ML20205E605
| ML20205E605 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1984 |
| From: | Brink B AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205E553 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-133 NUDOCS 8608180438 | |
| Download: ML20205E605 (8) | |
Text
- - - - - -
Betty Br ik f;, l 9 j,.
Route 2, ex 374 Kountze, Texas 77625 tiay 10, 1984 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Commissioners Washington, DC Re: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Docket Mumbers 50-445/50-446 Report of Office of Investigations 4-84-006 Sirs:
On April 13, 1984 a reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram told me that I had been named in several places in the above referenced report which covered alleged intimidation of QC personnel prepared by H. Brooks Griffin, Richard Herr and Wendel E. Frost (all OI investigators) and which he
( the reporter) had rec eived with a cover letter from Stuart Treby, Assistant Chief Hearings Counsel.
The cover letter stated that Mr. Treby was making a complete version available to the Board members with redacted versions going to all parties. Mr. Treby further stated the " redacted" version of the report had been prepared by OI.
(The reporter rec eived his copy frem an unnamed source. )
The reporter further said that two former Comanche Peak uelders whom I had named in confidence for Mr.Grifff n to interview because of their possible knowledge of intimidation and/or construction defects, had also been named in the report and that their names had not been censored.
He then read the names to me over the phone.
I was greatly surprised and angered by that revelation.
The two men whom I had named had both requested that their hames remain confidential when I last talked to them about Since both men have left the Comanche Peak two years ago.
site and since I have not heard from either man during that time, I did not have the right to release them from that re-quest of confidentiality.
In a telephone conversation with Mr. Griffhi in August of 1983 that I would and again in February of 1984, I told Mr. GrUffin the names of the two welders on the condition
. give him (Giiffin) the two men must maintain their confidential status unless that and until GrLEfin had been able to talk to each man personally anc recieve permission from each nu1 personally to release their names.
{
It seemed to me en obvious condition in any event.
Neither of the two men were ever found or interviewed b"'. Yet Mr. Griffin or anyone else conducting this investigation both men have been named publicly in the report.
86081GO438 860806 PDR FOIA GARDE 86-133 PDR
.(
1, Brink, page 2 (The fact that neither man could be found is also hard to understand since Mr. Griff:hi told me over the phone in April of this year, that he ( Griffin) had the resources to find just about anybody he wanted to find.
Mr. G=Sf1n had the two men's names, their employer, Brown & Root, their approxi-mate times of employement at CP, and their job descriptions (welders) as well as the area where they worked (the fuel pool liner and the main loop) as well as the name of the town where etey lived while they worked at Comanche Peak.)
When I qustioned Mr. Grdfin about his violation of a confidential request, he said he had no recollection that I ever made such a request. He proceeded to check out his notes and found no such notation, he said.
He said it was just a " misunderstand-ing" and while he did not believe that I was wrong, he simply did not remember any such request.
Mr. Grdf1n also stated that he could only send me a copy of the one page which referred to me and the welders and nothing else since my name did not appear anywhere else in the report.*
That statement, too, is incorrect.
In the transcribed interview with George Clancy, former QC inspector at CP which appears in full in the report, Mr.
Clancy twice mentions my name as a source of information about other workers who might have knowledge confirming some of Mr. Clancy's allegations.
I was never contacted by Mr. Griffk1 or Mr. Herr, both'of whom attended the interview with Mr. Clancy.
In fact, when I talked to Mr. Griffin in August of 1983, I gave him George Clancy's name and told him that Mrs. Juanita Ellis might have a current address for him.
I was the first person--as an intervenor in 1979--to talk to Mr. Clancy after he had left CP about his
~
numerous concerns regarding construction deficiencies and the QA/QC problems there.
I, along with my, friend Dick Fouke, arranged Mr. Clancy's first interview with NRC Region IV in-vestigators and sat in on the interview.
I also have tapes of an interview with Mr.
Clancy and another construction i
worker who claims to have seen the shoddy repair of the l
overexcavation for the foundation for Comanche Peak which was completed in the early 70's.
j
.The OI investigators never contacted me even though their interview with 11r. Clancy happened in August of 1983 shortly af ter Mr. Griffin and I talked.
Enen I talked to Mr. Griffin 1
1 recieveo a copy or tne "recactec" version or tne reporu from Region IV several days later at my request.
1 j
l
Brink, page 3 again in Februray of 1984, I asked him if he had talked to Mr. Clancy and replied that he had, but he did not mention that I!r. Clancy had named me as a source of more names.
Further, in an investigators note, Mr. Griffht said that my notes regarding the technical concerns of the welders would be furnished by me and that af ter evaluation the notes would be turned over to the RIV staff.
This is again-misleading and incorrect.
I offered.my notes to Mr. Griffin, explaining that they were rough and Mr. Oriffin said that he could not use them because he was only mandated to cover intimidation and harrassment, but that if he decidec to use them he would contact me.
He did not contact me.
This serious breach of confidentiality must not be taken lightly by either the Commission or the Board.
In light of the obvious pattern (being uncovered by the Department of Labor) of illegal firings at Comanche Peak by Brown & Root and the difficulty whistleblowers are having finding work, i.e.,
Chuck Atchison, the Stiners, it is inconceivable to me that any worker's name would be made public without that worker's permission, irregardless of the canner in which investi-gators were given the name.
For all Mr. Griffht knew, I could have picked those names out of the phone book or, worse, I could have held a grudge against the men and named them spite-fully.
But of'even more concern to me, it seems obvicas and should have been obvious to the investigators, that we are dealing with a highly sensitve area of peoples lives: their liveli-hood.
And this report not only wound up in the hands of a number of reporters, the Attorney General's office, the intervenor CASE, but it also wound up in the corporate offices of Texas Utilities which is only a short step away frcm their constructor, Brown & Root.
I am sure that Brown & Root manage-ment and probably most of the personnel are now in full knowledge of the contents of report 4-84-006.
If the two men I named are still employed by Brown & Root in another place or apply for jobs elsewhere in the industry and give Brown & Root as a former employer, the consequences of their names being made public as whistleblowers is grave.
Thy could likely lose their jobs or refuse to be hiref.
And the very real possiblity remains that they could be identified
' publicly by the news media.
One simply does not take a person's life and livlihood so lightly and brush off a violation of i
confidentiality with such a cavalier attitude as Mr. Griffbs demonstrated.
I am protesting this breach of confidence to everyone I can in the strongest Ecssible way. I request an independent investiga-tion of the Gd.. fin / Herr / Frost investigation and that disciplinary action be taken against any and all responsible for the vio-lation.
/.
Brink, page 4 I submit that this viola' tion, along with Mr. Criffin's and Mr. Herr's obvious refusal to honor George Clancy's request that they contact me as to other names to verify his (Clancy's) allegations, throws doubt on the
\\9Eidity of the entire investigation by Mr. Griffin,!!r. Herr and Mr. Frost, along with their conclusions, and should not be given any weight by the Board or the Commission.
The investigation is obviously seriously flawed and should be reopened with different investigators and oversight by the Commission, Congressional committees, the Justice Department and the Texas Attorney Gener:1's office.
Sincerely,
/
. 2f Betty B. Brink Former Intervenor Citizen's for Fair Utility Regulation H. Brooks Griffin's breach of confidentiality was Note: reported via telephone by Mrs. Juanita Ellis to Peter Bloch, Board Chairman, on or about April 13, 1984, shortly after both Mrs. Ellis at.d L received copies of the referenced report.
cc: Board members Edward Markey, Congressman Morris Udall, Congressman Attorney General's Office, Texas Billie Garde, Governacnt Accountability Project Juantia Ellis, CASE Richard Fouke George Clancy Jim Wrighc, Congressman John Bryant, Congressman Lloyd Bontsen, Senator U. S. Justice Department 5
r m.,-,.,.
Betty Brink Route 2, Box 374 Kountze, Texas 77625 May 10, 1984 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Commissioners Washington, DC Re: Comanche' Peak Steam Electric Station Docket Numbers 50-445/50-446 Report of Office of Investigations 4-84-006 1
Sirs:
On April 13, 1984 a reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram told me that I had been named in several places in the above referenced report which covered alleged intimidation of QC personnel prepared by H. Brooks Griffin, Richard Herr and Wendel E. Frost (all OI investigators) and which he (the reporter) had received with a cover letter from Stuart Treby, Assistant Chief Hearings Counsel.
The cover letter stated that Mr. Treby was making a complete version available to the Board members with redacted versions going to all parties. Mr. Treby further stated the " redacted" version of the report had been prepared by OI.
(The reporter received his copy.from an unnamed source.)
l The reporter further said that two former Comanche Peak uelders
~
whom I had named in confidence for Mr.Griffi n to interview
~
because of their possible knowledge'of intimidation and/or construction defects, had also.been named in the report and that their names had not been censored.
He then read the names to me over the phone.
I was greatly surprised and angered by that revelation.
The two men whom I had named had both requested that their names remain. confidential when I last talked to them about two years ago.
Since..both men have left the Comanche Peak site and since I have not heard from either man during that time, I did not have the.right to release t, hem from' that re-quese o'f conTidentiality.
In a telephone 2 conversation-with Mr. Griffin in'Auguse of 1983 and again in'Tebruary*of '1934',1 told Mr. Griffin-that I would give him (Griffin.).. the names of the two welders on the condition that the twof' men must maintainthei'r ~confidentis17tsys unless and until Griffin had"been"able to7alk'.'toi.'iach man'pe'sonally -
~
r anc recieve pdrmisilon"Yroin~ esEh nanyefsonally -to reitrae their -
~
~
names.
It seemed to me an obvious conditi6n in any event.
~
Neither of the two men were ever found or intervihwed by
)
Mr. Griffin or anyone else conducting this investigation.
Yet both men have been named publicly in the report.
F 1
Brink, page 2 l
(The fact that neither man could be found is also hard to understand since Mr. G UEfin told me over the phone in April of this year, that he ( GROS 1n) had the resources to find just about anybody he wanted to find.
Mr. Gebaln had the two men's names, their employer, Brown & Root, their approxi-mate times of employement at CP, and their job descriptions (welders) as well as the area where they worked (the fuel pool liner and the main loop) as well as the name of the town where they lived while they worked at Comanche Peak. )
When I qustioned Mr. Grub 1n about his violation of a confidential
~
request, he said he had no recollection that I ever made such a request. He proceeded to check out his n6tes ind found no such notation, he said.
He said it was just a " misunderstand-ing" and while he did not believe that I was wrong, he simply did not remember any such request.
Mr. Griffin also stated that he could only send me a copy of the one~page which referred to me and the welders and nothing else since my name did not appear anywhere else in the report.*
That statement, too, is incorrect.-
In the transcribed interview with George Clancy, former QC inspector at CP which appears in full in the report, Mr.
Clancy twice mentions my name as'-a source of information about other workers who might have knowledge confirming some of Mr. Clancy's allegations.
I was never contacted by Mr. ChifMn or Mr. Herr, both'of whom attended the interview with Mr. Clancy.
In fact, when I talked to Mr. Grub 1n in August of 1983, I gave him George Clancy's name and told him that Mrs. Juanita Ellis might have a current l
address for him.
I was the first person--as an intervenor in 1979--to talk to Mr. Clancy after he had left CP about his numerous concerns regarding constructiod deficiencies and the QA/QC problems there.
I, along with my friend Dick Fouke,-
arranged Mr. Clancy's first interview with NRO Region IV in-vestigators and sat-in on-the interview.
I also have tapes of an interview with.Mr.
'Clancy and another. construction worker who claims"toThhve seen'the shoddy repair of the overexcavation for.the. foundation for Comanche Peak which was completed in the early 70'..s..""
.~
g._
_~, -,
. - u
-a The OI investigators never 'contabted' ~me ~eved thoQh their, i
interview with Mr. Clancy_ happened in August of 1983 shortly after Mr. Griffin and I
- talk}ed.- When I talked to-Mr. Griffin I
=1 recieved a copy or the " redacted" version at the report from Region IV se,veral days later at my request.
9
,m-,r,,,. _ _,,.
-7
I-
=.
l Brink, page 3 again in Februray of 1984, I asked him if he had talked to Mr. Clancy and replied that he had, but he did not mention that !!r. Clancy had named me as a source of more names.
Further, in an investigators note, Mr. Griffin said that my notes regarding the technical concerns of the welders would be furnished by me and that after evaluation the notes would be turned over to the RIV staff.
This is again misleading and incorrect.
I offered my notes to Mr. Griffin, explaining thz they were rough and Mr. Criffin said that he could not use them because he was only mandated to cover intimidation and harrassment, but that if he decidea to use them he would contact me.
He did not contact me.
This serious breach of confidentiality must not be taken lightly by.either the Commission or the Board.
In light of the obvious pattern (being uncovered by the Department of Labor) of illegal firings at Comanche Peak by Brown & Root 4
and the difficulty whistleblowers are having finding work, i.e.,
Chuck Atchison, the Stiners, it is inconceivable to me that any worker's name would be made public without that i
worker's permission, irregardless of the canner.in which investi-gators were given the name.
For all Mr. GrLff1n knew, I could have picked those names out of the phone book or, worse, I could have held a grudge against the men and named them spite-fully.
But of even more concern to me, it seems obvious and should have been obvious to the investigators, that we are dealing with a highly sensitve area of peoples lives: their liveli-hood.
And this report not only wound up in the hands of a number of reporters, the Attorney General's office, the intervenor CASE, but it also wound up in the corporate offices 4
of Texas Utilities which is only a short step away from their constructor, Brown & Root.
I am sure that Brown & Root manage-ment and probably most of the personnel are now in full knowledge of the contents of report 4-84-006.
If the two men I named are still employed by B'rown & Root in another place.or apply for jobs elsewhere in the industry and give Brown & Root as a former employer, the consequences of their' names being made public as whistleblowers is greve.
Thgr could likely lose their jobs or refuse' to be hired.
And the very real possiblity remains that they could be identified publicly by.the news media.
One simply does not take a person's l
life and livlihood so lightly and brush off a violation of confidentiality with such a cavalier attitude as Mr. GeUH1n demonstrated.
j I am protesting this breach of confidence to everyone I can in the strongest possible way. I request an independe'nt investiga-tion of the CkiHLn / Herr / Frost investigation and that disciplinary action be taken against any and all responsible for the vio-lation.
y
_m.
- f
_ = -
Brink, page 4 I submit that this violation, along with Mr. Criffin's and
.Mr. Herr's obvious refusal to honor George Clancy's requert that they contact me as to other names to verify his (Clancy's) allegations, throws doubt on the 59tidity of the entire investigation by Mr. Griffin, Mr. Herr and Mr. Frost, along with their conclusions,and should not be given any weight by the Board or the Commission.
The investigation is obviously seriously flawed and should be reopened with different investigators and oversight by the Commission, Congressional committees, the Justice Department and the Texas Attorney General's office.
Sincerely, s k[
etty B. Brink Former Intervenor Citizen's for Fair Utility Regulation Note: H. Brooks Griffin's breach of confidentiality was reported via telephone by Mrs. Juanita Ellis to Peter Bloch, Board Chairman, on or about April 13, 1984, shortly after both Mrs. Ellis at.d I received copies of the referenced report.
cc: Board members Edward Markey, Congressman Morris Udall, Congressman Attorney General's Office, Texas Billie Garde, Government Accountability Project Juantia Ellis, CASE Richard Fouke George Clancy Jim Wright, Congressman John Bryant, Congressman Lloyd Bentsen, Senator U. S. Justice D p=64.
0 l
l I
l e
l
y,,. t"..
pararo UNITE) STATES
/
'o,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N
,y v
g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20065 a
All 15 Ml84 i
s &as wN"G y y 4 s u-e hos73 The Honorable Lloyd Bentsen United States Senator 912 Federal Building Austin, Texas 78701 Attention:
Ms. Leslie Pool
Dear Senator Bentsen:
Your letter of May 24, 1984, to Carlton C. Kammerer, Director, Office of Co..gressional Affairs, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), concerning the inquiry of your constituent, Betty Brink, has been forwa'rded to This office for reply.
Ms. Brink's letter has also been forwarded to this office for appropriate action by the Director of NRC's Office of Investigations.
After we have looked into the matter,you will be advised of the results.
Sincerely, W
+^--Q George H. Messenger Acting Director Office of Inspector and Auditor a m i + m' t n'8 :> '
(
[
0 I
W 0
4
. rya
,j U.S. NUCLEAR R3GULATGY COMMISSl;N y
Of fice of Inspector and Auditor
[
- o.... i,......,Kovembe r 7, 1984 Report of Interview r
Ms. Billie Pirner Garde, Director, Citizens Clinic, Government Accountability Project (GAP), Institute for Policy Studies, was interviewed concerning possible NRC misconduct regarding the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station d
(SES). Garde alleged that Region IV, NRC, and the Office of Investigations f
(01), NRC, did not properly respond when notified of wrongdoing by Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGC0), the aoplicant at Comanche Peak SES.
During the interview, Garde outlined three instances where Region IV and 01 allegedly failed to act when notified of wrongdoing by TUGCO.
The first incident discussed by Garde concerned the TUGC0 Safeguards Post Construction Verification Task Force which was organized to conduct post construction quality control (QC) inspections at Comanche Peak SES. On the task force were eight OC inspectors, six of which were electrical QC E
inspectors. The electrical OC inspectors identified numerous deficiencies with electrical constru'ction. Consequently, Comanche Peak SES Construction nanagement began to pressure the Site Quality Assurance Supervisor, Ronald G.
Tolson, to stop the electrical QC inspectors from writing deficiencies and accused the electrical QC inspectors of conducting unnecessary destructive examinations.
+
On about March 1, 1984, because of the complaints b'y Construction management, l
Tolson telephonically notified Doyle M. Hunnicutt, Region IV, NRC, that the electrical QC inspectors on the task force were going to be replaced. On March 5, 1984, the TUGC0 QC inspectors arrived for work wearing Tee shirts bearino the slogan "We are QC inspectors and are pickers of nits." TUGC0 management took no action as a result of this incident. On March 8, 1984, the QC inspectors again arrived for work wearing the Tee shirts. On this date, however,liark Welch, who had replaced Tolson as Si'te Ouality Assurance Super-visor, detained eight of the quality control inspectors in a room in the safe-guards building ostensibly to protect the inspectors from construction personnel. Of the eight QC inspectors detained, four were task force members.
While the QC inspectors were detained, their desks were searched and inspection documents were confiscated. One of the task force QC inspectors (GAP witness) who was not detained, twice telephoned the NRC Senior Resident Inspector James E. Cummins and informed him of the detention and search for inspection documents. The QC inspector asked to meet with Cummins to discuss the situation. Cumins did not meet with the inspector and apparently took no action except to notify Doyle Hunnicutt, Region IV, of the situation.
Region IV was also informed of the ongoing situation by Billy Ray Clements, Vice President for Nuclear Operations, TUGCO. Clements discussed the situation with Paul S. Check, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IV.
In response to the information, Region IV had a management meeting; however, 01 was not included in the meeting. Region IV did not take any action to resolve the incident.
............ N o v e 1,
1984
.,Be.thesda, MD
,,, George A. Mullf,Jr., Investigator, OIA November 7, 1984 o,,,,,,,,,,
m,' o,Ynm,': 'zi=n :,'h".:, :: 7 ",=::m:,%MY~':" r: *" "
c'""'~"
/4 1
am m.*
J
~
mm 8
i 2
f en-3 e Region IV did not take action, Billie Garde telephoned Ben B. Hayes,
. rector, 01, NRC, during the evening of March 8,1984, and notified him of the detention and seizure of inspection records by TUGCO. 01 also did not act on this information.
A second incident outlined by Garde concerned an inspection conducted by the
.~_
OB Cannon Company, Philadelphia, PA, a firm contracted by TUGC0 to inspect the paint coatings at Comanche Peak SES.
In August 1983, OB Cannon inspector, Lipinsky, prepared his inspection report which stated that the paint coatings
/
on tite reactor components at Comanche Peak SES was beyond salvage and required complete rework. A TUGC0 OC inspector provided a copy of the inspection report to Region IV, 01 Investigator, Donald Driskill who, in turn, forwarded it to Region IV. When notified of the results of the OB Cannon inspection, TUGC0 applied pressure on OB Cannon to have Lipinsky reword his report. OB Cannon, in turn, applied pressure on Lipinsky.
In September 1983, Lipinsky provided Driskill with a memorandum concerning his inspection report and the resulting pressure. On November 10-11, 1983, a meeting was held between TUGC0 and OB Cannon concerning the inspection. At this meeting, TUGC0 discussed the wording of the report with Lipinsky and OB Cannen and again attempted to force Lipinsky to reword his conclusions.
In December 1983, Region IV and Driskill were provided a copy of the transcript of the November 10-11, 1983, meeting.
Although aware of TUGC0 and OB Cannon's harassment of Lipinsky, Region IV nor 01 took action.
The third incident discussed by Garde pertained to the liner plates for the spent fuel tank, refueling cavities, and two transfer canals.
Periodically, during the past several years, Region IV has been provided affidavits alleging the liner plates had been improperly installed and that TUGC0 had falsified inspection records concerning the liner plates. Brooks Griffin, Region IV, 01 Investigator, is also in possession of these affidavits. However, NRC has taken no action concerning this information. Thomas A. Ippolito, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Date, NRC, has been aware since April 1984 of five individuals in TUGC0 management who have knowledge of the liner plate problem and who are willing to discuss the problem with NRC.
Region IV nor 01 have yet contacted these individuals.
Garde stated that the above allegations have been discussed in detail during recent testimony before the Atnmic Safety and Licensing Board hearing regarding Comanche Peak SES and that Judge Peter B. Bloch has indicated the dissatisfaction with NRC's handling of these Qcidents.
Additionally, GAP has gathered nany documents, affidavits, and transt.ripts in support of these allegations. These documents are available for OIA to use in developing our investigation.
e te