ML20203N370
| ML20203N370 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek, Surry, Callaway, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1986 |
| From: | Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Stephens S NUCLEAR AWARENESS NETWORK |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203N371 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-594 NUDOCS 8610080080 | |
| Download: ML20203N370 (6) | |
Text
_ _ - _
PM-olb
/
UNITED STATES b
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
.j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SEP 2 C 1986 Docket No. 50-482 Ms. Stevi Stephens Nuclear Awareness Network 13471 Massachusetts IN RESPONSE REFER Lawrence, KS 66044 TO F01A-85-594
Dear Ms. Stephens:
This is the fourth partial response to your letter dated August 20, 1985, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (F0IA), copies of all documentation pertaining to all cases regarding the Wolf Creek plant.
In a telephone conversation with Ms. Pappas, Ms. Reed, and yourself on October 15, 1985, you narrowed the scope of your request to copies of all the Region IV Allegation Data Forms and the background records pertaining to these forms. You also clarified that your request covers the time frame between January 1, 1983, through August 20, 1985.
The released portions of the records identified on the enclosed Appendixes E and F are being placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) in Washington, DC, and the NRC Local Public Dtcument Rooms in Emporia and Topeka, Kansas.
Additional records have been identified in NRC's response to a previous F0IA request 85-600 under your name. The response is maintained in the (PDR)
Washington, DC.
The denied portions of the records identified on Appendixes E and F and the denied records identified on the enclosed Appendixes G and H are being withheld pursuant to the F0IA exemptions noted on the appendixes.
Information withheld pursuant to Exemption (6) of the F0IA (5 U.S.C. 552(b))
and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(6) of the Commission's regulations consists of names and personal identifiers the disclosure of which would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
InformationwithheldpursuanttoExemption(7)(A)consistsofinvestigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes the release of which would interfere with an ongoing enforcement proceeding. Release of this information could allow those being investigated to learn the scope, direction, and focus of investigatory efforts, and thus could possibly allow them to take action to shield potential wrongdoing or a violation of NRC requirements from investigators.
This information is being withheld pursuant to Exemption (7)(A) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(7)(i) of the Connission's regulations.
1 Information withheld pursuant to Exemption (7)(D) consists of the name of an individual and personal identifiers. Because this information consists of the identity of a confidential source, it is being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to Exemption (7)(D) of the F0IA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(D))
and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(7)(iv) of the Commission's regulations.
STEPHEN 85-594 PDR j
[
Ms. Stephens i Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.9 and 9.15 of Commission's regulations, it has been determined that the information withheld is exempt from production or disclosure, and that its production or disclosure is contrary to the public interest. The persons responsible for the denial of portions of the record identified on Appendix E are the undersigned and Mr. James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator, Region III. The persons responsible for portions of the records identified on Appendix F and the records denied on Appendix G are the undersigned and Mr. Robert D. Martin, Region Administrator, RIV. The person responsible for the denial of records identified on Appendix H is Mr. Ben B. Hayes, Director, Office of Investigations.
The denials by Messrs. Keppler, Martin and myself may be appealed to the NRC's Executive Director for Operations within 30 days from the receipt of this letter.
i Any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Executive Director for Operations, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an Initial F0IA Decision." The denials by Mr. Hayes may be appealed within 30 days to the Secretary of the Commission and should be addresseo to the Secretary of the Commission.
We will communicate with you further with regard to additional records which are-subject to your F0IA request.
Sincerely, 4
ttw I
M'/
f
/
1 Donnie H. Grimsley, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosures:
As stated 4
4 i
i 1
l
Re: F0IA-85-594 (Fourth Partial)
APPENDIX E Portion Deleted Exemption 7 (D) 1.
9/28/84 Ltr from C.H. Weil (1 page)
I
1 1
Re: F0IA-85-594 (Fourth Partial)
Appendix F 1
Portions Deleted i
i Exemption 6 1
i i
i 1.
10/5/83 Memo from Brown to Westerman re Section 2.0 Complaint by individualagainstKG&E-PortionsDeleted(1page)with enclosure:
a.
Part 50.7 Employee Protection (1 page) - Release 2.
01/08/85 AllegationReview4-83-A-078(1page) i O
1 i
1
{
i i
i l
1
)
_ _. l 4
Re: F01A-85-594 (Fourth Partial) i j
Appendix G Withheld in Entirety Exemption 6 1.
Undated Resume of a named individual (4-84-A-22) (4 pages) 2.
Undated Resume of a named fr.dividual (4-84-A-102) (12 pages) 3.
1/2/85 Memo to a named individual (4-83-A-078) (1 page)
I 1
l i
i I
)
4 i
l 1
1
~
Re: FOIA-85-594 (Fourth Partial)
Appendix H liithheld in Entirety i
Exemption.7 (A) 1.
4/19/84 Memorandum re: Notice of Investigation (l'page) a i
2.
5/7/84 Allegation Date Form (1 page) i I
4 4
s 4
i 1
i i
i
)
1 1
i l
i
.4 '.)
8%
\\
UNITED STATES
'g. g, j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, if g /!
orFict or iNvesTicATIONS FitLD OFFict. AtGiONIV
'" "UtEc^S. TtEs'$II
- DATE:
June 29, 1984 REPORT OF INVESTIGATION
)
e TITLE:
WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR POWEP. STATION:
ALLEGED INTIMIDATION OF QUALITY C0fiTROL INSPECTOR SUPPLEMENTAL NO.
DN 50-482 CASE NUMBER:
4-84-003 C0f; TROL OFFICE:
01 FIELD OFFICE: REGION IV STATUS:
CLOSED PERIOD OF INVESTIGATION:
January 10,1903 - March 9,1984 REPORTING INVESTIGATOR:
24 A Vercel E. Frost; Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office Region IV
'ARTICIPATING PERSONNEL:
H. Brooks Griffin, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region IV REVIEWED BY:
J4 RicT8 rdT. Her~r, Director 6
Office of Investigatior,s Field Office, Region IV i
Rog~erVo tuna, ' Deputy Direct Office Investigations APPROVED BY:
g[
etrl. Hayes, Dired(pt/
Office of Investigatichs e
G
~_.. _
- .1
SUMMARY
An allegation was received by the Office of Investig'ations Field Office, Region IV, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC), that a Daniel International Corporation
. (DI) Quality Control (QC) inspector at the Wolf Creek Nuclear. Generating Station.
l Burlington, Kansas, had been intimidated by a DI senior QC s.upervisor. The alleged
~
intimidation caused the DI QC inspector to terminate his employment because his freedom to report nonconforming conditions had been eliminated.
The DI QC inspector was interviewed and stated that he had been the subject of I
a meeting wherein a DI senior QC supervisor made intimidating, statements to him.
including the statement, " Cooperate with construction." The DI QC inspector j
stated that he performed all his inspection duties in a proper manner; however,-
I he voluntarily terminated his employment 23 days after the date the alleged j
intimidation occurred because he believed that his freedom to report nonconfoming conditions had been eliminated, i
A DI QC lead hanger inspector who was a witness to the alleged act of intimi-b
~
dation and who kept a diary of the incident was interviewed. This QC lead
}
hanger inspector provided the diary to the reporting investigator. The diary j
reflects the date the meeting took place and the quotes and consnents that were f
made by the DI senior QC supervisor to the DI QC inspector. The quoted j
wording contained in the diary is, "Everyone in this seg. will cooperate,
[g including craft" (the word " including" was written using a shorthand symbol) and "These welds will not be held up over nitpick problems."
I The DI senior QC supervisor who allegedly made the intimidating statements was interviewed and denied making any intimidating statements to the DI QC l
inspector in question. The DI senior QC supervisor stated that statements like, " Cooperate with construction" or any other statements.of that type would, if stated by a supervisor in his position, be intimidating tA QC personnel.
j Subsequently, this same DI senior QC supervisor was reinterviewed at his own 1
request the next day and admitted making the following statement to the DI QC inspector in question, "There is no room in this organization for people who
'i
\\
,s'*
/'
9 cannot work together;" however, he denied making the statement, " Cooperate with construction." The DI senior QC supervisor denied attempting to intimidate the DI QC inspector, even though he acknowledged that a statement like " cooperate with construction" is an intimidating statement.
f,f b-.
The DI pr'oJect QC inspection manager who is the DI senior QC' supervisors immediate supervisor was inter.riewed and stated he was aware that a meeting g occurred between a QC inspector and the senior QC supervisor; however, he
's denied having any other knowledge concerning the meeting.
?.
,r.
4 i
f 0
i