-builts, in through curvey type work. She stated that she learned surv cn-the-job training and that her supervisor was she f ound that the Auxillary Ms. REGISTER stated that as a surveyor, Building was not level. She said that shetonoticed function this when determine if theshe building was running a level loop which is a was level.
She stated that she found that the building was not level sometime She said in 1981 while running a level loop with a 2eiss optical to surveylevel.
marter, start-that she took measurements from survey marker SOf 5
2 l .
ing at the west eid of the building and working toward the middle of the building. She said that her measurements were accurate as she came within 2/1000 of an inch of being on design location. She said that the first time she did the level loop she worked f rom the east end of the building toward the middle and came in out of t ol er anc e, that is, more than allowed. She said that she could not recall the exact measurement which was out of tolerance, but she said that she believed it was more than 12 inches of f design location. She said that told them to go completed the survey loop. She stated She tk.at stated that the explanation back and run the level loop again.
che received conc in the loop being out of tolerance was that -
cnother surveyor, had pulled from D level to C level and that in doing so he probably ropped a f ew inches when he changed f l oor s. She stated that survey crews were not permitted to pull up between floors as this was prohibited by survey procedure SU-T-01.
should not Ms. REGIS,TER stated that she f eels that he was incompetent and a drunk.
because have been' measurements may not She stated a b e as concerned that also violated survey have been accurate. She said that she is also procedures, particolarly SU-T-01. She stated th ecause he is
- concerned that people at the site are protecting c " good old boy" and part of the " good old boy cli que. "
Building was settling She stated that she heard that the Au She said that f rom an individual she identified j/s,hgh in February 1985 at a she also had occasion to talk to ^'*1==sked her why she reported club in Augusta, GA. She said that ~ )
infor to the NRC regarding the survey work and she said that she j t ol d that she did not know what he was talking about. She said ad " forgot to that then asked her if she knew that factor in humidity and some other stuf f" when e was surveying and that was why it looted like the building had settled three inches. She told her this she thought that someone from the oaidthatwhenjllllllt NRC had told people athe plant that she was providing inf ormation to the NRC regarding survey activity at the plant. She stated that shein is concerned about the field settlement note Shebooks said thatwhich shewere done is concerned pencil and not supposed to be erased.
that notations in these books may have been altered since they knew about her concerns at the plant. She said that surveyors were required to use pencil for notations in the field settlement note l
books and that the books are stored in the vault as permanent records.
She stated that she is in contact with an individual who she declined to identif y and that this individual has copies of original field Bettlement note books and that the individual is considering whether to come f orward with their information on settlement.
She stated that she does not know for a fact that the Auxillary Building is in fact settling, but she thinkscomment that it is based upon the about g pull-level loops that she conducted, 3 04 M
ing up between levels during one of his surveys, theremarksbyjlllllll in February 1985, and additional information from LESLIE PRICE.
- 2. C9BCEBU BEQBBEld5 E91b E6dBLEE Ms. REGISTER stated that from June 1982 to sometime in 1983, she was conducting survey activity associated with documenting the location of coil samples for compaction tes - - - ' - '
wzre on C shif t and wort ed f or She said that she and lllll hook all of the readings and made the curvey notations in the field book and that they had no certified curvey personnel or supervisors with them when they took the readings. ]
She said that the procedure required that a certified survey instrument technician or junior had to take the actual location roadings f or the soil samples. Shestatedthatsheanddlllllmade hundreds of unsupervised readings, to include making note book entries which were later initialed and dated by who was never cctually on the scene supervising their work. She stated that there were people available who she could call if she had problems. She 1 further stated that she has no concerns abeat the actual work that she She said j did other than having to trust someone elss's grade markers.
that she was also concerned that the rocedures were violated in that l che had no supervis(on and that signed off her work without actually knowing if it was in fact correct.
- 3. UBBBSEdEUI GUD 191151D8I190 l
Ms. REGISTER stated that she began to experience episodes of harassment l cnd intimidation when she filed an employee concern regarding the handling of her remotion. She said that the b sis for her employee concern was that told her that they had put her in f or promo non an ece an that the promotion action was logged into the personnel in January 1983.
She was subsequently promoted,in March 1983. She said that her concern was that she did not received back pay retroactive to the date in December 1982 when she was submitted for promotion.
She said that in May 1983, she was transf ered out of the survey department and into the mechanical piping section. She said that she filed her employee concern af ter leaving the survey department because che did not want to file the concern while she was still assigned to the survey department for fear of reprisala She said that the concern was filed in June 1983.
Ehn stated that she felt that she was lied to by
=** . =me rm a in that they did not actually submit er promo-tion when they said they had submitted it. She f eels that she was a victim of sexus! discrimination by -
because they did not want a woman on their survey crews. 'he also said that she filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EED) complaint throught the Georgia Power Company and that nothing was rver done with her com-pl ai nt, nor has she ever received a response to her complaint.
h Ch kY
4 She said that after she was assigned to the mechanical piping section, che continued to raise problems on the Joo. She said that she was recponsible for the control of Deficiency Reports (DR) and that part of her responsibility was to ensure that DRs were accounted f or. She stcted that because she was finding so many problems with the DRs and insisting that the job be done right, she was singled out or harass-ent. She said that she was told by an/ individual named that she was stepping on too many toes and that she should watch out for herself. She said that'she took _,
advice very cariously Sha also state h t s came involved in a ersonal matter which ehe raised to and also to who works f or
$E!!EEE$ She said that the problem did not involve activity at the' site, but that it was a matter involving the personal affairs of cevaral individuals at the site. She said that g told her that if hrr name comes up again as being associated with problems, that he did not care who w e ri t or wrong, because she would be the one to go.
Sha said that as very angry when he said this and that he was jabbing his finger into her chest as he was making the statement. She said that she told hat she did not do anything andMold hsr that he did not care. She said that she was scared to death after this confrontation with M nd that she took this as a direct threat to her job.
She also said that she was told by that she had better watch what she was doing. She said that as directly involved in the personal matter that she took to She said that she took this statement by as a threat to her.
She stated that in November 1984, her daughter was very ill and was hospitalized f or some tests. She said that she could not get off work to o o the hospital with her daughter and she was told by hat if she did not come to work +h44 she would loose her job.
Under the situation, she had t'o go to work because she could not af f ord to loose her job.
She said that the final episode of harassment and intimidation came She said that while she was employed at the plant, she was continually subjected to sexual harassment by the male employees at the site. She said that she was subjected to lewd remarks, cat calls, obscene gestures, and other assorted forms of sexual harassment. She said that at times the harassment was unbearable.
Sys
i l
l
= ,
She stated that she although she was harassed, she never let the herassment af f ect the quality of her work. She said that her concern was that the other women at the site have to put up with similar harassment and they are af raid to do anything that would jeopardize their job. She said that women should not have to put up with such hcrassment on the job.
- 4. GQuGEBUS BEQ9BDING EEG UBINGLYElf IESIING EBQQBed Ms. REGISTER stated that the GPC urinalysis testing program is unf air in that it violates personal privacy. She said that the program is oleounreliableanjthattherearestudiestoshowthatthef She said that G?C urinalysis program not 100 percent accurate.
managers apply the program selectively and that it is used as a f oFm of harassment.
She provided several examples of how the ro ram is selectivel coolied to various individuals.
. She stated at there as an individua named who as cnd he has never been tested. She said that ragged about being a drug user and has frequently been on the job under the influence of drugs. She stated that GPC will take no action against ecause they are concerned about the embarassment of having ~~dentified as a drug user. She said that jlllllll supervisors are protecting him cnd tha ley do n'ot want the problems that would be associated with hav _, identified as a drug user. ,
he said that '~ jhas an alcohol problem and hi s super va sors will o nothin to have him removed from the ob. ,--v. , .
>w -4 9 a .. .
m".,
I
.-f - .m ~-
3EdN
- She also stated that l
?I~ TdZlihave alcohol problems and nothing is done o ge them off the site. She said that she is concerned that the GPC drug provention program does nothing with ref erence to alcohol and its cbuse. She said that alcohol is as much a problem at the site as 44r durgs and nothing is being done about it.
- l
l
. l l
e (85A01612.IAC)
BEEWLIE DE INI'EB21gW CONSTRUCTION CONCERNS; ABUSE OF DRUG TESTING PROGRAM i CUBJECT: !
FACILITY: VOGTLE DOCKET NO: 05000424 DATE OF INTERVIEW: 05/22/85 TIME: 1930 \
BRUNO URYC ,
INTERVIEW CONDUCTED BY:
JAMES Y. VORSE PREPARED BY: BRUNO URYC ALLEGER: AMES B. REGISTER rc ..
l PHONE:
CONFIDENTIALITY WAS'NOT REQUESTED.
l EUddBSX DE INEQBd@llgN l REGISTER advised that he had been employed at the Vogtle Nuclear Mr. 19, 1982 to February 27, 1985, as a i Plcnt construction site from AprilHe said that he conducted surveys to include curvey instrument man. He horizontal and vertical control, as-builts, and support checks.
Units 1 and 2.
caid that he worked in the containment building of
- 1. GQNggBN EgQBBQ1NQ gyBygy ESQgEQQSES Mr. REGISTER stated that he had filed a GPC Qualit( Conce$1, number C5VOO32, regarding his concerns, however, he feelW that his concern has not been properly answered and he is not satisfied with the resolution of his concerns as reported to GPC.
H2 said that when he first started to word at the Vogtle construction cite, there was no procedure He said relative to how the surveyors were to that procedure SU-TO-1 was written in pcrf orm their work. He said that several procedural requirements late 1982 or early 1983.
in SU-TO-1 were not being f ollowed. He* stated that the essence of his concerq3 are as f ollows:
a) Procedures are not being f ollowed with regard to field book documentation. Field books are not being retained as required by the All survey work done at the construction site should cases.
have l
procedure.bsen entered into field books and this has not been done in all
_ . .s
l
.g.
l l
b) The problem with not maintaining field books became a major prcblem after the survey unit was put under the coordination depart-cant.
A lot of the survey work that was done at the site was not put into field books are required by the procedure.
why the field c) Mr. REGISTER said that he asked and he said that books were not being maintained as required Mr. REGISTER said tha he told him that it was not required anymore.
field books were required to be maintained in accordance with SU-TO-1.
d) According to procedure, there aremarkers These permanent are control markers supposed to be located around the power block. He said that maintained and protected f or the duration of the job.
all the markers on the east side of the power block have been d2stroyed, and some of the survey markers on the He said thatnorth the side survey of the markers power block have also been destroyed.
on the south and east side of the power block are in relatively good condition.
l e) He stated that he is concerned that surveyors working under '
coordinators were under pressure because coordinators are production oriented and this will have some effect on how the surveyors get the job done. Mr. REGISTER provided the f ollowing example of pressure being put on the surveyors by the coordinators 1984, he was-workingto get the job done.
a concrete Ha said that sometime around November pour on the dome. He said that this incident probably occurred during He said that survey was required to check the third to the last pour. to ensure that the embed items were in the the form work for the pour right location. .He said that he was asked to sign the pour card for He said that he the pour which was taking place on the Unit 1 dome.
checked the f orm work f or the concrete'and found that it was out of location by about an inch. He said that this particular pour required at least three feet nine inches of concrete and it could be more, buthe said that for to his chec i it could not be less.
was told b ~^~"' that they had checked the f orms an y
were in he proper configuration. He said that they wanted him to He said that he sign the pour card withoutcard checking withoutthe f orms. the f orms and when he checking refused to sign the pour He did survey the forms, he found that they were off about an inch.
card until the problem was said that he refused to sign the pour corrected. He stated that the forms were adjusted andMr. the problem was REGISTER said i
corrected, and he then signed off on the pour card. He also stated that this was just one example of production pressure.
that it made no sense for the survey unit to be under coordination cupervisors because they did not know anything about survey work.
Mr. REGISTER stated that he was not aware of any instances where curvey failed to do the job properly because of pressure from production.
He added that there were surveyors on the job who would, in his opinion, bend to the pressure. He said that some of the survey party chief s were less qualified than himself and that they should not have been in these positions of supervision because of the production .
pressure.
00h k
U. 4 .
- 2. GQNGEBN BEE 0BDING EXEEBIENCE DE EBBLY EWBYEY GBEWE I Mr. REGISTER stated that he is concerned that the early survey crews :
, which worked during the 1970's may not have had the experience n2cessary to lay the survey groundwork f or a project the size of Vogtle. He said that his concern is that these early crews were laying the bench marks upon which the plant would be built. He said that these early crews did not have the proper equipment to conduct cccurate survey readings.
H2 said that the Unit 1 containment has settled about a quarter of an 1 inch between the north and south side of the structure. He said that banch marks in the tendon galley are currently being monitored to d2termine if the settling is getting worse. He suggested that individuals still assigned to the survey crews at the site could pro-vide additional infore.ation concerning the settling of the Unit 1 con-toinment. He said that in early 1984, he had been in the main steam tunnel and had seen three different grade marks scribed on the wall indicating a difference of at least an inch and a half between eleva-tion 200 in the control building, turbine building, and the contain- )
mant. He said that this was brought to the attention of engineering I
and probably resulted from survey crews surveying from the different buildings. He said that it could also indicate a settling problem.
- Ha said that he had' heard various surveyors complaining that they did not know which survey mark to use. He said that was a problem because come items have to be installed with a tolerance of one sixteenth of en inch and that most items have to be installed with a tolerance of a half inch. The three grade marks had a difference of more than an inch and a half and this is were the problem develops. He said that ha f eels that this is now an engineering problem and he assumed that engineering was addressing the problem.
- 3. GRUGEBU BEL 911YE IQ EDSIIND DE NBC EDBM 2 1
) Mr. REGISTER stated that he had not seen an NRC Form 3 at the site until he was fired. He said that he did not know that workers who raised safety concerns were protected by law. He said that he believes that many workers at the site are not aware of the contents of the NRC Form 3. He suggested that the f orm be placed all over the
! Site so that all workers could be aware of the contents of that form.
Ha stated that more workers would come f orward if they knew that they l would be protected when reporting safety c,oncerns.
I
- 4. GQUGEBU BEG 8BDING EBESEUBE QU INSEEGIDBE Mr. REGISTER stated that he was concerned about pressure that can be l cpplied on inspectors because of the f ear of being called in on the drug hot line. He said that he had heard of several instances were inspectors were told by craft that they would be called in on the drug hot line for giving the craf t a hard time during inspections. He stated that NRC should look into this area.
- 5. GONGEBU BEG 8BDINE EUBYEY DE BS:EUILIE l0 0h5 :
. - ,- - l
4 !
Mr. REGISTER sta is concerned about the survey crew cupervised by He said that this crew has been having problems with as-builts and that they keep coming up with dif f erent He said that the crew was having to data on checking the as-builts.
go back and recheck their work compared to NISCO data. He said that th2re must have been some significant differences or ould not one as-built have to make the rechecks. He said that he was aware o in particular that was supposed to have been rechecked several times cnd that a steam generator leg. These rechecks were being done on the NSSS system which is a safety related system.
Mr. REGISTER stated f ollowing the interview that he had no objections to his name being used in connection with the inf ormation he provided. l e
d
)
i
// sf21
l-BEEWLIE DE INIEBY1gW (85A0161s.IAC)
SUBJECT:
CDNSTRUCTION CONCERNS; ABUSE OF DRUG TESTING PROGRAM FACILITY: VDGTLE i
DDCKET ND: 05000424 DATE OF INTERVIEW: 05/23/85 1
TIME: 0930 INTERVIEW CONDUCTED BY: BRUND URYC "
JAMES Y. VDRSE PREPARED BY: BRUND URYC DATE PREPARED: 06/10/85 l
ALLEGER: ESLIE A. PR l
.a g ..
v ,
{
PHONE:
! PLACE OF INTERVIEW: RESIDENCE DF J. REGISTER, l 6 GOUEIDENIIBLIIX NOI BE99EHIED EWD50BX DE INE9BdBIION Ms. PRICE was interviewed to 'obtain additional information regarding concerns she initially reported in February 1985.
- 1. GQUGEBN BE06BDING GLLEGED E8bE1EIGGIIQU DE SQ16 DEUSIIX BEGOBDH Ms. PRICE stated that in early 1985, she learned that the Readiness Review Group was concerned because the records in the vault pertaining to soil compaction tests were reviewed and found to be perfect. The t she concern was that these records were too efect. She s was aware that had ked to ness Revs ew Group was looka TN M L to anf orm him info the records of the soil co action the Readi-
. She said that after talked to M he was very esc::ted in t he t this inf ormation as a threat.
She said that GL g and got into a heated discussion dur-ing which ~ ~1'5 3 told -> W 55 )that he was d of hearing about the soil compaction tests. She said that
.. went over and e the onversation because of its angry tones. She said that
- tool o another section to settle him down and she I
l0 $M
t i . 2-l l
l ovsrhear tell that he was not pointing the finger l
but only informing him t his documentation was being at questioned. She said that she heard make a comment to the l She st ted that was offect that no documents are erfect.
was ma ang an taking the conversation wi th as if accusation against or the soil compaction records.
\
She said that f ollowing this incident, she began to ask questions of l various people concerning what had occurred with the soil compaction records. She said that she talked with a soils inspector named and inquired as to what was going on with the records. She said that ,
J
@ had told her that the early soil compaction tests had not been done right and now somebody was finally getting around to looking at those test resol e. She said that later she t al ked with and -~,..-stold her that the
~
proctor tests were not done ri because l di no o the tests in accor-ance with the procedure. She said that M iso said when the proctor tests were done, they did not beat the soil the way they were Supposed to and that on some of the specimens they would let them dry the test on the specimen out or add water to the specimen so t a woul d dure. She said that .
[ Q were doing the tests. She said that E- told her that Qi and . ~ .
were falsif n he tests. She said that __
"* b m.b3.,.L;AWYE Ms. PRICE stated that after the incident with had go to the vault to get informati,on from the soi hpaction log books and prepare a. raph charting out his tests l completed the oject l from 1976 to 1978. She s id that when and . (PRICE) asled how the graph came out, about the resu tan h.
stated hat ,, ; was not very ha '
She said that told her that ,,
ave the gr h to time called in or a and left his office at whi discussion. She said that spent about a week gathering data l for the graph.
Ms. PRICE stated that she is concerned that based on what she has She j
heard that there is a problem with the soil compaction tests.
said that she f eels that 6 was not properly trained to do the soil compaction tests. She said she based this on the fact that in the early days, V otle did not know what proper training was. She also stated that ~ had told her that back then they were not trained to use their procedures, even if they had procedures.
Ms. PRICE stated that she did not know if soil compaction records were f alsif ied, but she does know that the soil compaction records are causing a stir at the site. She said that she was also aware that the Readiness Review Group moved out f rom reviewing the documents to going out to the bard area (the source of dirt f or the construction site) .
/3 of-Bf 4
3-ou was Cho said that lllllllllhad told heraction that theoblems Readiness Review on a man named hre to blame the soil co
- 2. GQSREBU BEG 9BDING E9IES LEeUING IUBQUQU CONCBEIE W8LL Ms. PRICE advised that when she first arrived at the Vogtle construc-tion site in June 1982, she was told about water leaking through the north exterior wall of the Control Building at D level. She said that cn inspector named ad taken her down to look at the wall.
Sho said that she accompaniedjlllllto the area where she said she cbecrved water coming out of cracks in the wall. She said that she was told that the wall had been backfilled before the concrete set up cnd that was the cause of the leakage through the wall. She said that cha did not see any honeycombing in the wall, but that the cracks were visible.
- 3. GQUGEEN BEGBSDING SIGIED BE8 SON EQB IEBd18911DN DE EDELOYEES Ms. PRICE stated that she is concerned that when employees are tarminated for drug abuse activity that the GPC does not list the rocson f or the termi, nation in the individual's work record as drug cbuse activity. She said that the reason f or termination is usually lioted as misconduct or insubordination. She said that she feels that th9 reason that this is placed in the records instead of drug abuse cctivity is because GPC is concerned that the NRC would then make GPC go back and reinspect all of the work that was performed by the worker. She said .that when the reason f or termination is misconduct cnd/or insubordination that this will no,t draw attention from the NRC.
- 4. GQUGEBU BEGGBDING UBBBSSdENI Ms. PRICE stated that she is concerned about the sexual harassment that she constantly received f rom her male coworkers and supervisors on the job at the site. She said that she made several written complaints regarding the sexual harassment but nothing was ever done cbout it. She said that the harassment has never affected the quality of her work, that is, conducting her work in a professional and proper menner, but the harassment has caused her personal embarassment and cmotional stress in that she constantly had to be on the def ensive to dool with the harassment. .
Ms. PRICE stated that she believes that the drug hot line at the site 10 used to harass workers and she feels that the drug hot line was used as a means to punish her for raising too many concens. She ctated that the drug hot line was used by workers to "get even" with
, other workers. She said that when an individual was called in on the drug hot line that the individual was then notified that they would have to take the urinalysis test. The individual identified by the She said that many cnonymous call was then tested based on the call.
p2ople at the site were using the drug hot line as a form of harass-
! cent against their fellow workers and that this was done with impunity cnd vindictiveness in many cases.
WafM
he als aid that she f eels that her f riends, ere also called in on the drug hot line as a means of crossment against her. She stated that she was l
l d no he u o line on February 22, 1985. but resi ned bef ore takino the urinalysis i
tost. She said that
. ..a She said that his termination records w2ll proba y re lect that be re i ned and there will no mention of the fcet that he Ms. PRICE said that as an example of how the drug hot line is abused end used as a threat,, there was an occasion when she was conducting a QC welding inspection on hatch covers. She said that she rejected caveral of the welds and informed the welder that the welds were unccceptable. She said that the welder told her that if she did not stop being so "picty" about her inspections that she would be called in on the drug hot line and " eliminated."
\
[
A l
l i
l
- 6. CQUggBUS egg 6BDING ELEGI61GGL INSEEGIlguglgggydg81GI1QU 16 c.(M
l i
I
! l entleman she identified on1 as l Ms. PRICE stated that there is She said that l
~ - he had expressed concerns with electrical t
_ I documentation and inspection log boots. She said that he had told her that systems records were being sent to the vault bootc eventhough r the work at filled out had not been properly doc mented and the lo 4
She aid that in -
mentioned his concern re arding the documentation problem during a She said that had gone into the meeting with erwork. She said vault and f ound many problems associated wit et into the vault that several people got into trouble because hat after and reviewed the paperwork in the vault. She said he ld ment oned that he had some concerns to t e mee ing. ;
t that he wanted to talk with him privately af ter things have i She said that since Mthehas talkedabout concerns withthe documentation. She said quieted down regardint may have toned down his voicing of concerns that she felt that because of being put into a better job by, 6 She said that she than what the situation l i has no inf ormation to substantiate this other I cppears to be on the surface.
, 7. E 9 REING EBQIEGIED EBQt$ UBINGLYE1H Ms. PRICE st at ed that is concerned that i is being protected from the urinal sis pro-She said that she has heard that gr am by supervisor, his su >ervi sore. said that E will never be tested because he would be too big an embarassment to the company because of his drug abuse activity. She stated that _.. has a re otation around the
_ . y-site as being a drug user -. - Qin -
Ms. FRICE stated that there are also other individuals at the site who rs from ur sis l cre being protected by supervisors and mana as seen testino. She ide_tified n m ., e ~ r - ~ : a with drugs at a party o f the site by an inspection clordinator.
She said that Mwas called in on the drug hot line; however, he seems to enjoy the same immunity f rom testing as 4
- 8. GQUGEBU BEQ6BQ16@ UUQUGLIElEQ M1UEEEGIQBE FE stated that she had heard t y .g g' .. <
m~
p.,- , ,, ,
had sent unquali led snipectors out into the field. She said that was short of certified during the summer of inspectors in his section. She said that he wouldfrom send uncertified inspert nes who had been transf ered to his section gFEg"f;Jgg e Ib*
.u.+ u s.2asections out into the field to conduct inspections. She stated that she had heard that thes'e uncertified l
inspectors would conduct the inspections alone without being - - _ _ _ ._
/G ot M
i
- l l
cccompanied b other certified inspec ors reviewing their work. She oeid that would then sign the nspection paperwork to reflect tha e ad either done the inspection himself or that he had been with the uncertified inspector while he perf ormed the inspection.
Ms. PRICE said that anr individual she identified as complained abo thie jllllllinaletter to the head of the She said that relieved of his supervisory position and placed in the section as a coordinator cupgrvisor. She said that she was concerned as to whether or not the inspections that were performed by the uncertified inspectors had been reinspected b' certified inspectors. She also stated that she had
! heard that ad been chastised by his coworkers f or reporting the
! information, but she did not know if management took an antagonistic
{ viewtowardllllllhecauseofhisreportingthec.ncern.
- 9. G9NGEBU BEGBSDIND INSIGNI GEBIIEIGGI1ON DE INSEEQlgSS Ms. PRICE stated that she had occasion to report someconcernstodllEEllll saa that dur2no the conversat2on days" when .
-d himself and several others walked into the GPC training building one day for training and the GPC instuctors told them'they were inspectors and gave them certifica-
. tion cards. She said that -
said that they did not receive any l traini and that they were instantly certified f or the job. She said that made a ole of the situation by saying that
{ . . _ _
She said that f]{.jj t i
er hat this occurred sometime during the period 'M She i that part of her concern is that these individuals were all She* stated that she suspecte t se the o owing individuals ma have received their inspector's c er t i f i c at i on in that manner:
MN
- 10. CONCERNE REGARDING CADWELDS IN THE UNIT 1 DOME I
Ms. PRICE stated that during the summer of 1984 she was made aware of l c problem with the transitional cadweldc (that is radwelds that tran-sition f rom a number 18 to a number 14) when an inspector she i denti f i ed as e w= =au approached her and asked her how to measure voids in cadwelbs. She said that he was referring to voids inside the cedweld sleeve. She said that jl[))))l said he had " busted out" a*.1 of the cadwelders who worked on the dome and that all of the transitional cedwelds he inspected that morning (approximately 15) had been defec-tive. Ms. PRICE stated that if a cadwelder had a number of welds, for onomple three in a row, inspected and fail that they would be_taten _
off the job f or recertification. She said that i n t h i s c a s e , ""'- "" -
found a large number of transi ti onal cadwelds def ective and would not let the cadwelders do anymore cadwelds. She said that the cadwelders w r em loyed by e e w m v dft"J.'m- w w M ""1 She said that was concerned about voios an the cadwelds because Q the vendor for the cadwelds, had provided i emation on how to compute a combined low fill with voids; however, said that he could com-j rj [y
pute the low fill and void, but he did not know how to combine the j i computation when they were both on he same end of the cadweld sleeve.
i She said that was that reason approached her and asked if she kn2w how to do it. She said tha eythenbothwenttolllllllllland j c5 Led him. She said that __id not know how to make the compu- 1 totion so he decided to call She said that they called a ,
rcpresentative of llllllgbout the problem and they were advised to '
figure each computation separately and the ombine them for a total figure. She said that after tallin with - called a
! masting along with .
for the cadweld in ctors to discuss the issue. She said that they tried to work the void f rmula on the board, but they could not get a correct. She said that then told the inspectors to use a fillet pauge to check for voids in the cadweld sleeve. She said that l thi= i= 'm.ossible to do with a fillet gauge and '
She said that'they we suoQested that a than gauge wire be used to probe the sleeve and llllllll told the inspectors to use the wire ties that come on bread l
She said that af ter lllEEEEll busted out the cadwelders that no cadwelds were mad n t he dorr.e for two or three days. She said that ent up to the dome to check the cadwelds that 'cated as ective. She said that their inspection f ound that most of the cadwelds were in fact acceptable.
She said that llllllll questioned them and asked how they knew that the welds were acceptable and he was told that they were able to do the required computations on the voids. She said that later they went to the office and when tried to show ow he did the computations that he could not make them come out on the blackboard in the of fice to match the computations that he said he did in the field while checl.ing the cadwelds. She said that none of the three who checked the cadwelds had the same computations.
t j Ns. PRICE stated that the inspectors did use the bread wrapper ties to check the cadwelds. She said that she does not personally know of any def ective cadwelds in the dome, but she is concerned that some of the cadwelds could be questionable because of a lack of proper guidelines f or cadweld inspectors. She said that she personally inspected about 300 cadwelds while she was on the job. She identified the f ollowinO individuals as cadweld inspectors who might be able r v de l
"^
additional information concerning cadwelds: - l i l i 11. CONCERNS REGARDING SETTLEMENT OF UNIT 1 CONTAINMENT
. PRIC stated that in either late 1984 or early 1985, she overheard
! tell that he had just been told that the con-l tainmen building had sank 3 and 3/4 inches on one side. She said a comment to the ef f ect that that was nothing thatlll$3l[)thenmade now. She said that commented to M hat the containment i i was only supposed to settle 4 and 1/4 inches wr.ere it was loaded and i I cubjected to vibration. She said that she was concerned that the con-
.i
- - . - - - _ - , . - - - - . , - - . _ _ - - - , , c__ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _
toinment building settlement is a problem that management knows about cnd it trying to cover up.
- 12. GQUCEBUS BEG 8BDING BEG 8BDING GQUSIBUCI199 EVEEBY1EQB the 1979 or 1980 timeframe, an Ms. PRICE stated that sometime duri had overridden a concrete QC individual she identified as concrete because of low slump.
inspector who had rejected a load o She said that she had heard that the NRC had investigated the incident cnd that the final outcome of the investigation was that lllllllllwas ramoved from his supervisory position and was not to hold a supervi-cory position for the e=t of the time that he w s emml e ed at Vogtle.
Ms. PRICE stated that is now the head of which is a position of high responsibilit . She stated that th2s should be in such a matter should be reviewed to determine if inspector.
position because of his prior actions with the Ms. FRICE concluded by stating that she is concerned that mid and the lower management at the construction site are really the cause of She stated that many problems that are being experienced at the site.
of the managers are not qualified to be in positions of responsibility cnd that there are many inept people in charge of important work.
M ofM
+
ff )e(
j UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
$ ,2.
, L e ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL .'93 W ASHIN GTON. D.C. 20555
- ;: ',, g4 -
/
March 18, 1986 7
.. \
MEMORANDUM FOR: Acting Director Gary J. Edles O Office of Inspector and Auditor .M FROM:
ChairmanMortonB.Marguliesb For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
SUBJECT:
In the Matter of Georgia Power Company, et al.
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 7 T2)
Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 On March 11, 1986,~at Waynesboro, Georgia, limited appearance statements were taken in the abcVe captioned proceeding pursuant to 10CFR2.715(a). Three of the people identified as fonner facility '
employees, in giving oral staterrents, alleged instances of impro- l prieties on the part of Nuclear Regulatory Comission personnel after they had been contacted by the employees on matters relating to the plant.
4 As you know, the statements are not made under oath and do not constitute evidence. We are making no evaluation of these raw alle-gations. We believe they are matters that you should be aware of and we send you copies of the transcript for whatever action you may deem to be appropriate.
Attachments: As stated.
M cc: Director Ben B. Hayes /
Office of Investigations 'i Regional Administrator J. Nelson Grace
,O e Region II JA/
Service List - all parties i Without attachments A
f
/
ys se 3
v s ~ - / fo . sx\p
- 0 1 lf >
f<~ \ R
30 313 1
to be a problem in any construction proiect of this size. I 2
know there will be all sorts of problems to arise, but I have 3 faith and confidence that they have tried to improve and 4 correct anything that has arisen out thare. That's about all 5 I have to say for you today.
6 I just want to welcome you to our town.
7 JUDGE MARGULIES: Thank you, sir.
8 Lesley Price?
9 MS. PRICE: My name is Lesley Price. I'm a former 10 quality control inspector from Plant Vogtle.
11 JUDGE MARGULIES: Would you speak up, please?
12 MS. PRICE: Okay. I'm a former quality control 13 inspector from Plant Vogtle, and last year in the early part 14 of the year I became concerned over a coverup that was going 15 on out there, about the buildings that were sinking. I 16 checked the documentation and I became convinced that there 17 was a problem there.
18 I contacted Bruno Uric of the NRC, and gave him 19 documentation and background notes that he could check.
20 Mr. Uric granted me confidentiality but then, less than a 21 week later, everyone on the job knew that I had gone to the 22 NRC.
23 I was then targeted to take the urinanalysis test.
24 as a result of a call on a 1-800 number. They told me 25 because of my associations with people at Plant Vogtle, I was Arr.FFDERAl. REPORTERS. INC.
f
'.13 ' 314 1
1 going to have to take the test.
2 I wasn't afraid of taking the test, and when I 3 took it, nine days later they told me I had failed the test.
4 I believe it's a direct result of my contact with the NRC.
5 And I was not fired for failing the drug test, I was fired 6 for misconduct.
7 I don't see how the two go together. Georgia 8 Power can answer that.
9 I believe that the NRC and Georgia Power are 10 working together in eliminating anyone that is willing to 11 tell the truth about management and construction practices at 12 Plant Vogtle. Otherwise, why did it take seven months for 13 Bruno Uric to start his investigation into what I had brought 14 to his attention in January? His excuse was that President 15 Reagan had cut their budget; they could not afford to look 16 into the unsafe practices at Plant Vogtle.
17 And, as a result, we still don't know the results 18 of the investigation because the NRC refuses to release them 19 and it illegally refuses to release them because they have 20 to. We are now in the process of starting a suit against 21 them.
22 I gave all my information to Mr. Uric because I ,
I 23 believed I was doing the right thing and that people were in 24 danger. And as a result of that I lost my livelihood. I 25 have been called an addict in the newspapers. I have been I 1
1 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. s l
t
. 13 0 315
, I unable to find a new occupation in this area -- mostly 2 because I was concerned. I really believed I was doing the 3 right thing.
4 I believe that this committee will grant that 5 license. I think you have already made up your mind that 6 Plant Vogtle will get their construction license and 7 operating license with no problem. And I hope that Vogtle 8 doesn't turn out to be another space shuttle, that after it's 9 already too late you are going to find out you had problem:
10 that were known about beforehand and were not taken care of.
11 You may not take wnat I say as very serious, but 12 I'm one of the people who is going to appear on the Phil 13 Donahue show this Friday and I guarantee the public will 14 listen if the NRC won't.
15 And I hope some day the NRC has to answer for 16 their actions, as far as Plant Vogtle goes, and the fact that 17 they are taking none to make sure that it's safe.
18 JUDGE MARGULIES: Thank you.
19 Susan Register?
20 MS. REGISTER: My name is Susan Register. In 21 January of '85 I made several complaints to the NRC, Bruno 22 Uric. I was also given confidentiality.
23 One week later I was confronted by a fellow worker l
24 and told, word for word, what I had reported to the NRC.
25 And on a news report, the MacNeil Lehrer hour, the ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.
- 113' 316 a
B 1 NRC lied and said that we had never asked for 2 confidentiality. In my hand, I have that letter where they 3 granted us confidentiality.
4 We still have no idea if the NRC cares. Who is 5 watching the NRC? Well, let me tell you I am, and anybody 6 that watches Phil Donahue will know about you guys.
7 Thank you.
8 JUDGE MARGULIES: Do you want to read that letter 9 into the record?
10 MS. REGISTER: No. It will be in the paper and it 11 will be shown on the Phil Donahue show.
l 12 JUDGE MARGULIES: Charles Henry? ;
13 MR. HENRY: Good evening. Am I talking loud t
14 enough?
' I'm a pipetitter out of 15 My name is Charles Henry.
16 Birmingham, Alabama out of local 91. I was employed at Plant 17 Vogtle in early August '85 through late November of '85. I 18 was terminated at that time. The reason given was 19 insubordination. I flied a lengthy complaint with Georgia 20 Fower quality concern on the same day of my termination, my 21 complaint being that I wa; fired directly as a result of my 22 refusal to work in areas and in activities that were in 23 direct conflict with Georgia Power's quality concern 24 directives and Pullman Power quality concern directives.
l 25 Georgia Power quality concern people at that time ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
p1 13* 317
(' 1 initiated an investigation. Approximately three weeks later 2 I received notice that they had ended their investigation.
3 They could not find where I had been fired for any reason 4 other than insubordination. The reasons given were that ,my 5 foreman did not fire me, uy superintendent took the 6 responsibility. They were looking at my accusations as far 7 as work in direct violation of standards as a separate 8 matter. They refused to tie the two together. I objected 9 strongly in mail. Most of my correspondence has been in 10 certified mail or through Federal Express, which I have 11 copies for anyone that wants to care to look at them.
12 I repeatedly offered to Georgia Power -- I have l
13 had recent and numerous contacts with NRC. I of fered to bot!.
14 companies -- both organi:ations, rather, to volunteer to take 15 a polygraph test at any time. I voluntarily went on the 16 plant site, pointed out the areas in question to Georgia 17 Power quality concern after my termination.
18 I honestly feel like I made every effort to bring 19 this to their attention in an equitable manner. I recogni:e 20 that from some points of view I would be labeled as a 21 dissatisfied malcontent and former employee, but I honertly 22 don't think that's the case.
23 When I was informed by Georgia Power quality 24 concern that they would treat my termination simply as 25 insubordination, approximately three weeks after my 4 ec ECMCD 4 i NCDASTeme I s + e*
O 13' 318 J1 Y
1 termination, at that point in time they had not questioned 2 any of my coworkers concerning ny accusations of inaccurate 3 work and work done in violation of control standards.
4 I, at that point, informed quality concern, 5 Georgia Power quality concern, that I would go directly to the NRC, which I did at that time. And I consequently, four 6
7 days later than that, filed a complaint with the Department 8 of Labor, which I have appealed and will appear before an 9 administrative law judge early next month.
10 The NRC assured me, when I contacted them by phone 11 initially, that they would promptly look into the matter.
12 over the period of the next five or six weeks I stayed in regular contact by phone. At no time was anyone that I 13 14 worked with directly, other than management responsible for 15 my termination, questioned by the NRC.
16 At that point I, again, notified everybody 17 concerned that I felt like there was -- no action was being 18 taken on my part. Frankly, I just didn't know what to do 19 about it.
20 Instead of using the phone, I called the regional 21 of fice in Atlanta and requested the name of the dire: tor and 22 address and at that point, roughly five weeks after my 23 termination, I sent -- requested the coordinator's name, her 24 director's name, her director's address in Washington. They 25 gave me the addresses.
A rc. Fence a t RFPonTFut Nr
' +
p13.0 g 319 1 Three days later on a Saturday my wife received a 2 threatening phone call while I was at work. The effect of 3 the call was that I'm sergeant somebody with the police 4 department. Your husband has been critically injured at 5 work. Do you have anyone there at home with you?
6 She responded, yes, my two children are here.
7 He said, what are their ages? She told him and 8 the connection was broken.
9 I recogni:e that this could easily be seen as 10 having no connection with my involvement at Plant Vogtle. I 11 have never received any kind of call like that. Whoever 12 called knew I was at work. Whoever called knew I was in 13 construction. And for it to come three days after requesting 14 the addresses for the regional director and the Washington 15 director to send them certified mail, it's just -- the I
16 coincidences defy comprehension from my viewpoint.
17 To my knowledge, the NRC has still not questioned 18 any of my coworkers. I informed them by certified mail that I 19 evidence was being tampered with. I had direct knowledge l
20 from coworkers still on the job site. I requested their 1
J 21 assistance. They assured me they were working diligently on 22 it.
23 When I finally sent the certified mail, about 24 three weeks later I received a response from the regional 25 office in Atlanta stating that their general procedure was i
A < c Fenco a Rconovene her
i.0 320 l
1 not to question on this kind of stuff until Labor Department 2 complaints were completely taken care of through the appeal:
3 system. That will be sometime next month.
4 Now, I would point out that initially I was told i 5 on every occasion that the NRC was vigorously inspecting this 6 and the plant resident was aware of it. Then I finally found 7 out that they weren't inspecting it at all, apparently. And 8 that's their word against mine.
I 9 Frankly, I'm not anti-nuclear, pro-nuclear. I'm a 10 union employee. I'm pro-union. I worked on the job to the 11 best of my ability. I don't live in Georgia. I can honestly 12 say if most of the complaints in the vein that mine were, and 13 they were successive and serious in nature, are handled in 14 the manner that mine had been handled, I don't think anyone 15 knows what's going on at Plant Vogtle. And I don't mean that 16 critically or any other way. It's just a personal 17 observation.
18 I have been unable to get a coordinated response.
19 From the letters received from Georgia Power, and 20 Pullman Power's representative from me, I have come to no 21 other conclusion than they are actively working together to 22 distort, in some cases destroy evidence, harass and coerce 23 witnesses. They have done that. I have got people that will 24 back up that testimony.
25 Frankly, I don't know what else to do and I've got i
i l
Arc.Fpnpa ar Ruonorene N- ,
l
.- . J 321 J.0 1
nothing but sympathy for the people that live on this side of 2
Georgia, if there's ever a problem at Plant Vogtle. I personally think we need nuclear power. I don't know what i 3 4 the answer is. Frankly, I'm not qualified to give any 5 answers. All I can speak from is personal experience and it 6 has not been very good.
~
7 Thank you.
8 JUDGE MARGULIES: Thank you, Mr. Henry.
9 David W. Frambes.
10 MR. FRAMBES: My name is David Frambes. I'm the 11 carpenters' and millwrights' business agent for local union 12 283 in Augusta, Georgia. I have been in that capacity for 13 about a year and a half now. Prior to that I was a 14 carpenter. I am a carpenter by profession, and will probably 15 return to that trade when I leave office.
16 I first worked at Plant Vogtle in 1978. I worked 17 there one day then -- that was in August of '78 -- the rearca 18 being, it was a lot of other. carpenter work available to me 19 at that time, a lot of work closer in town to Augusta, easier 20 work where I was more satisfied working.
21 At Plant Voctie, we are pushed. They got a big 22 job to do and you can ask any carpenter out there, we got to 23 really work.
24 Returned to the plant in 1981 and went to work 25 there. I was nearing the end of my apprenticeship at that l
l I
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.
-