ML20207D631
| ML20207D631 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1985 |
| From: | Bowers D, Kaplan B, Margulies N AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, IRVINE, CA, EG&G IDAHO, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205D361 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-799 NUDOCS 8607220153 | |
| Download: ML20207D631 (300) | |
Text
. -
t.
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION:
ALLEGED CLIMATE OF INTIMICATION SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT Bruce L. Kaplan -- Team Leader EG&G Idaho, Inc.
4 David G. Bowers Research Scientist Newton Margulies University of California, Irvine Charles M. Rice LRS Consultants, Inc.
W1111aa E. Stratton Idaho State University l
May 1985 SIXTH SIXTH SIXTH l
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT 06072201 3 06071, chDE - 99
%lI2-L . . . _ - - . - _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ - . - _ - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - -----
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT................................................ 1
- 1. INTRODUCTION.............................. ........ 1
- 2. DATA SOURCES....................................... 3 2.1 Depositions............................... 3 2.2 Survey Data............................... 3 9
2.3 NRC Reports .............................. 3 2.4 Prefiled Testimony..'...................... 4 2.5 Hearing Transcripts...................... 5 2.6 Other Information........................ 6
- 3. ANALYSIS........................................... 8 3.1 Analysis Using Depositions, Prefiled Testimony & Hearing Transcripts........... 9
- - 3.2 Analysis of the 1979 Management Review B o a rd S u r v e y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.3 Analysis of 01 Investigation and Inquiry Reports.......................... 24 3.4 Observations on Managerial Practices..... 37
- 4.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS........................... 43 i
APPENDIX A - 1979 Management Re v iew Beard Survey Analysis By David G. Bowers.............. A-1 APPENDIX B - Summaries of Alleged Incidents of Intimidation............................. B-1 f
J
,_ __-. - - . . , .,_.-_,..--..,.,,,,yy_.y-,v_-, , , . . , . , , _ , - . . , _ _ , - . . . _ . . - - - - . . , _ _
6 ABSTRACT COMANCHE PEAX STEAM ELECTRIC STATION:
ALLEGED CLIMATE OF INTIMIDATION SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT May 1985 NRC contracted with EGAG Idaho, Inc., to continue its investigation of the work climate at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), and to update its opinion concerning intimidation of QA/QC personnel based on data reviewed from September 1984 through April 1985. The resulting expert opinion, developed by the same study team that produced the original EG&G report, is presented in this supplement.
The study team assessed depositions, prefiled testimony, hearing transcripts, NRC reports, survey data, and other available information. Using a broadened definition of intimidation they formulated opinions on individual incidents of intimidation and the overall work climate.
Key findings were that some incidents of intimidation did in fact occur. The overall pattern of incidents, including the numbers of alleged incidents, allegers, and named intimidators, does not support a conclusion that a climate of intimidation exists or existed at CPSES. It was also found that certain management practices, while not constituting intimidation, may have negatively impacted performance of QA/QC personnel.
This investigation resulted in findings that support the
_ conclusions in the original report. In the judgment of the study team a climate of intimidation did not and does not exist at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.
PAan I
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION:
ALLEGED CLIMATE OF INTIMIDATION SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT
- 1. INTRODUCTION An initial report (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station: Alleged Climate of Intimidation) on the issue of intimidation of QA/QC personnel at Comanche Peak was written by this team in September 1984. Conclusions in that report were based on information that had been received and analyzed by the team up to that time. This report is presented as a supplement to that initial report and is based upon the incorporation of all information received prior to May 1985.
The numbering of the sections in this Supplementary Report generally follows the outline of the original report to facilitate the comparison of related sections between the two reports. It is not intended that this report stand alone. It is a supplement to the original report and must be read in conjunction with it.
~ ' The report is divided into a number of sections as .
follows: Section 2 presents listings of the additional data Page !
D
. _ , , . . . . . _ _ , . . . - _ . . . _ . , . - - _ _. _-.m., , _ + - . . , . _ . , , - . . _ . . . . , _ ~ . - ~ . . - . _,..e.- - -
O
. received and reviewed since preparation of the original report; Section 3 presents the analyses carried out based on the additional data and includes conclusions based on ~
the entire data set (This section is divided into subsections dealing with transcribed data, the 1979 and 1983 surveys, NRC Reports of Investigation and Inquiry, and observations concerning management practices at CPSES);
Section 4 presents a summary of findings and the conclusions reached in the study; Appendix A is an analysis
~
by David G. Bowers of the 1979 Management Review Board Survey; and Appendix B presents brief summaries of the alleged incidents of intimidation.
i l
Page 2
- 2. DATA SOURCES Information in addition to that used in preparing the original report was received and utilized in arriving at the supplementary conclusions presented here. This information is listed in the following sections.
2.1 Depositions Depositions of two individuals were received and reviewed after September 1984:
- 1. H. Brooks Griffin, NRC Investigator
- 2. Evert Houser, former QC Supervisor, Coatings 2.2 Survey Data No additional survey data were obtained. However, an additional analysis of both the substance and pattern of responses was performed on the 1979 Management Revien Board Survey data by David G. Bowers, the same expert in survey methodology who previously analyzed the 1983 QA/QC Questionnaire Survey.
2.3 NRC Reports A number of additional NRC Office of Investigation Reports of Investigation and Reports of Inquiry have been reviewed since September 1984. They are as follows: e Page 3 ,
Inquiry F.eports Investigation Report.s Q4-82-0005 4-82+012 Q4-62-0011 d-8S-005 Q4-82-025 4-83-006 ;
Q4-83-009 4-83-011 Q4-83-011 4-83-016 Q4-83-021 4-84-008 Q4-83-022 4-84-012 Q4-83-023 Q4-83-025 Q4-83-026 Q4-84-001 Q4-84-007 G4-84-011 G4-84-014 Q4-84-016 Q4-84-037 Q4-84-046 2.4 Prefiled Testimony Prefiled testimony from the following nineteen individuals was also received and reviewed:
- 1. Antonio Vega i
- 2. Gregory Bennet =en
- 3. Neil Britton
- 4. William Darby i
Page 4
5,6,7. L1 ford, Johnson, and Callicut '
- 8. Richard Simpson '
s
- 9. Gordon Purdy
- 10. Robert Duncan 11,12.
James Zwahr and Daniel W11terding
- l 13. Ronald McBee 1
- 14. Alan Justice
- 15. James Brown
- 16. Witness "F"
- 17. Samuel Hoggard
- 18. Arthur London
- 19. David Ethridge 2.5 Hearing Transcripts The following listed transcripts of hearing testimony
, were received and reviewed:
I i
QATE EAggg ggjJggT '
9/09/84 14,403-14,771 la SE*1En Session: Witness *F" 9/10/04 14,772-15,171 M. Spence, A. Vega i
l 9/11/84 15,172-15,573 Vega (cont.), B. Clements, i
- C. Thomas Brandt 9/12/84 15,574-15,951 Brandt (cont.), I. Goldstein 9/12/84 15,952-16,389 Brandt-Travelere, G. Purdy l
9/14/84' 16,390~-16,647 Tolson, Downey on Travelers s' 9/18/84 16,648-17,008 Tolson, Vega, Brandt (cont.),
Page 5
, , - g- m ,-e--,mn,.n-- ---,,y.,n,,,,r,-, _- - -
_-,w,-<,-,, , , - , ,,,,-e,- ,-,-,--,,e - -.---.-----,,-,,-r,---- ------r- -,- - ----- - - -~ - - -
s ,
s n
. . t Q,T -
C .,, A l le n s
9/19/84 17,009-17,740 Allen, Brandt (cont.), L1 ford.
s , ' \
Calicutt, etc. -
,9/20/84 17,741-18,158 G. Bennetzen, D. Chapman, Duncan b 3/21/84 18,159-18,504 In Camera: two witnesses 10/0.1/84 18,505-19,028 D. Hunnicutt, J. Norris, T. Matheny
\ $
10/02/04 19,029-19,262 Norris (cont.), G. Purdy 11/19-84 19,586-19',846 O. B. Cannon: J. L1pinsky 11/20/84 19,847-20,179 L1pinsky (resumed), R. Roth
\
, 11/21/84 20,180-20,450 Roth (cont.)
\
e
', 11/26/84 20,451-20,77's G. Chaney - Handwriting Expert, s t Brandt i\
g s 's
\'
11/07/84 20,775-21,091 Brandt (resumed)
\ \
, '. 11/28/84 s
21,192-21,405 Brandt (resumed) 12/03/84 21,406-21,748 Brandt (resumed), Roth (resumed) 12/04/84 21,749-22,006 J. Lipinsky 12/05/84 22,007-22,254 L1pinsky (resumed) 1/07/85 23,112-23,422 J. Norris (resumed) s 1/08/85 23,423-23,734 J. Norris (resyned) 1/09/85 23,735-24,032 J. Norris (rtsumed). R. Trallo 2.G Other Information x
Two additional documents received in response to NRC request's to Texas Utilities for specific information were reviewed.
- 1. The Responses of Texas Utilities to the NRC's Page 6
l l
Questions Concerning the 1979 and 1983 Surveys of
/
Quality Control Inspectors at Comanche Peak.
- 2. A series of organizational .: harts and a summary table (dated 2-16-85, 2 pages) Indicating the company, organizational unit, and pos1 tion for alleged -
Intimidators.
S
(
l Page 7
. .__ , - . . . , , - _ _ _ _ , , - - - - - - - - --, - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - * - - - '
- w
- 3. ANALYSIS The sections which follow present updated findings of the study team. The conclusions reached are the result of a review of the saterials received subsequent to the drafting of the original report, analysis of those materials, and integration of that analysis with the work previously done.
The final conclusions in this report were based on the several different types of data available for analysis. Of central interest was whether or not the analyses of different types of data (e .g. depositions, survey data, etc.) led to the same conclus.ons. Similarity among conclusions derived from different data sources enhances the reliability of the overall conclusions. The following sections of this report deal with data from the depositions, prefiled testimony, hearing transcripts, survey data, and NRC investigation and inquiry reports.
In addition to intimidation there are other climate factors affecting the quality of work at CPSE3 that would not be classified as " intimidating". These will be discussed later in Section 3.4 of this report which deals with managerial practices.
Page 8
3.1 Analysis Using Depositions, Prefiled Testimony, and Hearing Transcripts 3.1.1 The ConceEt of Qrganization Climate This section analyzes the extent to which a glimate of intimidation existed at CPSES. (This concept is defined in detall in Section 1.3 of the original report.) In making this determination the study team not only noted the frequency and distribution of incidents of alleged intimidation, but attempted to arrive at some judgments regarding the likely impact of the incidents on individuals in the work setting other than the alleger.
In the original report the study team defined intimidation as a process involving three major components:
- 1) the incident, action, or statement inducing the effect,
- 2) the resulting feeling or emotion experienced by the recipient, and 3) the ensuing action on the part of the recipient who, because of fear, is forced into behavior that otherwise would be rejected, or is deterred from actions that would otherwise be taken.
The study team has now broadened the definition of intimidation to include the impact the incident could be expseted to have had on reasonable individuals in the work .
setting who experienced, witnessed, or became aware of the Page 9
event, regardless of their actual responses to the alleged intimidation.
3.1.2 Extent of A11ecations of Intimidation
- At the time of the original report, September 1984, the analysis, and therefore the conclusions reached, was based on the data the study team had received and analyzed up to that point in' time. This supplemental report incorporates review and analysis of information available through April 1985.
This section analyzes the extent of allegations of intimidation based on depositions, prefiled testimony, and hearing transcripts.
The depositions analyzed were taken from 83 individuals up to September 1984 and from two additional individuals after September. A summary list of these data sources is shown in Table 1 of this section.
In addition to the depositions, 19 individuals provided data in the form of preflied testimony, and numerous individuals provided testimony at the hearing (as listed in Sections 2.4 and.2.5). For.tre most part these individuals supplemented or repeated information provided in the depositions. In some cases these were new data Page 10
providers elaborating on incidents identified in the depositions.
e Page 11
TABLE 1
SUMMARY
OF DATA PROVIDERS FOR DEPOSITIONS Total Data Providers: 86 QA/QC Managers: 17 QA/QC Employees: 26 David Chapman Darlene Stiner Gordon Purdy Meddie Gregory Mark Welch Jack Pitts Thomas Brandt Joe Krolak James Patton ---
Debra Anderson G. S. Keeley Susan Spencer Richard Kahler Albert Boren Robert Spangler Houston Gunn Billy Ray Sne11 grove Deborah Anderson Ronald Tolson Sue Ann Neumeyer Robert Stever Curtis Biggs Dwight Woodyard' Greg Fanning Antonio Vega Randy Whitman Jack Stanford James Uehlein Billie Ray Clements William Dunham Myron Krishe:- J1mmle McClain Evert Houser Wayne Mansfleid Larry Wilkerson Non-QA/QC Managers: 24 Kenneth Whitehead James Callicut Marvin Coates Freddie Leon Powers Linda Barnes Perry Brittain Michael Rhodes Richard Camp William Simms Jimmie Green Melvin Todd Thoaas Locke Sherry Burns Ray Yockey Cecil Manning Joe George Robert Messerley Craft Employees: 15 John Blixt Henry Stiner Louis Fikar Mark Wells Doug Frankun Kenneth Luken Michael Spence Lester Smith Ronald Dempsey James Scarbrough Kenneth Liford David Ethridge Fred Coleman Ivan Vogelsang John Ha11 ford Dennis Culton Charles Tedder Bobby Hurray Hollis Hutchinson Stanley Miles Carmen Baker Gary Krishnan Michael Hall Ronnie Johnson John R. Johnson James Keller Samuel Hoggard Larry Howard Boyce Grier Witness *F" NRC Personne1:
~
4 -
James Cummins Robert Taylor Frank Hawkins i H. Brooks Griffin l Page 12
The study team reviewed the specific incidents of reported intimidation. This analysis had two purposes:
- 1) to discern how the incidents were dispersed over time, and 2) to identify which instances appeared to be
" legitimate" incidents of intimidation according to the '
definition used in the study.
Analysis of the incidents over time indicates that there were 31 reported incidents spanning the period from 1979 to 1984. (See Appendix B for.a complete listing.)
The dispersion is shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2 DISPERSION OF INCIDENTS OVER TIME Year # Incidents 1979 1 l
1980 0 l 1981 4 (3 from one alleger) 1982 6 (5 from one alleger) 1983 12 (5 from one alleger) 1984 8 (6 from two allegers) l Table 2 shows that the reported incidents were concentrated from 1982 through 1984. In 1981 four l Incidents were reported by two individuals, one of whom e provided three of the reports. In 1982, five of the six Page 13
1
. incidents reported were also from the same individual who reported three incidents in 1981. So, of these ten incidents in 1981 and 1982, eight involve that one individual. As a result, for the years 1979 through 1982 there - were only four different Individuals alleging intimidation.
Table 2 also shows that in 1983, 12 incidents were reported by a total of five allegers. Of these 12 incidents, five were reported by one alleger. In 1984, eight incidents were reported by a total of six allegers.
Sir of these incidents were reported by two allegers. One of the eight incidents involved the termination of 3 individuals. Over the tiae period of 1979 through 1984 the 31 incidents were reported by a total of 13 in'd i v iduals . Overall, two-thirds of the incidents (21 of the 31) were reported by only four individuals.
In using these data to assess the climate the study team noted that the number of QA/QC personnel employed at the site from 1979 to 1984 was between 150 and 250 at any one time, with a total of perhaps 500 different individuals employed over that time period. Considering the normal pressures created by scheduling and economic considerations, the natural conflicts between Craft and QA/QC, some inevitable personality clas5[s, and the number of opportunities for problematic interactions during the Page 14
course of the work, it would be reasonable to assume that even under the best of circumstances hundreds of incidents which might have been classified as intimidation occurred over the six year period.
The number of incidents, the number of allegers, and the number of named intimidators presented as evidence in ,
this case, when viewed from this perspective, is insufficient to positively establish the existence of a climate of intimidation. Nevertheless, it is noted that the small number of reported incidents can not eliminate the possibility of such a climate.
From this analysis the study team found that there were relatively few reported incide'nts of intimidation over this six year period, with a substantial majority of these incidents being alleged by a total of only four individuals.
The September report indicated that there were relatively few allegations and relatively few named intimidators. Having now reviewed all the depositional material, the conclusions of the study team do not differ from those original conclusions. The findings fall to I
indicate the existence of widespread intimidation at CPSES.
e 3.1.3 Eeview of Spec 111g [ncidents of [n;1midation l
i Page 15 1 .
l l
The analysis thus far has made no judgments regarding .
the validity of the allegations themselves. Each alleged incident was assumed to have been a situation that actually -
Involved intimidation. The study team subsequently reviewed each incident according to its definition of intimidation and made a j udgment as to its validity. These judgments were based on: 1) whether the data supported a clear conclusion as to what actually occurred, 2) the extent to which a clear threat was made or implied, and 3) the likelihood that a reasonable person directly or indirectly involved would have been intimidated in the given situation. It should be noted that a conclusion concerning any one specific incident, in and of itself, would not lead to any conclusion about the climate of intimidation. The overall pattern of the incidents must be considered for the purpose of assessing the climate.
Analysis of the 31 incidents led to ten incidents being judged as cases of probable intimidation. These are listed in Table 3.
l Page 16
- ~
I TABLE 3 DISPERSION OF INCIDENTS JUDGED AS INTIMIDATING Year # Incidents Description ~
1979 0 ---------
1980 0 ---------
1981 1 D. Stiner - Weave Welding 1982 1 D. Stiner - Circuit Breaker Article 1983 7 Dunham - Intimidation of Coatings Inspectors - Nitpicking Dunham - Termination Neumeyer - Liner Plate Traveler Allen - ALARA and DCA Reviews Allen - Detergent on Painted Surface Allen - Cigarette Filters T-Shirt Incident 1984 i Neumeyer - Stanford Incident When judgments about the legitimacy of the incidents are made, the case against a climate of intimidation is even stronger. There are very few incidents in the opinion of
- the study team that could be classified as " intimidating".
Of the incidents included as probable acts of intialdation, e.
some were not very clear or were counted only because they Page 17 w r -
w - - , _ _. - _
fit narrowly or technically within the definition as
~'
intiaidating. These cases were~, however, ineluded in the listing above. -
These ten incidents involve four different allegers, excluding the T-Shirt Incident which involved some eight
- targets
- of potentially intimidating actions. Clearly, all of these incidents do not deserve equal weight as significant events in creat ing a poi 31'ait climate of intimidation. The study team concluded that the Stiner Circuit Breaker. Article incident, and the Neumeyer Liner Plate Traveler incident vers only narrowly quallfled within the defialtion as having any significance in contributing to any overall climate of intimidatten.
3.1.4 Conclus, logs B_as_ed On D_eJositions In conclusion, review of the depositions regarding the number of alleged incidents of intimidation and their dispersion over time, and review of the specific incidents themselves, resulted in no change in the original findings of the study team. The data do not suggest that a climate of intimidation exists or existed at CPSES.
Page 18
3.2 Anal {, sis of the 1979 Hanagement Review Board Survey The original report included a content analysis of a subset of questions from the 1979 Management Review Board Survey. Additional analysis _has now been perf ormed of
- both the substance and the pattern of responses on an expanded set of questions from that survey. This analysis was completed by the same expert in survey methodology who previously analy=ed the 1983 QA/QC Questionnaire Survey, and the results are summarized below. The complete analysis is attached to this report as Appendix A.
~
3.2.1 1979 Management Review Board Survey To provide a more complete picture of findings from the 1979 survey, a more extended analysis of the data was undertaken. In addition to the five survey questions to which responses were analyzed in the earlier report, 21 additional questions were included representing all questions which seemed likely to contain information at all relevant to the issue of intimidation. All 120 respondents were included. Their responses were then content analyzed into code categories developed from initial inspection of a sample of questionnaires. As in the case of the 1983
, questionnaire data, the responses were then analyzed to l
- determine whether either their pattern or substance reflected possible intimidation.. - -
l m Page 19
i Concerning the pattern of response, the principal ;
findings were: -
~ '~
l The non-response rate was quite low; on the average, 92 percent of the respondents gave usable responses to any particular question.
- The overall pattern was positive; 78 percent of the responses were positive (favorable).
Although the average favorability was quite high, there was not an absence of negative opinion.
Approximately one response in four was negative.
- The most negative responses were to the most threatening items, not the reverse (which one might expect from a pattern of intimidation).
The conclusion, therefore, is that the pattern of response did not suggest any noticeable amount of intimidation. The substance of response was another matter, however.
Since the 1979 survey, unlike that in 1983, was not focused upon the issue of intimidation, one would expect that most of the responses would refer to issues other than j that. Indeed, such was the case. In general, on those items to which the average response was least positive, the concerns were primarily those of money, lack of formal preparatlon, or "other"- (a n irture of miscellaneous - - - - - ~
~
conWriis Tr eoTpITIn~tir._ - ~
- ~ - - " ~ - ~
Page 20
Perhaps an exception to this general pattern occurs for Quiesti d 2A7*'How wou1E you rate management support o'f
~
QC?*): 28 percent responded marginal or inadeguate.
Information which perhaps explains or amplifies these' responses on Question 2A came from an analysis of all
- -written comment conce ivably relating to intimidation.
There were 38 relevant comments of this type, given by 32 persons. An analysis of these specific comments indicated that the acts of intimidation came almost exclusively from craft / construction, not from QA/QC management or s uperv i s ion. For a minority of these 32 persons there was
~
also the perception that QA/QC management had too often acquiesced to craft / construction, rather than backed QC.
3.2.2 A Comparison of 1979 and 1983 Survey Eesults Consideration of both the 1979 and 1983 survey results jointly presents some interesting and perhaps useful similarities and contrasts. In neither year did the gattern of response reflect any indication of widespread feelings of intimidation. Indications of intimidation
! occurred with any frequency only for the substance of response, and only for the 1979 survey. That this was true despite the fact that that survey involved face-to-face interviews, rather than anonymous questlonnaires, and was --
generally ficused upon issuFs other than intimidation,. _
I
- seems significant. Had there been pervasive intimidation i
Page 21
4 l
throughout this five-year period, it seems likely that it would have been more in evidence in 1983 than in 1979, simply because the 1983 format made it easier and safer to respond. This was not the case, however.
_ . ~ .
Instead, what appears to be the more straightforward explanation is that there was, in fact, intimidation in 1979, that it was felt to various degrees by at least a minority of persons, and that it came almost exclusively from craft / construction. For a minority of that minority there was a perception that management too often acquiesced to craft / construction. This explanation would suggest, however, that by 1983 the problems had all but disappeared.
The reason for this change can only be a matter of speculation. Perhaps programs and actions by management to correct and prevent such instances had the necessary effect. Perhaps there was a shift in the nature of persons doing craft / construction work over the period, e.g. from rough-and-tumble concrete workers to more skilled crafts such as electricians.
What these two sets of data taken together do say is that there was no indication of a pervasive climate of intimidation on'the part of,7or fostered by, management or supervision. ' At .mos t'-- there _is a pe rce pt t on _(by le ss~. than 10 percent of respondents) that management often did not Page 22
take action on intimidation by craft / construction strongly
~
~~~
enough, soon enough. '~~
__=_..._- - - . .
Page 23
3.3 OI Investigation and Inquiry Reports -
In addition to the three NRC Office of Investigation -
reports discussed in the initial report, seven investigation reports and seventeen inquiry reports have '
since been reviewed. Most of the events triggering these investigations and inquiries were touched on, and in some cases covered in depth, in the depositions, preflied testimony and hearing records. Some useful information related to the issue of intimidation was gleaned from these reports.
3.3.1 _Incuiry Reports
~
Seventeen inquiry reports were examined by the study team. Of these, 15 reports were not particularly useful in evaluating the climate. Of the remaining two reports, one described an instance whe re the climate was not intimidating, and one described an instance where it was.
The 15 inquiry reports that were not particularly useful and their subject matter were as follows:
Q4-82-0005 Alleged Improper Weld Practices i Q4-82-0011 Alleged Improper Termination of a QC 1
. __. I n s p e c t o r =:- c r--==--
.,m.
-m- - ' " ---
' ~ ~
~ Q4;82;O2D - Alleged Rad 1Wriphic Irregularttles. - _ J 'i-- 2 Q4-83-009 Alleged Inadequacles in As-Built QC Page 24
4 Inspection Program Q4-83-011 Alleged Po'or Construction Practices -
Q4-83-022 Alleged Improper Implementation of Technical ,
Procedures Q4-83-023 Alleged Poor Management Practices - -
Q4-83-025 Alleged QA Supervisor Discouraging the Use o'f Nonconformance Reports Q4-83-026 Alleged Deficiencies in Coatings Program Q4-84-007 Alleged Viciations of Construction Practices Q4-84-011 Alleged Intimidation of a BOP Inspector Q4-84-014 Preserved Testimony of a Witness Q4-84-016 Alleged Improper Construction Practices Q4-84-037 Alleged Threat of " Blackballing" a Former QC Inspector Q4-94-046 Suspected Harassment of a QC Inspector The two inquiry reports which appear to present some information that is useful in evaluating whether a climate of intimidation may have existed at CPSES are discussed below.
Q4;8};g11 &ligged intimidalign gi Eltgigigal Grail Ettaennel A former Electrician's Helper contacted the NRC with several concerns regarding practices in the CPSES --
Electrical Department.
His primary. concern _related.to .._,
the lack of training provided to Electrical Department Page 25
.,,,-.,,--n, . . , . - - - , . . ...nn _ , .,, , - - -
O personnel for the fabrication and installation of
. _ . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . _ . . , - . . - - . . . , . . . - .
electrical conduit hangers;~- The se personnel are - ~ ~ ~
~~ '--- ~
~
alleged to be required t'o read a 400'to 500 page -
technical manual, S-0910, the.first day on the job and sign a form stating they have' read and unders',and . ~
Manual S-0910. A forty-hour training course is given on the manta'1. ' However! sin $e It'is voluntary, unpaid, and off-duty, the alleger estimated that less than three percent attend the course and that most ,
electrical personnel have inadequate working knowledge of S-0910.
The alleged intimidating aspects of this training ,'
problem are that the TUGCO Work Sampling Group lis ts :
referring to S-0910 as idle time, so electrical
. e supervisors tell the electricians they should not get caught reading the manual, which officially discourages its use.
I i
Another concern was poor morale of electrical craft workers resulting from threats of firing and harassment by the Electrical Department superintendent. As a result of this, it was alleged that some electrical personnel had commented that they might commit acts'of' electrical e qu i pme n t7& -
~
r- : -- -' r- '
s abo tage . ;: = - .
- _.. - . _. - _ : M T.~~ _- _ = - -- -
Page 26
These allegations, although not specific to CA/QC,
~ -
tend to "ind'icate~a c'11 mate of' intimidation may have
~
~
existed in the electrical construction department.
The inquiry did not delve into the specific allegations suf ficiently to confirm or deny their veracity. However the alleger sounded credible. Even
~
though the facts did not support a conclEsiin of intimidation, the allegations certainly point to poor supervisory skills and management practices in training, work sampling, and personnel relations.
Q4-84-001 Alleged I*Eroper Construction Practices Several specific allegations were contained in this report. In two instances, one involving disassembling pump couplings without authorization and the other involving work on an air accumulator without the proper paperwork, a QC inspector caught the violations and stopped the work until the proper paperwork was obtained. These incidents are examples of QC i
inspectors acting independently, with appropriate authority, and without being intimidated.
Two other incidents alleged that workers were threatened with dismissal if they did not meet production demands'.and were told they were-not to - --
r - - -
come --Eack to work the tie [t day if.they did not. finish a specific job. In neither instance did anycn" lose Page 27
. , . , , - , _ - . _ , , . - .- _ _ . .~, _ . - _ - - - , _ . - , . - _ , - _ . _ _ _ _ . ,
his job. In the final incident the alleger refused to sign off maintenance cards inappropriately despite being instructed to do so by his superior. No 'ad' verse action was taken against him. These three events tend to indicate a somewhat autocratic and' insensitive --
management stylei but do not support a climate of intimidation.
3.3.2 Investigation Reports The NRC investigation reports generally went into considerably more depth than did the inquiry reports.
These reports are discussed briefly below together with the
~
conclusions drawn in each.
4-82-012 Alleged Electrical De f ic ienc ies A former Electrical Department worker identified four areas of alleged deficiencies, which had purportedly occurred in the 1980 time frase:
- Use of a 750 MCM lug that was drilled to accept l
a 1000 MCM cable in the circulating water system motor control center.
- Use of the wrong size lug on a terminal block in I
the Auxiliary Building of Reactor No. 1.
- Use' of the wrong size ~ lugs on term!'nal' blocks in ~
t _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ .
l .
the Swi tch Gear Room. .o f - Re acto r No v.1.'. _i_-_.c . _ _ _ .
l
- Improper cable splicing and wiring to the wrong l
i Page 28
side of lugs in the annunciator logic panels of the Reactor No. 1 Control Room. . :
The NRC Senior Resident Inspector personally inspected
~
each of the above areas in August 1982 and found no improper wiring in any of them. -
-- .<- . ,._,;-,--,.o .. -L..." -' -- - --
i i
'~
No i mpi lcati ons' f or ' the ' i s sue ~ o'f intimidation were apparent in this report.
3:112999. Allt914 1BECEEtt Construetion Practices A former CPSES supervisor provided allegations of improper practices and procedural violations in several areas of mechanical and civil construction, ,
including unauthorized cutting of rebar, main steam line overtensioning, use of a cutting torch on hanger material, and failure to purge stainless steel piping during welding.
Ten individuals alleged to have knowledge of improper rebar cutting provided sworn statements to the effect that all rebar cuts were made with proper authorizatlon.
Four witnesses testified that the relocation of the I
ma'lii~s t e a m ' Ti ne was - done' unde r-'the -d i rect ion'o f-r---- r c - -
~- -
- - - - -.. . _ .. ._.,_____ - ~ ~ - - - -
engineers to remove-stress,on the 1 i n_ e . - _ ---------. .:
Page 29
I e
Six witnesses testified to having no knowledge of improper use of cutting torches on hangers. Two
- ~
witnesses testified to the scrapping of a hanger ~due to~ procedural violation, with replacement by new material. . .
~
In addition, a former employee, who dasi "forth in January 1984 after reading of these allegation in the newspaper, refuted several of the allegations as reported in the Inquiry Report Q4-84-007.
The weight of evidence appeared to disprove the allegations and did not support the existence of a climate of intimidation.
4-83-006 Alleged Falsification of QC Records A QC inspector alleged that a signature had been forged on an NCR that had previously been an issue before the ASLB.
The former QC inspector who had identified the nonconforming condition was interviewed as was the former Quality Assurance supervisor. There was testimony that the NCR had been handled appropriately
+- and the investigation ~ disclosed no evidence of~ forged- - :- n c - -."
signatures.- ,
4
.._ ..._.:------~~-~.._C '._T .
i l
Page 30
There was insufficient evidence in this report to
' ~
indicate intimidation or a climate of i nt i m ida't i on . _
4-83-011 Suspected Falsification of QC Records A QC inspector alleged that' records of some of his
. . . . . . ~ . . - . - _ . .a.
_ . . . _ . . ........=.y.:y- .
Inspections had been altered or falsified. He suspected this had been done by reviewing supervisors.
Of three other inspectors interviewed, two indicated that this particular inspector was deficient in completing his reports and one stated that he had heard rumors that other inspection personnel regularly helped this inspector by completing his paperwork.
This paperwork situation was confirmed by a document clerk, while two clerks testified they did not know of any falsifications of inspector checklists. QA/QC supervision and management denied knowledge of alteration or falsification of coatings records.
Upon re-interviewing, the investigator found that the alleger had been unaware that earlier inspection practices permitted the copying of records. The alleger knew making copies was now a violation of procedures and he had assumed that reviewing ,
l supervisors must have improperly made the copies he l -
originally alleged had been changed.- .-
..1.__- - ---. -. , . u M. . a m ---- - - - . g l
Much of the testimony developed in these interviews l
Page 31
, -, ,- - , - - -e- m e r - w-, -- - < - - . .
--.. ~ , .. , -.- . .
related to various other allegations that have been
~
cons'idere'd 1n 'o (( poYtions of this supp175~e'nE'aM ' "'#2 '.
^
In the briginal study team' report.
As it relates specifically to..the issue of.
---,._.=. ..--..
intimidation, the. data do not indicate intimidation nor support the possible existence of a climate of intimidation.
d:El:91E &llE9Ed Qiscrimination Against QC Inspectors The allegation was that a QC lead inspector was fired for complaining in a meeting about intimidation by a supervisor and about lack of support for QC inspectors, and that this termination had an intimidating effect on the QC coatings inspectors.
There is much testimony and many depositions that relate to this particular event with a clear l
difference of opinion between management and the alleger as to the reason for his termination. It is apparent that there was some reason for the alleger's concerns about the supervisor, and it is probable that the alleger had been disruptive to some extent in the l
QC meeting. It is also quite clear that the reasons
' f o r' t e r n I na t i o nwe re : n o t- c o mmu n i ca t e d we l le t o. _. - s= -r r .- . - t-- - -- .- -
supe ev i s t on or? I n'sp~e c~tbr~s . _ _ Cb~n' seq u ent ryEthe7s tu d y--- - -- . _ ..
i team concluded that the incident could have had an Page 32
intim,tdat!ng effect en inspectors.
. . . . . . ; .,;.:q. ;. . ._ - - ......u . . . , - - , . .
~
6LitCt.d 1Gll!!da11gg of gg Egtsggggi
~
f;18299E This report covered several instances of intimidation alleged by a QC inspectort The specific allegations * -
.were that the inspector was subjected to a series of eight meetings intended to intimidate and discourage her in the performance of her work following her appearance before the ASL3.
It appears that, in fact, the company provided information on maternity benefits six weeks before her ASLB appearance as well as approximately six weeks
.a f t e r . Many management actions alleged to be discrimination against her weEe in fact attempts to accommodate her special needs and produce a more agreeable work situation for her. Soon after her ASLB appearance the alleger's work duties were changed from field to shop inspections. An office was arranged near the fabrication shop, and special arrangements were made for parking and transportation to and from her work area. Finally, at her request, she was allowed to terminate by an ROF rather than take a leave of absence, in order to be eligible for
.- " u ne mpi o yme nt ' co mpe nsa t 1 on-r =.----- c-= ~Nwh= ; - ---=";-- - --
.,_-.,-.. f' ~ ]- ~ .. ._ _
{ , , _ , . , . _
The study team feels that CPSES management gave her Page 33
more than normal consideration, perhaps because of the
.m _ ._ . . _ . . . . _ ._
alleger's appearance before the_ASLB. These i n_c i de nts
'do not support the existence of a climate of -
~ ~
intimidaticn, although tIhe alleger could have felt int i m idated. "--- - -
- .4. -: ..=:::. -.
= ._ : _- . . .- ; .._:.
d:81:211 allists inti=14at12n of Ettsins Ertws An ironworker alleged that an ironworker superintendent' regularly threatened and intimidated his subordinates. Interviews with fifteen individuals determined that seven either had personal knowledge or knew of this superintendent's' reputation as an intimidator.
In a specific incident investigated, it was alleged that the superintendent forced the ironworker to chip concrete in a room in which safety system welding was being performed. It is likely that this was a case of intimidation of the ironworker by the superintendent.
With regard to intimidation of QA/QC personnel, a QC inspector, when advised of the problem, shut the welding job down until the chipping was stopped and th'e dust settled. This shutdown occurred despite its going against the orders of a superintendent known.to
'~C "~
._ m ._. . _._. man y. as .an .i n t i m ida t o r... . Th i s i nc i de n t , _ wh i 1 e. s how i ng .. .
in-imidation of a craftsman, also is another example Page 34
of a QC inspector acting independently within the
~ - '
aui:hority[5f'h1Eo~1e'andwithout bTinT 15t1mida~ tid by
~ ~ -
the crafts. -
Concluslogs F_ ton, [qvestiggtlon a,qd, lqquity, Ee_cotts --
3.3.3 Analysis of 24 NRC Reports of Inquiry and Investigation resulted in'four incidents that provide some indication of intimidation in both Craft and QA/QC at CPSES. One of these incidents (4-83-016) involved the termination of a lead QC inspector, and one (4-84-008) consisted of a series of events involving one QC inspector.
These two events are included in Table 3 as the Dunham-Termination and the D. Stiner-Circuit Breaker Article incidents. The third report (4-84-012) dealt with a possible climate of ictimidation in a craft department; it was also an example of a QC inspector acting independently and utilizing the authority of his role. A fourth report l
l (Q4-83-021) dealt with Craft intimidation by Craft supervision, but provided too little information to confirm or deny whether intimidation actually existed.
In the total of 27 inquiries and investigations, including the three utilized in the original report, a preponderance of allegations of intimidation were
~
unsGppdrted.' The e x te ns i ve-invest i gat i o ns -and=interv.le ws- ----- :- - e
- ~
turned up a -large nGEber,- approz 1mately 2027 of present a n d ~ ~ ~ ~~- - ' ,
past employees who refuted the charges of the allegers, and Page 35 l -
l i
l l
\
turned up approximately 48 who supported the allegations.
Of the 48, nearly half were, craft, cupporting the claims of--
intimidation of craft on the part of craft supervision.
Hence, approximate 1y 26 individuals, among a total of about
~
250 persons, supported claims of' intimidation of QA/QC,,,
. - - . . . . -, . . . . . . .a .....,.. .
personnel. Fourteen of the 26 were related to two specific incidents,7 the Dunham-Nitpicking and Dunham-Termination incidents. Seven other claims were unsubstantiated by persons other than the alleger, leaving five other substantiated claims.
Based on this analysis of OI reports there did not appear to be widespread allegations, numerous incidents, a pervasive atmosphere of fear, or other evidences of a climate of intimidation at CPSES. The analysis of these additional NRC Office of Investigation Reports of Inquiry and Investigation resulted in no findings that modify the conclusions of the study team in their original report.
- = . - - :- -:: - . .--- :- - _ -t_ _
x-= --- -- = r t.w . . - 5_-= - - :.--
- r. ,._..__.---~na_-o Page 36
3.4 Observations On Managerial Practices 2 = rs The study team stated in its discussion of management style in the September report (Section 3.3, pages 37-40) ,
that there,are many factors which contribute to indi v i dual-
..c.. .. ......-.:. - . . . -. . u , n .. a - - .._-..... _. . .. .
performance on the job. Intimidation, or the existence of an " intimidating climate", is only one such factor.
One problem that the study team faced in making its assessment was the fact that organizations are complex mechanisms of interacting systems, procedures, and behaviors. This makes it illogical to assume that any one factor can be isolated in drawing cause-and-effect conclusions. In the study of organizational phenomena, often the best that can be done is'to show that certain outcomes seem to be correlated with, that is to occur in conjunction with, the presence of certain other factors.
This correlative relationship does not prove the existence of any causal relationship, nor can the direction of any possible causation be inferred from mere correlation alone.
! Inspection of data from all the sources led the study team to conclude that factors contributing to the performance of QA/QC personnel at CPSES included: their job
- ~
skills and compet'encies,T the qual l ty o f'The 1 r mit 1 Vati on';"- - '--
- the le ve ls- o f ' compensat ion .and the perce i ved. equ ity of__ the ._ _ . . -:.m. _ . .
compensation system, the structure of the organization Page 37
--m-- teer e - e --.y, r---- - - , - , .wm v. y e--,s.--.--,,v- -- - - ~ - - - +,w. ,-w-----,-s --r-vityww-,e ~m.v.. ,---c ---,--r --,.r,--+-,e-.- *- - - - -, - , -.-y-r- e*
O including -
=~
the effective management of interfaces with other
. .m . ___._..._
_ ' - - ~ ~
functions or departments, the establishment and ~~
.=. - ..
communication of clear standards for their performance, and _
supervisory style. It is the opinion of the study team that management issues such as these may have had an impact . .
on the performance of work at CPSES.
3.4.1 Job Skills and Cgagetencies
- The data provide some indication that a number of inspectors may have felt inadequately prepared to perform their work. The inadequacy of training und the poor communication between inspectors and management were clearly identified as areas of concern in the 1979 survey.
In response to a question on " problems at CPSES", technical training of inspectors was the second most mentioned item.
In addition, in both the 1979 and 1983 surveys, there were some concerns expressed about the lack of feedback on job performance. To the extent that inadequate job training
! and infrequent feedback on performance are characteristic l of a job, they can inhibit the development of job skills with a resulting impact on performance.
3.4.2 Com2ensation and Wage .Ineguities The perception that there are inequ . L ie s in the adm i n i s tritTon~~~o f-ii- a gr-Ed sal ary?pi ograms" and: ther ge ne ra 1 -- - ----
N
~'
~ ~~
2.
d i ssa t i s f act ion . w i th.~compensat lon co uld have a demo t'Tvit'ing -- :
effect on individuals and on the subsequent performance of l Page 38
4 their jobs. This issue was the most mentioned item on the
,.r: = ~ . - = - . . - . . _ . . . . .
1979 survey. Complaints about wages were also dominant in -
the 1983 survey. - As an example, one complaint was that -
inspectors working for dif ferent employers on the site received different wages. - .
- a. .. . .
- 3.4.3 . Interface !4.a nage me nt There should be little doubt that there are multiple, complex, and difficult interfaces which must be effectively managed la the CPSES environment. There does seem to be some concern that these interfaces are a continual source of conflict and problems. It also appears that these resulting difficulties are accepted as given in the situation, as a reality to be lived with rather than productively or effectively managed.
The entire body of the data reviewed point to difficulties in the QC-Craft interface. Complaints about lack of cooperation, the inability of management to deal adequately'with these difficulties, the perceived lack of i
! QC management support of inspectors, the problems with I
- personalities", and the impression that the Craft personnel don't
=-
not ~ see m -to be ver y ' e f f ecti ve .-e The interf ace- be tween {Cra f t . -- - _'
~ ~ -
and-QC~1s viewed as an adversari51 one. . Iiit i m ida t i on.
._s., ,
internal to the Craft organization may have exacerbated the l Page 39 l
. . _ _ _ _ ,- . - _ , . _ _ _ . . , , , , _ . _ . . _ _ . . . - _ , . _ . , _ _ - . _ _ ~ . . _ . . . . . - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ , _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ .
I i
. situation. While the nature of the working relationship
. -:= c .- ..
must include checks and reviews by QC of work performed by Craft, little attention is devoted to' improving or managing ~ ~ ~
the interface to foster a more cooperative working relationship.
Managing these,, interfaces requ,1res special skill and sensitiv.ity, an ability to see the whole and to understand the various nuances of personal and technical issues that arise.
Another factor influencing the interface between Craft and QA/QC is the role and working relationships of the NRC which create some ambiguity in managing interfaces among the relevant parties. While there is very little information specific to this subject, there are some comments in the depositions and surveys that indicate the NRC is a primary player and does influence the overall working relationship between Craft and QC. As an example, responses to the 1979 survey seem to indicate that management was not clear concerning what issues or when it was legitimate for employees to communicate to the NRC, or whether they would, in fact, encourage such communication.
- This example may indicate some failure on the part of the l
l NRC to fully communicate its expectations regarding communications from CPSES employees.
~ -
1.- : .. - - -
--i .. .f '. .
. _ . - -; Evidence.from.the2 transcribed. material.and from_the.:au _-_ . ._: ..
surveys leads to the conclusion that CPSES is not without
! Page 40
significant interface management problems in the QA/QC
--' " ~ ~--- ~ ~
area, and that these problems are. _ . wo.. r t h h"_o f ~ a t t e n t i on .-------
'~ ~~ ~
3.4.4 Clear Performance Standards In...,..:..___.
the surveys, depositions,.and OI Reports there .were concerns about the clarity of standards, the usefulness of .
some procedures, and the seeming lack of consistent application of these procedures. It is probably the case that procedures are designed to accomplish certain results.
However, when coupled with consistent concerns about communication, there is the possibility that the procedures themselves, or their usefulness and purposes, may not have been fully understood. There is some evidence in the depositions and in some of the alleged " intimidating incidents" 16+ntified, that procedu'res may have been applied rather mechanically, or that inspectors were asked to perform operations without fully understanding what was expected and why certain procedures were to be performed in particular ways.
3.4.5 gugervisory @tyle Another factor affecting performance is supervisory style. There was some discussion of its importance in the September report. One of the factors discussed briefly was
~
' that o f' W.anag'e me'n t ph 11 < fo ph y'~ and' t he1 manne r=.i na w h i chu t he: '= ====r ' ' - -e
. prevail.ing philosophy might influence organ F5h tTona10 '-- r=2 ---
! behavior. The style of supervision at CPSES is related to Page 41
1 i
i issues identified above in this section of the report.
. .. .:' .--- . .,._n.
~'
The supervisory methods utilized at CPSES reflect an -
operating philosophy commonly found in construction and utility organizations.-.These organizations are often ,
Impersonal, viewing good' human relations as unnecessary, and in fact maintaining that such practices simply impede the rapid accomplishment of tasks. Loyalty and compliance are considered important requirements for effective functioning, and unquestioned loyalty and compliance are therefore of ten demanded by such organizations. However, because of the impersonality and lack of management attention to the human dimension, these organizations often generate mistrust, suspicion, and lack of credibility of management. Accounts of management actions found in the depositional data support a conclusion that this description is fairly characteristic of management at CPSES. The study team classified a number of events as intimidating not because of management's intent to threaten people of cause them to act inappropriately, but because of the manner is which they handled a situation of communicated with those involved (e.g. the Dunham -
Termination incident, the T-Shirt Incident, and the D.
Stiner Circuit Breaker Article incident).
- - - - = -
=.+.-1 - w ---= w--c.w.msm -.s=~ -=--.-. ; - = . . . - : u. : == 5- h= - -+
Thr degree t o whl chTth i s - s tVI~e o f s upe rv'i s'l on' a f f e cts .C_- _~i._ . ,
s._._. .
the work performance of any !adividual at CPSES is Page 42
l 1
I 1
e difficult to assess. This style can negat'ively influence i----- . . . - - - - - - . . . . . ,_ ,.__=_,
morale . . .and motivation, and.these factors may affect _ job -
outCoacS. ~~.- .- .. -
" ~
' ^
In summary, there were a number of managerial
.m.
practices which, while not i ntimidating, may have influenced individual performance on the job. The job skills of inspectors may have been negatively inpacted by poor communication with their supervisors, inadequacy in their job training, and infrequent feedback on performance.
There was some evidence that inspectors were asked to perform tasks without adequately understanding what was expected or why the work was performed. Difficulties in dealing with crafts were apparently accepted rather than managed, with little attention devoted to fostering more cooperative working relationships. A lack of clarity was seen regarding appropriate employee interfaces with the NRC. The general 1 ck of supervisory attention to the human dimension may have generated mistrust, suspicion, and a general lack of credibility vi... employees.
- 4.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS
- - = = ~ = = ~
. . . ._. : : . . . . . _ . ~ . .
._. ~ =z -: 2. _. . :_.
q . ;- -- - -- a u_1 ..-~~--
] In f orma t 5 on2re v i e wed_ by- the__EG&G..s t udy _ team _a_f_te u r the .
t .,.m._ ..
the issuance of their September 1984 report, Comanche Peak Page 43
, , , _ _ _ w. . - _ _ _ _ . . - - - - - - - - , - _ , . - . , _,__._,,._m .
.,n-.
1 l
. l i
i W
. Steam Electric Station: Alleged Climate of Intimidation,
- - - - .. .,___2._,_.
. _ . _ _ . _ . -~. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
formed the data base for this supplemedtal report.- These
~
data included depositions, prefiled testimony, hearing transcripts, NRC Office of Investigation reports, survey data, and other information. .The' data base continued to be limited, primarily reflecting information frcm allegers, managers,- and related individuals-focusing on specif'ic incidents of intimidation. A summary of the findings and conclusions follows.
The number of alleged incidents of intimidation, allegers, and named intimidators was very small.
Approximately 31 incidents reported by 13 individuals occurred between 1979 and 1984. A substantial majority were concentrated between 1982 and 1984. Four individuals i
accounted for 21 of the 31 allegations made. Of the 31 alleged incidents, only 10 were judged by the study team to meet the criteria for intimidation. This seems well within the number of events that would be expected to occur even under the best of circumstances. This small number of l
incidents, while not eliminating the possibility that a climate of intimidation could have existed, falls short of l
positively establishing that such a climate did exist at CPSES.
- == " _ ----- :.3 a=-i -.: . .- g _-- p. m w ,
_. .,_.c.,n..., _ .- . _ . . , . _ .
. . _ . . Analysis'.of..the.1979_ survey, wheriTeou~ pled with that __ ,- --{ ' _ -
done on the 1983 survey, showed no indicatlan of a Page 44
~
Neither the pattern nor pervasive climate of intimidation.
z-,m..___ , . . . -
. . . . -- -- .......~..
analysis of~the_.--survey data indicated videspread
_..m.
. _A content c-of knowledge of intimidation. If there had been a climate-
- _ ._ : , find a pattern response intimidation one would expect.to ~
of the indicating feelings of intimidation on the part ..
n the part of a
. survey respondents and knowledge o intimidating incidents significant number of respondents of involving either themselves or others. Such was not the At most there was a perception by less than case, however.
management did not take 10 per cent of the respondents that l
action on intimidation by craft / construction strong y enough, soon enough.
indicated 26 NRC Office of Investigation reports l people supporting claims of intiaidation of QA/QC personne Analysis of and 202 individuals refuting such claims.
these reports did reveal some isolated cases of ify intimidation, but resulted in no findings that would mod in their original report.
the conclusions of the study team CPSES one If a climate of intimidation had existed at find knowledge on the part of a significant would expect to intimidating incidents involving proportion of employees of would expect Furthermore, one either themselves or others. 1~e s - := =-e . -
those making allegat t ons- to relate _ multiple ' val:Id examp i h 3, . , :. z o f such~ lhc 1 dents { AnaTysTs-~6f'-~the tFr~aiisEr[ bed _majeg a such was not the surveys, and OI reports demonstrated that _
Page 45 .
~ . .
. case, and thus failed to support a conclusion that a
. , climate of.. ,,
intimidation existed at CPSES.- -
Some management practices at CPSES, while not constituting intimidation, were of concern to the study team and may have had an. impact on the job performance of Q A /QC pe rsonne l .- Poor communications, inadequacy of training and infrequent feedback on performance were found.
Inadequate attention' devoted to cooperation between QA/QC and Craft and a lack of clarity regarding appropriate employee interfaces with the NRC were observed. This overall general lack of attention to the human dimension may have created mistrust and suspicion of management by employees, reduced management credibility, and negatively impacted the performance of QA/QC personnel.
Overall, a good deal of compatibility was found in what the data from different sources indicated. Analysis of data from the transcribed material, analysis of both the content and pattern of responses from the 1979 and 1983 surveys, analysis of the NRC Office of Investigation Reports of Investigation and Inquiry, and the analysis of the individual incidents alleged to have been intimidating all lead essentially to the same conclusion.
~. w.m
-..: r. .. . .. . . . - -. - : . 2 . . . ---.n.. .. - .: . . .- . . . .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
' ' _LL The se _f,i nd 1 ngsm.taketiitoge ther_.1 ead .tthe_.s t udy tearCtioM:. . _==. ,
reaffirm the conclusions reached in the ir September report.
-=----.-.-i--=.=.::.-.-----m.--
Page 46 l
L 11 In the judgment of the study team a climate of intimidation
-~ ~ - - - , .
- 8. ;. .=. . .--.
did not and does not exist at CPSES. ' .. ' ' ~ ~ - ~ - ~ " - . 7=
~ .'
G -
. - - e 86We h e O
e
--. ._ , n ---- .
G
..s. w._~~ -
y .
~ - -
._.g- - . . . .
W.-- ~ . .__.u.. - - - - --- --- _; , _ _ ,
~
-t ~ '
w ___,.- _
-- , , , , - ._,,,._'l~ -
_{ _.
_ -6 Page 47
=
ww a w ac sr .,
& n m 4 k yr k.-, u T ~> Rl,;. \
W\ 4Lt esJ+ d geqmik i 7
To A C(d. % (t agra.4- h SM A-s ed 4 q wd (s w Jum ,L .
- mA 4, Al h ~_4~S . b + W
~
/,W RdUL ... _ ~~~~ ~ ~~ i ~~ ~_~_. _
M"N "*
- mefD-w # .
,m _
- . _ _ . h - _ _ _
I FCfDrSP197 3}g b
,- . _ , , _ _ _ _ ___,.,m.... , . , . . , _ - . _ , . . - , , , - . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ , , , . - . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ . - , , . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - _ - .
0 0
~
V .
H .
Du d-
, .)
b I- h g td n, s \ J \
w h
3 W J
Q. O s U e h 5 E \ k i e s s . . p s t C f g sh.
s, .
m -
l s a w1g es -
g n f1 %+a !t4 : *% *-
4
- y ,
I t
- l < x 4 ,<
1 c$ }d a w \h '
=" b*IOit*eA2 1 1 *3 s C
k
- R:(,I 3g l 4 e tr -
(J D.
4 4
,si i
- a' s .
3
~ t , 9 t %
y FL 7
% d g% %
kEi Pr 0.i
[
4 k aw7[-*
- s. 4%-
o 5 , .
s 3 ,
b
%e x.
y4 4
- D $: =4 4 gtty i ' I e
I gltl#- 3
(= r s 2 4
+
.ke S**
w y, .
sia
'w3 5
m.,
1 x [l I k k ., h n EI 5 Q b Ag(4 $@ e 4% c3 3 ! d a aj l' fI )e, 4 kt 2 x x=w %
bhfpg>Y 5 t e o. .
Y N N' $g
.t S a r 7:; x) y %
- * $ 7 t: s % "
dw tI G; s+-4 f 2 r'i" ;ta.
.c i *s t . .,2 a4 i > - )
o 2 5,t . ;%
" t m"a
~
M + . ~,M 4 .
i
=K
- k u o.
di , $ kkk4
- e en.
54 5 t k$ k S *? 2. L %R l
l
\ \ %S \ $ l 1 1 52 6
\ T_,. 1 g 4 ,j.
j jg ,
T'1a w& 4 i s. 1,
. n
, ? -
'F iL Q
'+ ,
I : ( e k ,N '(
b
' . 3 M s
$d 2
- ^ _
.- .i T \* i
- es h.
w h
3 b J .
Q. O O o 4 '
5 E \ l I a > / l A i 1 i i cu 00 ? s k (
- t. -
o q x, .,
- u'4 .
4 3,
e
}
s
{
t fl 3 a g a 0 IE
{ I h[I; 4 # ' S US 2 h( tl E 1 l s t :!
- 65 ,o t iE p' s gs T- Ed ogs i gv i Is t et l
L 5 /gy y : ,4 e
e
,a i ,1 1 e = =e g-r o i
- b% I I f ! b; f} .55 2 -
!}4 3 ! h !'f a ir li t i 1 9 t : !! "
I I I ik i$ ) Eh '2 ! !! !f t, ! II je 4 !s? h te.ula l lj i H 41 4r frJ(s! ! 4
- r. p s- -
~e u m - # ,, m, gc 3L I' IwI' I- I' ?' k I' jI J' lsNJ_J n m, }., ,m. . a,n,n,e,u i,'
a y
m,,u,e 2
s u {d- , - ,-
iIk' k 't }i N,,aA.nle O k'o l'e k.i' k 'e $ 'c O 'el 'e e 6 -
- * = s = = =
- 3 ,,
T2 }d , y
( : g oI w , e n --
a- v % , t . - -
A EI "
E. 4 k E % k k g i k E "
3 <.
.s ,I J
,a .
i I
'~ I
. N e l 3
4
- w w I t
et a
e w k 3 W J
C. O O o v) d E i \ l n 1 \
E8 1 1 n i i i (i\ i i k i
u>
A I I g h7 h
(( s' oi 0 W u
8 e ! g.
- I& !
D
+
t}
- b: ; .!
- s .
I W E 1 i L S t 7
=
t< i A
- g I (- r <.}', t . 4 3 : - E e s. . 4 g
< 3 f4 e n :
21 i a, x ,,
a a =
+
' h,
" 2 3
o e5 e. . *1 ' i ,
q 4 53E it 2. < 8
- 1 *4 , g
% h[ } bk ,d h k $
nn1, s3 m e% s , - a. 4 .s-N j.
N'1 I. t.
- ,E ~. 3' }2 l *=
- f. h ; $s 33 3
% h le n i b;; i.d ~ t> ee p
=e uct -S o bn S> 6 e.9.c*tts g ex :t 5 E: igtw >6
,: ; :t .... m
- - s, & + .
. , 1 kR k'k.Od9 kW4%dt{EI.e IO41 E f. k i= 2 d ,& d
- B e e T *
- - ' s - -
42 o t i ic n
s : .
. s
?? v h n a fu a b -
do-s
- Di !!
t "b i j i ij lir ii j 4t 3
___u_
- s
a y
! t,'
n y o i, 2 i k 5 .
1 59 pd-V QW w w I
3 b 1 J
Q. O U e f W >
d E k i l 1 -
1 \
cu eo i t i i t 3 1 1 3
i s I a I } 4 N
4 > u ( * ( &
5 I g k ,j ee- 3 8
5 i .
" l-d
(
5 3 t
5 b]
i 4
E l
> (k h g I v t $:
i l
l
~
~
t,
! i=i -
i itt4 1
k, 3
t t4 4
a
- i.
s I
3 I*i 5 t ,
4 3
v i,[ };.
4 e
8 E
u
tt e
d.t. .
(
E kk k,1$
' , 3 ,
$ hh k k & Y d I
%)
- k b h # D *1 h 4 h hb s k gg.gT {h wg
, ==
3 a ., o N w k[' D *
- I fr Q D D . I $ "r ' R E d 7 "I D-t sS U,g>d>9- O c;st a --
N u.
t,4, t: 1evs $>
- a l
e '
- 2 e =
420 at g i s , s ' s : ,,s .
U*Q z2 !!
j at ;
f DE 11 ,1 :3 D
- 3) m t:
1 D-
- , {t; l
l -
L __ __
I I -___ _ _ _
, - #~
b 4 i
t l I .
ne t)
\
w
(
o 1
W 2
tu J
C. U O e
$ i s s s \ s s\
o g x i i io 50 i i i
.t i o o E
(
~, - -
4: . I e !
3 e - r ; .
d- 4 c
N h
a e
k 4
u U
!.I b
g J
4' h5 j .
12 .
gkkI t
Ik 2 1 E
- = .
I
- 1. 3 t, - ~
l M i 7,g ,. w' 4 1 .
A > %
l b, A' w c 3
4
- 4Iki t,
! s
, s t -
t I h Ik 5
- 5' *
-2 a e a it eag f s4 e r k
, q E A d O T D d 6 2 *t>
A t O uda h T Qh gt 0 DJ Wg i = n tt t?
v) ::!u ::i;3 p; e ;; ;tM01
?*?" b 2 4 V:9174.771 7 0 7 06 07 %; II- ht 4
4 g= , . y. . . . . , . ,
, = y , v l.i (si ,i i t i ir i i h i *cwh is t g s -
- f. Y U-
i ifa4 i
K
\t
' p i Et e N
)* -
,O ;; '
4 1
-I '
$3 4' g
- h. t, I: 4, g A 4g s. s av t" 1 c : ,g 0
W a
b J
- 0. O O e 9
/a E 1 2 y3 i i i 1 2 1 1 i 4 i n i h A t" t w .
Q 9 4 m J I.
f A. I k . t k
,> - ! 2 + i 1 4 4 6 I
Bl l i }-
4 4 I *g a j
['7 a.
st ,r g ,. D:. = e,
., t
. ,i
,e
^3 u.s3 ( y(
d $'
3 5 {g A d
- f k
- 1r 4
< 7 j - A g
t 4 s
1 ,
t
= J i - g .
'. ei
- 1 2 -
Eea v s. 4 3 :
t 6 t 4 > -
. l {< w 4
=
l j g & t 0 I i '
- t >
t v) ;. :4- ;.
e E.
v *'
i 24 a
2 ($ s )
s t
1 t 4 I t
4 'L 4 s' 9 4
' I t' I ic % J g h I E
- 1 6 g t 3
4
-a( n. {k.'i I d A k 3
- a. ~
I
[. T. .
- 4 y
g 4 L w w s J
l i ji , lE i k O. i 2 1 w *E gs g "* ,
g 4
n 5
go ( %*
gI . .< o* .< O d s;.ui. .. 3 , : %
7 s S
5 5'; N 5$ $ II N N a l$ h $h! k N f!,5b 1 3 a. i i : i a P givi i. 4 t i 4- ,.
o.
1
)- ) g v
g
( ,- 3
- .ar t
Jt 1 y
<2 g p 3; ;
g 3 yp g t s 33 3 ,3 ,3 is i t:
- d. ;i w a i2 ?r s
1 1
+
i nm W 12 i s t e
- alrn l 4 =
1 Ei a
- 3 a e.
14 p
58 ut , i i e i$
O" r
6
, u 2 W
~
J
- 0. U -
o , .
v)
R s rv E50
\
h s 1, R
o e n .
t*
x$
4 7 4 i ,
(
h -
- a> L e
- v c ,
e$
n t, i 0 i ,! , :.
e t 4 .
t w
< s f . , a 4 2 . ,s -
i 1 a 4 a -t i ..
. 4 1 !. E i- f i n ;i i i E I( 4 4 1
- xl ,i *
+
! *t > , e .
,1 25 i e 4 t : ,
s p :*
i? wj
,,i A e t ? T { F
{ k l, t E : !
y s I a - d y 1 1 S } = s II h bI 5 k7 h3 O l lY o :e a:; :
- a- u.g.s 7 eh a, u
- o.
. ., , ... -- o ;. n> >. n*+u *-
O 4 ' 4
$ uI w% s.
**' 'D Y 3 4 $p +N ,4 8 8 *
[ji&5'22 }$ e
% /
- g. .
( q: 4 d t g C 4 f i A i h
- d.. ,13 F s s, 3
- o q;4 i l 44 44
= , -
hc S, .
*-r
li j 4 i i 8 [y 4 E : u ' n 9-i i' I me s -
- ~~
_ e w 4 2-e 1 J Q. O G so v) d E i \ i i s Q i s i s g i i\ s d +
- Qk s
- 1 I* $ $ k 30 b 1 2
$,'t *1 (s w 4 u 1 g ig,
- 1) r O ;
- j l o, t 1 01 .t ' ('g g -
c - 4
- g. g'r gi t c r i $ g g 1 ,
S I
$ Iu,u {t t 6[ j ! Ft<j4 5 D t S
. e t- *: ( : 9.E[
i :,1 +t ,[ ,li;a w t 4 a st is a ti p et t ik ;k ! $ k$il ti p- f}t S $ k is - a h kk
. {s a" s,.4p *gt
~
a A, S 11 - 5 3 3 gI rl ,S } a j il tl i
~5 i[ $2 '!I !* 1 5 *!! 4 !$!i51 3
$ 8it 'l E }1 3
-f jr I; 9Mj f }a{"[ j'j'j"j'i" ;l*
b:> 4
?
5C 55 5,i
- s:- nt ytd*u:[
.r i s s e d d d> srE
;" :r :r i i i i E i 43 1 E' I rii E ,i e s 1 1 5 v2 ,, ,1
, u , ,.
i s _ g : 1. 2 . . r,3 Q 6 * ~* n
- E2 % %* e% k" N bk k k k 'k NkI .k (i id. N h l l i
.- 2
. E s u% o % O E1 w eq s 1 i i h w k 3 b
.3 Q. D W
b E \ 1 58 D S et e a e
@ OA l
'e '
I s i h4w hg .+k- s % I.
,g
{ w
@ " rsh!
.a *g - -
[
't f
If
- i. ,
+ ,g. R3 . t e f
3~ 64. 4 1 t
=
I 2 e 4* ,4 i x t.a i u i s e} 1 4
...,,I r> % jt t d' et; 6,
2*
,* e
*{ 3$
@n*
o n a:e 2 s c e st e 3~ eto 2: W + tgt ~xtI *c e* g >&
- fe TgE RnIG P e a&# 32 o' l 1 k
<2 4g g i n
- D B b 13 Ea-l $ W & e'. kk N h Li h m % 3 ._Q jut 325
m O 0 E o O 6 m " 2 W J CL d O e vi b E eo 50 D g *
- 6. c.
t t W*> l-
'u 4 5 d a n 2
iy g 9 g
" r I
it a
'g
}%
t . a i! hht'- e T2 crd & T2 %
"n 53
,a
/o //,1.,3 D'Etudt dMEG Y"IIbl~
pa x wfy -r; p 9,7 biSc I P Li AJE U
$c' m s' c g y c,5 g , '
- c. SoutCG .s veb Gc.T~ gg
" ~~-
VOL, 30
~
SRFETf SIGuiFicAu cc g;g 7.g Pl6L 8B03 'SfGniFICA4T bEFicitwc.f X GML lb THEtoot h Aub ATTENbAMT hbGMdeaT 8811 t. int 4 ' FAcraRs. ~~ ~ V01. 3D Shin 'REauiRCHEur Fon. EMALL gg PAGt" . BBil BORE. PIPE. SOPPOR.T, Awh Lo-1.ht11THeotG cnTioa OF . BOLT 140Lr s.. 8817. Liut 25 Vol 10 G.C. Inspac.Tiow REwoax M m;t.n 5 PAGr_ bbl 3 CHEckliLT REQOIRE. MENT Fbn Liuc 1 M oto 3AM NOTS,. DEFiutTiOca of" RBli Linc 4 'SuoG TIGHT? hC-E Vol. 30 beFiwiTiod oF EXCEC5iVE. DEM-
'X pi,3 PAGE 8811 bin 6,0F CAELE.(on E4Gi -
Gut to Tanooc, HEERtHG EubGHE.MT). 8B n Liwc 7 VOL. 30 TRA9 TAELEs: DISCREPAM SiGi RtsB AQF.* PAcc. 882c, IN ENTER.inG 1NTA ou THE. )[ Liwt 10 'THitouga HhMb-EJR5'TrEM CNEck SIECTI., 882B 1.iut16 duAPPROVE.b_.__ __ g.n VOL. 30 Lnck. or Ptoccbotat. couTeot y RidB PAGE 8840 FOR. EwTRcf Awh REHostAL OF dat 14 Trwooc i- PowcH LitT ITEMS. Di$CUL([M BB% Gur.15 on "HAsTce. SssTCH punc.H-p.!t** Lier *: ~ r"r 3,0, '- AI;l cAsc 1/nl. So Fntt % s c, RdPdat EU5hCNE A5LB.
"'*Ta RE6,Mtbid6. 'Ruan of' N I'NTE8td8Etus w(m Gmg gg ggg it , ,
$a!.WE?W$O{Y' h ,k **
af L y
', i -
I t' J e N 1
\ h 6
w k 3 W J a 0 O so n 5 E t i a i \ t .\ ru i so i
- i .1 2 s kh ea'
+ *
- u
~ ~d t. k I ,8
~ s , e
' 4> .K
- k I
l R4 i t s & E e t. h g ,
!* , t %
I Q I * * % % $
'4 t= 4 + 1 $ 4 3:
$ 53 $,
w 4.* eI. :l -
. e 3.1 ti t I ! II I .I -t a
[ N n gt $ v4; . g k e G 1 v e g r ,, t Qg ,
- s. .
~
, ~
h * ['
-
- s e et e an <
=r ee l!
f ! $k } }: Nf il I ~p =l I3 3<3 33 3[l! !, I a le Ne.5 h?, $e! he $..i Etl I'l l'i w - ~
. . i .. s blt Iei. ste.
o f.' id le s i
] k k k k '
kk k k k Y
*2 ;a e i I; I { Ix I I E
.. 4
=
4 .a 4
- 4
=
) -
- =
= 1 c ' s
- m T
. U
. Ne n at u es ta e , a 2 h 0
3 Sa$t E : . fM 'M ta bl en s'
!$ ih~ Ni' II I is
- h b 38 lJillis' o ., o g a
!!id d<.3 E
'E 5I h$ kS tt -2
- G *2
> a E N kE N" l a
- HI $
il 1., a, It ! e n@sa w; $h
& s-3 E
W 4 en
1!il1 1 11l'l l 11 1 i l11 lll! 7 f ss a n - i, u a W5.- 9 1 Jl NR S T C t n Ta x x 6 M E s. L P C i c S S b M c
$ 7 uR T eo p .
Hi pSTw M' AO o, o, u4C N - t( sN8 - A R T A8w 1 F n n AF H* 5d p o e. t M s oS eO En TA 58 wo e T. M LI b81 A cd G RA C P c L. ' G n e A M' , 1 . J 8 0 WMiLd HTE AT e T o MTa TwM n t,n r Ll l
** m e o 5
RH*rien el Fai 0 / Ace WTDAsA s. l i t pt r rTo a oWs apT U Te t P s U ee z r e P D ATo Pu cps Mn E L s en 2 1 T A MNi Ap wm e HIi c eo os 1 3 er- 9 5 _ e m or9 e 3 5 68 g i f f(wGW h k @ f t A' F 6 ) _ h N T A A , I, j ni d,A $ I l1 ' i t llll l 1,ll ll
l 1 g
. A d
g Nb N t$ e w h 3 W i o a e D~ E E8 x .. a 4
% YE s g I IE 3
e l$ yn { lElg , f C% bg ' $ !!
* ~
1 stiG ne 8 w$k-
'S h at i
i j 5 i v P 8 d hs - 9 a 1
% F3
, 3 1
tM 2 8 t su 'G rB cT b .
. g&
pR l G T C , E [ J A E s.. t P C c S s i b M .,
,noc d
i T P-G p5 o7 psc Q 'a - h4
- A s "r .4 s APPne T 5 -
8 - a u* Eo- S-ntwu%mT&*r'^)5 e s T:e o - t E Mt E 0 N eiaM'4 ys o a ne s 8 T F e-1 E o I e8 - H T o T u r= i
- deAe T
T n,c.O:Tas Gidt 4' e*aAw5 \g nL - T P(= n T T e oT.pt s CaDom*o se v 1 aM c t* eto i mu i T A U e E" M p Ac u s u m. propFm c- A saa EA c s C o c* Pa T- S 1ct M o i MeTat c M'f o ths oc e M A. TlR cmp 4 M)T - d eAa tv a a oF a, u n */ 1 - J s s r e tm o an s a a M Dsua pmsT oet Tor.,g ea>aoa> f swacuc so e er Npa s l
- tTso ooegs.Qr ei i, 4s w as Tv o ua Tw. T otsu t
cTA vhi ca woPu G 4 o A iUoeysc o c. mo fT. Aes gy e G. u s s_ dw i T re ar. a e i eH . sNsM
- y. oor s -c h 6abcdefqnh C W Af p sg cpyN A T,L o @t%c a. M
. . . . , . . . t.
Hu-co s sH 1 siF ecp i f A( A (. 44 f1 S9 t , 9 ac tt u Lu 6uuo3w i
*w i 4 *uM4 E-)49
- tt u. t L t 9 11 &
s 41 tt *9 t 5w8a 1 6 L
%u,6 u 86 8a1 5m (e 8i 66 6 o 1- 9 9A *, A 5sion 8a1 S- I 1
1 i I t o 1 s 4n3 i ( s hoT feo. ee e
- f e 1 5T T k v. frT T
- e. u o i
h n q a A 6 9
$ F A
01 4 7- 7a 5{
~~
y 1i $ $ % 8 4 i .
~
as d E ut o 2 d v 6 m 4
? u i o a e e
a e
- a x x x x x x
~ :!! in 5 -I j o ti e. !n5d 3s .d joghie jliis.pf
> 3 .=
s eg 3 g$ !!
. le,
;d 3l] s!l1 4 8 i= p h ll
.!,!!g.la}e ..
sl ~ p.. e r
> u, .
*32$3p- j.aa 9
543 ja Fe fa [.se,ds #g 3
$1!s .
as wg2 gfgx,g. )3 g,jgf.1 I 3s .zg jg NhY ' '$ jfs a Ia$i.iti ti tg$53 EM32 54 1,rsh.5 45 ke Yhb . pebii . p.hf:- b0 .- - w.h). .
'h g.$m'-
w/s11M 11; 3 Mid. $4w &y jd 1.d 54 f!E
. , . m -
2 . N f E N
.os e ga ssee as e-ases
- d. }}s a Egg ssIJE i is iirdssfS s -
3 -'
~
l EAb d $ 3 I I
$ 1 4 0 r4 d
!y O 1
\
d I$ ! j o" V 6 m h 2 g J
- c. O O e e
b E X X X x x 5% X
$ dE+
.d g $ h b'b$ % k '*
$20 a['fM.tj *g N I %
7 @dEE o;A E Adtdp En
.d 2, Eo#o w lue "j d .8 d.dq e d y4 Mi *- o l '80 3b4ggsr#$$ 8I y 5T e o by , a se s.z 4 s,
d 2 m$$o 41 %e n yor c s
$1 3* # w n
cJ 3 % S5 0! s Ih g f- Plg d I 39 er e }.,%j!. S .1 af .; $.s
%' $52I fEf .0 3 $ $3 $2 N!a$ 'Adi1EI $5 ei AY Afd
.- w 5 d* op w as u =a s 9% g.
N. . he lufnWT.Sf
. b d~$.k p.,hh.h b
~ N,d ds-g h hh.x.h,.hf.uE'. .
U $bh
$A k C h~hhhf a.r b T
$p a ,i * $a $A f,G gp N
+
4 f N,djjR gawa[a
+
d. gi;
.- T 3 T2 @
a e < <
$$ w <
fSC + da id h0 $$E .t ii dE- s' %' d T: - T5
l R 5
- s g
n 3y 4 W 8 M Mg y w R g h R 4 l
?.
Y G G. s p* e s n u g E u sM c
- h. gO W. p R R
0 G 5 M E i L P C. I ._ C S SI D M c ( y X g y X
$ ) t 2' E
. s n
r s t o
- e m e,w - of s..
e R4 a. a D s ReE e
. k b G *i i
N#linm-Eo Ne nv E A s - E m- ( rC tw G F Tr A- ec r si oai nE E o Ho w- C< F 0E u (0 7. cuw '5c.B L . T I F
- e. e F o. o - X A dom0 hoe 4
Ls Au hB A t e I F eE tnt eoA i C. ug s M s. ca cs' f' - w T,50 I' E Gc t e i wwE E . H T C . *r e ibAe 1r 0Mr t T. toJ sbe p - lL b p == m'e uh : N r C C A 1 E &EMdar Us 1 oN
. h Emit t s bb i
J wGt R i t R C =. E Mu# 8 F C "hER m o iD tvNc v t E C AW v eD I Fu t 1
- n. A a w 'e.
t
% J A rH t :4 R. E C. i T
- s. s s MMA ub L L l T I
NMw a' IT4 W o 4 meh ie 't F
- u. im t
dA Aa c EuM N I T R EMs
'eu C:
s 3 wh e.CE 3e e .i t iIea f miu WEa 2 m u neh e,E s n
- f. s t4 s.
Y
,cr .R s W
P em p t i, N et E 0o HMB'
- u. ct Mp t
%oo ohii5 1
l o r l Ee iP l AM wia f Dd BT S a . T a d F F . a i p71 G8 en G 0 c8 O 4 g F-0 c. o o F 0 e F 0 0o1 44ot +3u3 ns. w =,g 3o .t oe u o 4 e04'li,m i 4R+8
- ie_ r s w a. 4 t.8 l,v t
e ui aE8i. Go l ta tY hg.,. e T E - i i e. T M .q% i
. ;o E r**15',G ;t /ae T,G i
*e E i,i r 2 2T I s lit t
,t 3 s v is f u. Mi3is i i,
%G3s83.
i s ; .1 o iu3s24 t 1 1 1 sT*- i & oT r'i o G c. 2 pTgGsga, l t o S 7 E 's. & 0T - i 0 S e.wi s d_ s0E0 S. 4 hu2- t E G r. 5 p 'Gul
. i ,
$ 91.1ua.3 E :
2 9.~ E 3 c.2 bb Pd5 3D 9ds Db A E c f m. us. n L - DD mus bb PGs a 8 1 4 4 4 2 3, e 4 4- 4- 8 f 43 . 4_ R 4 4g A A A I 6 5#3 4 4 2 j 43 4, - E $ h3f3g gg g R g g i j' p ,3 " '
M g 2 s B.
" 3R f '
4
- Y 2
G. r. 2 ss r* it d t a c oM r c a u b b. 0 wYL
\. pR R
OC G [ J A I E t P C s c S s e b M c y E Y y t
. . s r r in .
3
*M s./ r a N f i ue ,
c G *t RR Lin v
,I F '
E G IP. T m e iei fA CCAn S uCT W Ctt T. Nd i l E o r. E- fN(Pru N le r N t_ F MM - wcT f E
.b O f" O0 Pm 1
rib i T I bear 4 t e
"n.wb r
nA E
'V T *O N f Tr ru 7c FEwEebb M G G u . a obr e e s t.
A iuEa t. biNc b cuu o E Lbo EB G M l w7s df G TA J "S h f E
. T ,;V e o dis i ow igd nA nt h 8
oTMa o tar e e pE bfEW 4 e E Hti it 0 3 aL2c7oE'E A t b Di*k. d Au O t ub ut i N ATt t.A O C'_I F
- t. efT i
do i 1 ab C 'dfo. r uIn t r .ut :o b s h 1 rE t r E sT tT i dbAts a n1 e t iwi Gu b. SkaT.K h s nR iExA l
~0 Ee uo FFt L ibsa ue B Hae Lh t EAN E R H s o5 Lioo bJAR W A *u I M f' D 'A c w V
' ' w~
e a c a f ss r F 8 v. s b42t. o 1 f o 32 F o 5u3o 4 o i g d
.+Wm ot d e 84a e.4 s c u a t.4 4t t.
_ ' 4 t a o a d c w- 8 2 4 cr8 g t o r_4E 8 N *t, T E r s5 1 7 kiu 3 s7 ,o Ii1s 2.w & t
,G, ti:o s r T,*t o t 2. Ti u. iTu32 o i1H- 0 *s i iw ,
T c s i 18 3 $' 4 oT a54 so T. -l E.1 *4 o 8 s E bS .-7c pL sTW5 s9,8 S PE .' 2 Eo S. g ,, 2 t2 a. 4 o$ bb' $5 2 2 Db g g, 5 e S.?A Ga2 'D 3b 9LJ5 M .7-i w a tb*tpsau. n us _ y_ 3- 4 4-f A A . y 4 0 4 X x 1M 8 4' 3-f q. A *RA A Q P I F % X. E , 0
$ "u(
l;l i~ :)ii! j! lli 1i ; .1j'
' 'j: ; ii ; 1l
2 - u 3 aw n E g . u I O i h 1 1 1 1 w k 3 b J (L O O e n N E EU < t, 1 - I w
-e%gb xs en s r " ' t ! %
jk is k I kE l b r[ t
.,! ;)
s p < 3 1 e 3 t tr u i
- t hi KL ,g
- M [%
E el i i= 4 X* i e ( kt
~4 (h {
- t-
=E . i e=
ta s t
- k0 im > DI g4* EI ;4 &*
a S3 ca to t t-w u aa ta ia R= ete1 et t T T i,,\ h P Q* b % N
B
!i B B L
T l h ( g g W W R ~ ;
- O W@ .
sek't c4t
'b C
- mC pR G7 C
U T N C
" C O $
S ' D' M c yD X ) ( X X
- b }e , -
cba . y R,Ev s n 4 s r e G g 5 ng F 7 Ci e M b 'To A L S, M g P Aiu
/
i b l L abe u I g E ak b g J
/ 1 ai jr"(bt G H IA 7yl y [O'6 )* G f )e tl e i
s4"G) tR 7 3
. . t t
.b s l*e D bEi* eAa Oo M s A COAL e a sui 0 l
E c GR5 Gc
=
T, 5S f S ieQws b (c *"P l- v ( g F kor et. a4 c u04 ~
- b. W. .
b d*G A g oic3s r
'5 g T Cb Uh
!l a s H )t dW 7
3 3 E. E ( g G on y( L 'N
- ri EEI N . b *Fs w) p*.
E i oTet .uc J. o r d Ah sS~ e_ " pN t be e WW 8' j A RM n
- s. S04"l t e E" gI mi fbR 4
97 7 C A E. obm
;'r 'h c E. d " M p yT n A' w iso u ni c-3 3 2b r
R Dl ES c ep I o O o# R gS g . 4.I Et 5 LeTrE b P* f,D u A LouE 4 Rl p sk Moa s Ld*b 5 3 38 MA g gb p( S xv0* H ePA'F l' pBW TTr NAF5O M II . , ' TT JSS M . d a c- 4 a1 0 f 7' F 1s1 c$ o oc
%s2 u1 4 u 8
- t. O u
- 7. Fot* {r, e
~
64 41 o a S'T*&42 m7 N *n t u 8
. 8. *o:e [ + 3,w* li 42mtNw8o
- =
0 oAgL G 85T l ' p, g S 2,7 L
- 8- 5 0iTR_5 .
Q27 8- s4 w s7 N' )4 5 49 70 0i Os 4
.B67 4o80Z t
g
*gG c. 8 _ S o
e P * , t_[_ 4 2 2 9 1 0 $5 1 3,
$b to &G G L , f, tez s.1 e t te I
- cc u a
c .. R Gw2 (gaipLns E ? a :c
$r m t. 5 - .
# u r. g b .Cg ps4 ni.5 [6 A PL4 mS 8ed i D C fpL 4 L4 r3 0 S 8 A /
C' 4 t s. t, u 37 38 - 4
- g. 1 E834 1
3 r Q A Ng h 2H 4A y E- I TI 4R4 A.t > f
)I iI
;i I ,, l o g_
g w y _ r , N I M p 2 Ts E
' u.
8 e 8m _. C s Nc: t D e
%c E
r J A c
- t. .
t P c
- c. S si b M
'c ( ( [
_ s so X ) )
#2 rh t 7 ca r r 4 A .
i o ; a 51 e WD .A o 7 N s Tr tE b b. R O, .f i t e a d A dL e r g c h s
'o u Wre csi. a t b .b u
a w u c n ra a T s Ce s o cu
!Av
_ i o A G .s A T. B g W y u E ik@M G C t p k b A c . c t s L L n e E L &N wR G s o t E N A es L A. t opc ^= tc J ;r C I u A Gf @e pU se e N e w y L k bl *?. i o B 0 3 A s LR TA eg r v i wF r o t 4 r 9 a ev ec M tC gds
- a. wB tp6 s t m
a, I HN a. o 7 e c-ci u L p gsR Ab . G E e. os s s. r uC si Rm Arc m W J 'd E H s, o T2n ga gcN UU sb a0 4 , 2 8 ' F A1 F r 8 r 2 F*
,Gd ?- r 1
E 2 FT
- u
'w+834 +5
#4n.1 G '"" ,ooI e.a4st w+ sr1 t..
W 2 G e
- r. .E b f.h80 ,4g _G.
,u
,.,iL y88m*b t e
- n 3 o w t:o iQ3s MT ~d c.o u 8 s T,*L, i . t i h '*"- 8 , o,
*wa sTl -
T#nn8 (15s.5 L, , 3 3 c "5
- i , L, t 4 s sp6 455 I' S 6414 2 3 i
t
' 4 0 y',3 2 1 2 i s -
41 p o S
- E "N t. 3wc,8ca.a ; s, y. 1 e f. 3 e P' r. cE T, v T. 3 e . 3 P7 7 cae a Z, t
T-WC p T.L 54
- s pL4 Ece Dc pa8lL 4 bC e c 5, 4 bD H*Sma0Pa!
E t 2 t 5 ca L o. 3- 3 i- i AN A A
- t s
E bb 4 eo . R- L-1 4- 5a8 3 - 0 542 33 M- S Mp I MW 0gE Q0Q-A4 P M Q-A A 4 g
~
)qi' - ~
~
d y f
~ 1J 1
OS5Y sp$b 0"'1 '3'W 'R.%.T5auaW's 1.as.g$
. Fosss ooo,- r.2,.1 so be5Cl P t I nJG ClW %.T an DW AR A oc m s c g r c,5 gms ,ner, naa 3.,,,y
- m. N o. $0uCE 408J Gc.T AQ-63 M t"* S* * ' e ' Q6L2/NG Ds.SPECT*OaJ 0 4 MESEt.
Mhi.ll Gs,.am*Tese Aub Suppomr. X %
-3 gg.6 pAGE 52,405 INST *cT** FaLT u.aacLIFiEb ~8D
***\ M f,JI LiuE. It,THecusal NF N D#CTEO**3 It(TlHihATE.b Amab N A9tASSEb.
52*106 ti E' 14 REPoemb rM. Simnfio 4'th TM NRC, Wt3 bE90s;14 0F
. b. SiiNew was uor assc cs ir k AQ-t **$5.'a's ENE.""'4 NM 'bRE*b biU*~ )(
q.3 MGt. SZ,soG Eft'NT3 U#6J J#E Joiweh 3 AM Aq .10 R 82 l Li.aES di & 12. Q {,sNJAEC M 4 Gial E A '7 M. 31 MitS*LE. httRIEElt boolt LiFri.aG K RWB g.34 (@M')'*" 7 4 8Flug 5 3 ALLEGs;b isestopest. 8 kJ E.L +8G; nottb aser,*u Accomb4ascc. At-35 L 85, g.33 E2,8tl.Li.ec 2o luiTH tasEtb JyerDOL od bEAtasia:G; MCR weityrea aor vorbed my
#Gmut. Litvat of RC %accusur 41- 4 A bsPosir w *F Ausset--cDilmnNnentu4sur '
b.ST'"E*- Bacnestw wsrs'my Sermee. X y ~l-'3'84~ rME ASLBr &b FELY Thf thb*S- { Rf*$ M s2 r:6, L~wc. a s Gencon us,earsh feet. ~e auir 3E R-3 A.I DGoSi.T;*** cF COMpLAluTj of HARAssHgar, m RL- 4 A-44 [3.g1 MLUGE14Dlym2 MAbt To h X fV M..u s 2.msecoca ig Foun Tiesi he wo bass t.5 2.12*5 ae_ s;LIut
, 4
* *'
- F Ki-XX (', g NLEGEt bib Nor s!**beasrAab y 7.s1-8s We hqiHG nF YHe sveeb "rnr,. X -
PA&t. 5 2, t 2.3 et/hdra *
,, M u t. 7, in o.ocn 52,1 ZG ,l**.JC 12-
f:RC Intimidation in an Interview of an Allecer Mr. Dennis Culton, a fonner electrical helper and draftperson at CPSES, alleged that NRC Region IV inspectors intimidated him in an interview. The evidence consists of: Deposition of l'r. Dennis Culton (July 25, 1984), Tr. 58,500-591 l a tape recording of the alleged intimidating interview 1 a written transcript of that interview.
~ Gli!L'*J TL Y Hl$ stoJC,, rJA L/E t h t! D r e conDVCW F L' ED B A c ts T N T 4 2 J If? ss u orotou r Succ653,
* * ' tI lE U' S a' d Gy O
NO TRAs)$ g g1PTJ , 4f w AC TRT 39 re st pac ng an 8/17, a lz b '4 8 Y C4L'O l HMSrit3Cn Tal te n D 70 sfiq l .
.m.
N-% f!k e ,,,. . . . - ._. .. _ _. __ _ - _ . _ _ . v3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
r
-2 Intimidation of Oc Inspector in Auxiliary Building Mr. Robert Messerley alleged that he observed Mike Robinson, a ceneral foreman for cable tray supports, yelling and shouting obscenities ,
at a QC inspector for " red-tagging" too many cable tray supports. The evidence on this incident consists of: Deposition of Robert Messerley (July 12,1984),Tr.50,000-007 e Tto o rar reg nsc R o Prs 8 17. , 9 l19 '98d af P ' " " "* ' i v re e vir,a s.
#UPDACh !^) rf t Jt E" . "E o Agtggg ( et42nor suo GIV*
- cnsuro ro snow up IllI7/BV ou f4 wogyp, TE r Pt.4 4 TG cs o s s- cur a ys s.srrrt e 727 rit M E cc i n gic t o rs. D /ucluCE u)C.:.s H4^) , FAU L CM E ^)
(. NQ f M 41'f f, J. , 3 )/ 4 0 - e *w k
9 Intimidation of Welding QC Inspector in North Valve Room Mr. Stanley Miles, a former iron worker at CPSES, alleged that he saw a QC inspector identify improper welding in the North Valve Room. Accord-ing to Mr. Miles, the QC inspector left, saying he was going to stop it, but later returned and did not stop the improper welding. Theevidenceonthisissueconsistsof: Depositicn of Stanley G. Miles (July 12, 1984), Tr. 50,600-628 I LI Report 4-84-012 (14 August 1984) O!ReportQ4-84-011(13 March 1984) OI Report 4-84-006at23(7 March 1984) I"' MN
, rastn s ee ipr.y & / 4 (fresou.4) n /8 (rsi s m M' 3 Y R 7* M4MBfl3 /MVoL UGD & J '
) _. 4 . . . - - - - . - - . . . . . . . . - .. _ .. . . . . - . . . . ..
- _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . ____,,- _ _ ___-____.__,__._ __ ____ _-~,.--
i 4 Stanford incident Alleged intimidation regarding voided NCR written by Sue Ann Neumeyer. Neumeyer wrote NCR on QC inspector Stanford indicating he had falsified dates, thus enabling craft to bypass QC hold points. NCR was voided. Applicants assert that dates were changed only to correct error. The witnesses and their testimony which deal with the alleged incident are as follows: Deposition of Sue Ann Neumeyer; August 1,1984 (Tr. 59,540-598)/ro/eV and v5 1984 (Tr. 59,754-825j,78dd858' [pgust2,5$e'vNs0"Dr?$Y# v'. Prs r
<//ntsvru sa~ag <1~ $$b#'!$$
henos$b ition of Linda nes Juiy28 e'I84 Tr 59,006-117, 129-149 1 ricsonas rarca vorw e s o te;y . u. re,ns ca r(or tivesu,we ouvot orO ) Deposition of Dwight M. Woodyard; July 24,1984 (Tr. 56,505-572) Deposition of Jack Ray Stanford; July 25, 1984 (Tr. 57,500-587) Depnsition of John T. P H xt, Jr.; July 25,1984 (Tr. 57,048-076) Deposition of Robert Stever; July 25, 1984 (Tr. 58,057-105; 58,129-130) Deposition of Gordon Raymond Purdy; July 10, 1984 (Tr. 41,156-188) Testimony of Robert Marshall Duncan; Tr. 17,420-523(9/19/84); Tr. 18,091-152 (9/20/84) Testimony of Terry Matheny, Tr. 18,904-19,025 (10/1/84) Testimony of George W. Chaney, Tr. 20.455-526 (11/26/84) Prefiled Testimony of Richard W. Simpson; Auoust 15, 1984 (pp. 1-38) Prefilec' Testimony of Danny Ray Wright; Augusdt 16, 1984 (pp. 1-9) Prefiled Testimony of Ronald D. McBee; August 16, 1984 (pp. 1-24) Prefiled Testimony of Alan Dale Justice; August 16, 1984 (pp.1-20)
- Profiled Testimony of James Edward Zwahr and Daniel Thomas Wilterding; Augsut 15, 1984 (pp. 1-21)
Prefiled Testimony of James E. Brown, August 15,1984(pp1-21) See Of Report Q4-84-037 (12 September 1984)
Intimidation of Protective Coating OC Inspectors Pr. William Dunham, a fonner protective coatings OC inspector at CPSES, alleged that he was aware of attempts by his supervisor, Mr. Harry Williams, . to intimidate protective coatings QC inspectors. The evidence consists of the Department of Labor Transcript of William Dunham's Section 210 complaint, Dunham v. Brown & Root, Inc., 84-EPA-1 (February 13-14,1984). See especially: Testimony of William Dunham, 00L Tr. 236-48 Testimony of Thomas Miller, DOL Tr. 303-305 Testimony of Raymond Yockey, DOL Tr. 309-319 Testimony of Evert Mouser, DOL Tr. 321-370 1 Testimony of Myron Krisher, DOL Tr. 371-415 Testimony of Gordon Purdy, 00L Tr. 420-465 Testimony of Thomas Brandt, DOL Tr. 472-512 OI Report 4-83-001 (24 August 1983) Of Report 4-83-013 (3 November 1983) O! Report 4-83-016 (26 July 1983) 01 Report 4-84-006 at 19, 21 (7 March 1984) 0! Report Q4-83-025 (10 February 1983) O! Report Q4-83-026 (18 October 1983)
- Tar ra nscarry 3 /3189 nr$ E u f j HA < 'N S } ' ' ' '
count a.* Na y Q
- R at-4 G A t Has and con eners p rr o t fu rt r **
- 4 D / H 3' ' * *s s AUT sgs vor A s sis uof-C e
r e.r .r ta M ca r er' *" 70l "'Lt E A l*
- l0 Y
- Y"Y * ^' *
- L "" D m cancndsJ , wo LLS b u D A*U S . MLSO GlMlG$
su re t vtpso -NeTRANccAnPT o
William Dunham's Termination Allegation that QC inspector was terminated because of his complaints concerning QC. , Dunham's termination paper states he was terminated for insubordination. Dunham filed a complaint with the Department of Labor claiming he was fired for criticizing the QC program, and one Harry Williams in particu-lar. The parties have stipulated that Dunham's testimony is contained in the record of the DOL hearing, Dunham v. Brown & Root Inc., 84-EPA-1 (February 13 and 14, 1984). During the evidentiary depositions in this proceeding, Applicants presented further testimony on circumstance surrounding Mr. Dunham's tennination: Deposition of. Gordon Raymond Purdy; July 10,1984(Tr.41,747-259) Deposition of C. Thomas Brandt; July 11, 1984 (Tr. 45,196-198) Ceposition of Myron G. " Curly" Krisher July 9,1984 (Tr. 37,011-064 Testimony was also given by Applicants during the hearing sessions of September 11 and 18,1984: Testimony of B. R. Clements; Tr. 15,460-63(9/11/84) Testimory of Thomas Brandt; Tr. 16,777-794(9/18/84) By Order dated November 30. 1984, the ALJ in the DOL proceeding dismissed 11unham's complaint (Dunham v. Brown & Root, Inc., 84-EPA-1, "Reccmmended Decision and Order"). O! Report 4-83-016 (27 July 1983) OI Report G4-83-025 (10 February 1983) O! Report 4-83-001(24 August 1983) e 54 PatWous PAGE o9 rsAaJ5cean S l $
T-Shirt Incident Intervenor alleged that electrical QC inspectors wearing T-Shirts were intimidated by management. Certain electrical OC inspectors were wearing T-shirts referring to
" nitpickers." They were subsequently sequestered by management and their desks searched. (There is a question of their prior involvement with
" destructive testing" prior to the incident.) Some of those involved were later transferred or terminated. Applicatns assert management might have overreacted, but the actions taken were not intimidation.
Evidentiary depositions: Ceposition of Mark Welch; July 16, 1984; (Tr. 53,000-264) Deposition of, Kenneth Vhitehead; July 17,1984;(Tr.55,000-164) Deposition of Jack Pitts; July 31, 1084; (Tr. 73,500-553) Deposition of Ronald Tolson; July 10,1984(Tr.40,546-562) Deposition of B. R. Clements; July 10, 1984; (Tr. 40,096-105) Deposition of Thomas Brandt; July 11,1984;(Tr.45,128-149) Deposition of Boyce Grier; July 11,1984;(Tr.45,591-599) Ceposition of Gordon Purdy; July 10, 1984 (Tr. 41,198-199) Deposition of James Cumins; July 17,1984(Tr.54,008-055) Hearino Testimony: Testimony of Michael Spence, Tr. 14,924-930(9/10/84) Testimony of Antonio Vega, Tr. 15,055-060; 15.191-193; 15,197-251; 15,278-416 (9/10/84) Testimony of B. R. Clements. Tr. 15,418-428; 15.470-503; 15,514-521 (9/11/84) Testimony of Thomas Brandt, Tr. 16,107-133;16,175-201(9/13/84) Testimony of Gordon Purdy; Tr. 16,358-373 (9/13/84) Testimony of Ronald Tolson, Tr. 16,399-575 (9/14/84); Tr.16,652-658
'(9/18/84) w e
m ., . . . _ . . -- .- . ..
Testimony of Gregory Bennetzen, Tr. f7,745-934; 17,954-968 (9/20/84) Testimony of David Chapman, Tr. 17,969-18,031 (9/20/84) Testimony of Doyle Hunnicutt. Tr. 18,515-669(10/1/84) _ Of Report 4-83-001(24 August 1983)
'I
~:.
p4
- e
_g. 9 Liner Plate Traveler Incident (A) Sue Ann Neumeyer alleged that she was intimidated into signing off on QC weld hold points on liner plate travelers. - Neumeyer allegedly was ordered to sign off QC weld hold points for fitup and cleanliness on travelers for the stainless steel liner plates of the Unit 2 reactor cavity. Her signature was to be verified by inspection cHts purportedly done by other inspectors for these hold points a few years previously. Neumeyer did not agree that the chits matched the hold points she was to sign. She alleges she was compelled to sign under threat of losing the upcoming weekend off. Applicants assert that the procedure Neumeyer was to follow was proper and therefore she was not intimidated. [ Note: This allegation has resulted in another separate issue at the hearings following the evidentiary depositions, the adequacy of the QC weld documentation for the liner plates. See Deposition of C. Thomas Brandt; August 16,1984 (Tr. 45,239-355)..T-Evidentiary depositions: Deposition of Sue Ann Neureyer; August 1,1984 (Tr. 59,516-536, 59,640-676) and August 2, 1984 (Tr. 59,773-825) Deposition of Meddie Gregory; July 31, 1984 (Tr. 54,596-617) Deposition of Dwight Woodyard; July 24, 1984 (Tr. 56,561-566) Deposition of John Blixt; July 25, 1984 (Tr. 57,015-036) Deposition of Robert Siever; July 25, 1984 (Tr. 58,024-056) Of Report Q4-84-037 (12 Septer.ber1984)
- Neum eac -{ktY)lc 63r , Dobie l$- 10ine- 2 y Yes) ba<A. ,L teried (fin /sn sm,N A Ue N a le. , [ w s3e/, pelatson) ,
8-l-4 FeeJt a A. rJentw (6 rey o<y f B ~~) (3*q H&, k/mm,. Den %me<s)
//- 17-14 ( 6reyor.y, Md/ey, f Nenmey e r)
(IVeum, H o u, Hd &, tha. s te en~, U< e vmove)
* /Meddie.~$resm
- tey S 'j-sy Traur
* $ee. *//n74y %yt Aloec.
,,,yg.aLn.<_
- Se e
/2 ~/0.- W G.n-~se<yt' #Aovt-
. . . . . - . . = . . - . . .
Liner Plate Traveler Incident (B) Intervenors alleged that there was a QC breakdown ln the documentation of the liner plate welds. As a result of documentation which was supplied by Applicants in the course of testimony on " Liner plate traveler incident (A)," Intervenors 4 raised the issue of an overall Oc breakdown in the QC process as applied . to the liner plate welds. Applicants responded with testimony ostensibly refuting each of the alleged deficiencies, fNote: The subject of the adequacy of OC inspections and their documentation of the liner plate welds has been looked into by the TRT. The TRT's conclusion isnotyetknown.) Evidentiary record: The background and context for this issue is in the material listed in
" Liner plate incident (A)."
Deposition of C. Thomas Brandt; August 16, 1984 (Tr. 45,239-355)
" CASE's Evidence of a Quality control Breakdown" dated i September 27, 1984 Prefiled Testimony of C. Thomas Brandt; October 3, 1984 (Tr. 45,356-480)
" CASE's Further Evidence of a Quality control Breakdown in the Construction, Installation and Inspection of the Stainless Steel Liner Plate" dated November 15, 1984 Testimony of C. Thomas Brandt, Tr. 15,629-697(9/12/84);15,978-16,214 (9/13/84); 16,728-777 (9/18/84); 17,264-363 (9/19/84);
20,569-774(11/26/84);20,778-21,091(11/27/84)
11 - Voiding of NCR on Polar Crane Mrs. Darlena Stiner, a former welder and QC inspector at CPSES, alleged that an NCR which she wrote regarding a hole in the polar crane rail was improperly voided and the hold tag improperly removed. The evidence on this allegation consists of: Deposition of Mrs. Stiner (July 13, 1984), Tr. 52,005-010, 52,079-084, 52,182-190, CASE Exhibit 667, pp. 54-55. Deposition of C. Thomas Brandt, Tr. 45,273-76 (submitted as prefiled written testimonv) 01 Report 4-84-008 (9 July 1984) 01 Report 4-8,4-006 at 26 (7 march 1984)
* $ 7~/H E/2, Ddgt.give t HEit/12-Y nvu cihi,ts,,jw
- /-1-tr feedbu/c e
- Asm:/ (Ter<y C/Es, Tu n;ta O//s, par /w s%er-
}/s,r7 S6n en)
* /M'C /'tes4/ .Fo1 /?p. ster.1.n, Crnie 7Ao y s n
$o3f TylA
?
Weave Welding on a Pipe Support in the Auxiliary Building Mrs. Darlene Stiner, a former welder and QC inspector at CPSES, alleges . , ' that she wrote an NCR identifying unacceptable weave welds on a pipe support in the Auxiliary Building. According to Mrs. Stiner, she was irtimidated by craftworkers and by her supervisor, Harry Williams, into improperly accepting the welds on the NCR. The evidence on this allegation consists of: Depcsition of Frs. Stiner (!uly 13, 1984), Tr. 52,010-16, 52,085-105 Deposition of C. Thomas Brandt, Tr. 45,287 (submitted as prefiled written testimony) In addition, substantial testimony on this allegation was received by all parties in the technical portion of this proceeding. See generally: March 19-E0,1984 hearing session transcripts, Tr. 10,383-11,018
~
April 24, 1984 hearing session transcript, Tr. 12,138-285 OI Report 4-84-008 (9 July 1984) 0! Repert 4-84 006 at 76 (7 March 1984) e
- s ee py y t-v:
13 - Weldino of Diesel Generator Skids Mrs. Darlene Stiner, a former welder and QC inspector at CPSES, alleges that she was harassed and intimidated by her supervisor, Harry Williams, , when he assigned her to conduct inspections of welds on the diesel gener-ator skids for CPSES, even after she protested that she was unqualified to conduct these inspections. The evidence on this issue consists of: Deposition of Mrs. Stiner 'iluly 13, 1984), Tr. 52,016-024, l 52,105-108, 52,190-199 i Depcsition of C. Thomas Brandt, Tr. 45,276-80(submittedas prefiled written testimony) See 01 Peport, 4-84-0086 (9 July 1984); 4-P4-006 (7/19/84) See p y II ___m-
Weld Symbols on Doors
- Mrs. Darlene Stiner, a former welder and QC inspector at CPSES, contends that she was told by Thomas Brand to improperly accept doors which had ,
not- been properly welded in accordance with the design drawings for the doors. - The evidence on this allegation consists of: Deposition of Mrs. Stiner (July 13, 1984), Tr. 52,020-23, 52,108-111, 52,199-202 Deposition of C. Thomas Brandt, Tr. 45,280-287 (submitted as prefiled written testimony) See f I( l
. e--+...-=... .-
Harassment Due to Relocation of an Office Mrs. Darlene Stiner, a former welder and QC inspector at CPSES, claims that she was harassed by Applicants after giving testimony in the July - 1982 hearing session in,this proceeding. The harassment consisted of moving her office four times over a two-day period, and of finally placing ditionedher forinthree a shack that and days, she claimed smaller was thanunsturdy,l office. dirty, unaircon-her origina The evidence on this incident consists of: Deposition of Mrs. Stiner (July 13, 1984), Tr. 52,024-034, 52,118-129, 52,204-205, 5?,530-31 Dep9sition of Ronald Dempsey (July 20,1984) Deposition of Jimmie D. McClain (July 20,1984) Deposition of C. Thomas Brandt, Tr. 45.253-67 (submitted as prefiled written testimory) See 01 Reports 4-84-006 (3/7/84);-4-84-008 (7/9/84) o bNint f?a u il
Harassing Telegram Accusing Mrs. Stiner of Improperly Copying Documents Mrs. Darlene Stiner, a former welder and OC inspector at CPSES, alleges that a letter sent by Applicants' counsel to Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President , of CASE (as well as the other parties) accused here of stealing and lying, and threatened her termination if caught. In actuality, a telegram, not a letter, was sent to Mrs. Ellis, and the telegram did not accuse Mrs. Stiner of lying and stealing. Rather the telegram suggests that Mrs. Ellis was improperly encouraging Mrs. Stiner to copy and remove documents from on-site. The evidence and relevant material consists of: Deposition of Mrs. Stiner (July 13, 1984), Tr. 52,059-60 Telegram (attached to CASE's Motion for Protective Order) (August 12,1982) Deposition of'C. Thomas Brandt, Tr. 45,248-51, 45,252-54 (submitted as prefiled written testirrony) See f y iI
e 17 - Incidents Intended to Have Mrs. Stiner Leave CPSES Prs. Darlene Stiner, a former welder and QC inspector at CPSES, related a series of incidents which she believes were intended to force her to leave her employment at.the CPSES site. These related incidents are: (1) meetings with Ronald Tolson and C. Thomas Brandt where Mrs. Stiner claims they pressed her about har health and her ability to continue work due to her pregnancy; (2) Mr. Brandt's request that she bring a doctor's note in each week to certify her capability to work; and (3) an incident where she was refused admittance to a bus carrying workers to CPSES, which she blames upon articles in the Circuitbreaker (a company newsletter distributed at the site). The evidence consists of: Deposition of Mrs. Stiner (July 13, 1984), Tr. 52,025-27; 52,034-53; 52,111-119, 52,131-171; 52,202-203;.52,208-219, 52,232-242 Affidavit of David K. Egbert (August 1,1984) Deposition of C. Thomas Brandt, Tr. 45,241-52 (submitted as prefiled written testimony) Testimony of Ronald Tolson, Tr. 51,044-45 Deposition of David Chapman (August 2, 1984), Tr. 76,522-527, and Exhibit 7 See 01 Reports 7-84-006 (3/7/84); 4-84-008 (7/9/84) 9 e fie t /4 e /[
p..,. -. . . . .a n . . -
. o do e d//er .
byts l-Z/* *
- Takview ,p Q TFwffcflp'ns,
- Chuk. Tohn nm)
Cory Allen Cory Allen testified as a Board witness an September 18-19, 1984. Mr. Aller was employed as a coatinoc inspector at CPSES from January 1983 to ' December 1983. Because Mr. Allen was employed by Ebasco Construction Services, his administrative supervisor was C. Thomas Brandt: however, his field supervisor was Harry Williams and later Fred Dunham and Evert Mouser. Considering his background includes an undergraduate degree in Chemistry, a graduate degree in Polymer Science, and previous engineering and inspection experience at several nuclear plants, Mr. Allen was one of the most qualified OC inspectors ever employed at CPSES. Mr. Allen recounted several incidents relating to harassment and intimidation. The first incident involved Mr. Allen's job interview with Mr. Brandt. According to Mr. Allen, as a result of his meeting with Mr. Brandt, he had a strong 1mpression that notwithstanding his expertise, Mr. Brandt did not want him to question QC procedures or encineering judgments. The second incident involved a concern Mr. Allen had regarding ALARA review and reviews of design change authorizations (DCAs). According to Mr. Allen he raised these questions to Cecil Manning, Training Quality Engineer, who was unable to answer his questions. Mr. Manning instead took Mr. Allen to Ron Tolsort's office to discuss the matter. At that meeting, according to Mr. Allen, Mr. Tolson indicated to Mr. Allen ; hat he was not to concern ntmself with engineering matters but instead was to concentrate all of his efforts on performing inspections. Mr. Allen was later called to discuss the same matter with Mr. Brandt. As a result of these encounters, Mr. Allen testified that he was reluctant to write an NCR unless it was a
" garden-variety" type NCR.
The third instance of harassment alleged by Mr. Allen involved members of the painting crew. According +o Mr. Allen, ne was ordered by Mr. Faley, a paint foreman, and other painters to perrorm inspections. Mr. Allen stated that if he did not accede readily to their demands, a complaint would
- be lodged with his supervisor, Harry Williams, who invariably sided with j craft.
! The fourth incident involved an NCR written by Mr. Allen reporting an ! indeterminate substance on a coated surface which he had inspected. Mr. l Allen testified that after writing the NCR Harry Williams told him to ! not to report for work the next day but instead report directly to Mr. Brandt on his next sc.heduled work day. During this meeting, Mr. Brandt questioned Mr. Allen's judgment and suggested that he was paranoid. The final incident recounted by Mr. Allen involved the alleged use by painters of cigarette filters in the spray painting equipment. In Mr. Allen's view, painters inserted cigarette filters in the cheater valves of spray guns to pass the air acceptability inspection because the filters made the air supply appear cleaner than it was; the painters then would remove the filters after the test. Before Mr. Allen could report this alleged non-conforming condition, however, a complaint was lodged with Mr. Allen's supervisors. A meeting was held between Mr. Allen, Mr. Brandt,
t . Jim Bracken, the paint foreman, and Mr. Williams. According to Mr. Allen, Mr. Brandt sided with the painters because Mr. Allen did not have personal knowledge that the filters wem removed by painters subsequent to the air acceptability test and because the use of cigarette filters was not a , violation of any procedural requirement. Consequently, Mr. Allen did not write an NCR. It should be noted that the Technical Review Team has confirmed Cr. Allen's allegation. Citations to the testimony by Mr. Allen and Applicants on the matters described above are as follows: Mr. Allen's initial meeting with Mr. Brandt A. Tr. 17,945-47 (9/19/84 (Allen) i Tr. 21,445-47 (12/3/84 (Brandt) Tr. 21,350-52 (11/28/84) (Brandt) L Tr. 21,105-225 (11/28/84 (Brandt) d Tr. 21,180-84 (11/28/84) (Brandt) 3 B. Mr. Allen's Meeting with Tolson and Brandt Concerning ALARA Review and Design Change Authorization i Tr. 16,902-10 (9/18/84) (Allen) t Tr. 17,025-032 (9/19/84) (Allen) Tr. 21,353-366 (11/28/84) (Brandt) Tr. 21,125-35 (11/28/84) (Brandt) Tr. 21,187-237 (11/28/84) (Brandt) (NCR re reactor core cavity) 1 Tr. 17,042-056 (9/19/84) (Allen) (NRC re reactor core activity) ! Tr. 21,455-508 (11/9/84 (Brandt) (NCR re reactor core i activity) Tr. 22,453-526 (Manning) (12/18/84) C. Harassment by Painters Tr. 16,858-64 (9/18/84) (Allen) Tr. 16,812-16 (9/18/84) (Allen) Tr. 21,370-74; 21,400-04 (11/28/84) (Brandt) Tr. 21,243-63 (11/28/84) (Brandt) Tr. 21,434-41 (12/3/84) (Brandt) Tr. 21,490-96 (12/3/84) (Brandt)
'E. Detergent on Coated Surface NCR Tr. 16,863-81 (9/18/84) (Allen)
Tr. 21,374-377 (11/28/84) (Brandt) Tr. 21,263-272 (11/28/84) (Brandt)
, y Tr. 21,441-445 (12/3/84) (Brandt) fl
- h
_m . . _ _
- J1 ~ -__
r _ _ . . . . . . F. Cigarette Filer Incident Tr. 16,884-91 (9/18/84) (Allen) Tr. 21,383-86 (11/28/84) (Brandt) Tr. 21,275-294; 21,409-417; 21,449-451; 21,496-508 (12/3/84) ... (Brandt) 01 Report 4-83-016 at 13 (26 July 1983) f l l l l t
~. .- , , - - . . _ - - -
. . ww x- + . - _. , . , _l l fG -
. . ~ . . .
O. B. Cannon k'itnesses: Lipinsky Trip Report In July 1983, Joseph J. Lipinsky, Director of Quality Assurance for . Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc. (0BC), visited CPSES to evaluate Applicants' coatings program in connection with a consulting agreement between TUGC0 and OBC. Mr. Lipinsky spent three days at CPSES observing the coatings program and speaking with site personnel. After he returned to 0BC's corporate headquarters in Philadelphia, Mr. Lipinsky wrote a report to Robert R. Roth, OBC president, detailing his observations and conclusions regarding Applicants' coatings program. In his report Mr. Lipinsky expressed the view that the coatings program was plagued by many problems including lack of painter qualification, poor traceability and storage of materia!s, quality control reporting to craft, and TUGC0 management's lack of commitment to quality. Mr. Lipinsky's report concluded with two explosive observations: (i) that parallels could be drawn between the CPSES and Zimmer plants; and (ii) that OBC bid for a " rework" contract with TUGC0 because little, if any, of the coatings work already in place was salvageable. The Lipinsky trip report somehow found its way into the hands of the NRC, the Intervenors, and the Dallas /Ft. Worth news media. The public disclo-sure of the Lipinsky trip report set off a chain of events culminating in the recanting by Mr. Lipinsky of the concerns and conclusions expressed in his trip report. The reasons behind Mr. Lipinsky's turnabout is the subject of this aspect of the intimidation proceeding. The testimony relevant to this inquiry may be #ound at: Tr. 18,672-18,903 (10/1/94) (Norris) Tr. 19,034-19,139 (10/2/84) (Norris) Tr. 19,727-19,846 (11/19/84) (Lipinsky) Tr. 19,851-20,092 (11/20/84) (Lipinsky)
< Tr. 20,092-20,179 (11/20/84) (Roth) l Tr. 20,180-20,450 (11/20/84) (Roth) i j
Tr. 20,541-21,748 (12/3/84) (Roth) i Tr. 21,754-22,006 (12/4/84) (Lipinsky) t Tr. 22,012-22,208 (12/5/84) (Lipinsky) Tr. 22,309-22,452 (1E/17/84) (Evid. Dep. of H. Brooks Griffin) Tk22,527-22,822(1/3/85)(Evid.Dep.ofEvertMouser) Tr. 22,823-23,111 (1/5/85) (Evid. Dep. of Evert Mouser) Tr. 23,112-23,422 (1/7/85) (Norris) l Tr. 23,423-23,734 (1/8/85) (Norris)
y . . . - . - . . . . - . . - - Termination of Henry Stiner Henry Stiner, a welder, alleged that he was terminated for reporting a gouge in a pipe to a QC inspector. - Stiner allegedly discovsred a gouge in a pipe near where he was welding on a pipe hanger. His foreman supposedly wanted to cover it up and witnessed Stiner showing the gouge to QC inspector Sue Ann Neumeyer. Shortly thereafter Stiner was terminated. Applicants assert Stiner was terminated for absenteef sm. Evidentiary depositions: Deposition of Henry Stiner; July 13, 1984 (Tr. 51,500-721) Depositior of Sue Ann Neumeyer; August 2, 1984 (Tr. 59,694-827) Deposition of Jimmie Green; July 9,1984 (Tr. 35,000-078) Deposition of John Hallford; July 19, 1984 (Tr. 70,000-059) Deposition of Fred Coleman; July 9, 1984 (Tr. 35,079-125 s See il i > r, . .
Valve disk incident Linda Barnes alleged that wh'en she brought a discrepancy in valve disk numbers to the attention of her supervisor, he told her it didn't , matter, whir 5 made Barnes " discouraged." Linda Barnes was shown a traveler by Meddie Gregory with a valve disk number which did not match the disk number of the Data Report. When she brought this to the attentien of her supervisor, Gregory Bennetzen, he told her it didn't matter and would cost too much money to check. Applicants assert that it really didn't matter and deny that cost would be a factor if the discrepancy were real. Evidentiary depositions: Deposition of Linda Barnes; July 28, 1984 (Tr. 59,012-017; 080-107; 174-208; 216-236) Deposition of Gordon Purdy; July 10, 1984'(Tr. 41,139-156; 266-267) Testimony: Prefiled Testimony of Gordon Purdy; Tr. 41,331-336 (8/16/84) r Prefiled Testimony of Gregory Bennetzen; pp. 16-17 (8/16/84 and 8/18/84)
/avDA bar2 ^' 2 e /Z -lo - 54 Ldey p j eu) F"' criff Aes k (B~ s, Hatley,, dapry, %meyer)
*N2L 8ez#[mabn sm, Haje, lNm d ,
Nafs&
. 7 - / - S V r ,- 4 r j.,j n m u;g
- Pre se J ( 6 yes o < tBast"s) , W)
, ne peseJ'Olww, w Y
?
$a[ ,
._ .- - - __....._.___ : ... _ . m . _ .. 1. .. .
Pressure on N-5 Viewers Peddie Gregory alleged that undue pressure was applied to OA/QC document , reviewers. Meddie Gregory alleged that her supervisor, Gregory Bennetzen pressured / intimidated the N-5 document reviewers by: (1) demanding 40 iso'sa week; (2) threatening the use of job shoppers; (3) commenting on company loyalty. Evidentiary depositions: Deposition cf Meddie Gregory; July 17, 1984.(Tr. 54,520-526); July 31, 1984 (Tr. Ed,562-641) Testimony: , Prefiled testimony of Gregory Bennetzen; pp. 3-16 (8/16 & 8/18/84) Prefiled testimony of Gordon Purdy; Tr. 41,323-331 (8/16/84) Testimony of Gordon Purdy; Tr. 16,268-307 (9/13/84) See 7 7 9
[sj , OES Peview Sheet Incident Meddie Gregory alleged that her supervisor ordered a reviewer to sign < off a QES review sheet without doing the review. Gregory alleged that Bennetzen ordered a reviewer, Darby, to sign off on a QES cover sheet when the original was missing without having Darby do the review. Applicants assert that this is an acceptable practice. Evidentiary depositions: Deposition of Meddie Gregory; July 17, 1984 (Tr. 54,526-528); July 31, 1984 (Tr. 54,641-644; 714-716) Testimony: Prefiled testimony of William Darby; pp.. 4-12 (8/18/84) Prefiled testimony of Gordon Purdy; Tr. 41,315-323 (8/16/84) Testimony of Gordon Purdy; Tr. 16,243-268 (9/13/84) 0 See f $ [ >Y
?
l t i \ ..
...w.-....a--.-
l Reduction of Force (ROF) Incident Meddie Gregory alleged that there is something wrong with the way < employees are selected for a ROF. Gregory alleged that ths more qualified people were R0F'd. Applicants response is that there is a comprehensive, mainly objective method of selection. Evidentiary depositions: , Deposition of Meddie Gregory; July 17, 1984 (Tr. 54,534-538); July 31, 1984 (Tr. 54,644-657) Testimony: Prefiled testimony' of Gordon Purdy; Tr. 41,337-355 (8/16/84) Testimory of Gordon Purdy; Tr. 16,310-379; 16,384-387 (9/13/84)
- SW f
. wh
. = - - . - _ . _ . .
O ]MNNY HMLT&72S
" // 7-9f In te ul ea) W w ny t Prese~f _ WaJterk Vince,# sycom 7~4, Ea&
Witness F Witness F was a svstem test engineer ("STE") amoloyed by Imoell Corporation at CPSES from September 1982 through April 1982. Witness F was assigned . to the Electrical Startup Group. which is part of the Startup Organization. (Deposition of Witness F (July 18, 1984), Tr. 55,517-18; Deposition of Arthur Lodon (August 15, 1984), pp. 12-13). Witness F described five incidents which he believed were examples of intimidation or threats against him. In brief, these are: (1) an allegation that Fred Powers told Witness F, "You're treading on thin ice," in response to Witness F's refusal to sign a startup work authorization ("SWA") because of his belief that there was an inconsistency between ES-100 and Regualtory Guide 1.75 ("R.G.1.75"); (2) that Dick Camp tried to discourage Witness F from calling the NRC on the ES-100/RG-1.75 conflict; (3) an allegation that Ivan Vogelsang threatened Witness F that he would get John Merritt to
" pull his chain;" (4) that Ken Luken harassed Witness F in connection with a problem with ferro-resonant transfers; and (5) that Art London told Vitness F that if he had enough time.to find problems (such as the ferro-resonant transformer problem and the apparent conflict between ES-100 and PG 1.75) that he had time to do more work. The testimony relating to these incidents may be found at:
A. Disagreement With Fred Powers and Dick Camp
. Tr. 55,620-44 (7/18/84) (Evid. Dep. of Witness F) g
~ Tr. 75,510-640 (7/18/84) (Evid. Dep. of Fred Powers) Tr. 77,009-17 (8/2/84) (Evid. Dep. of Ivan Volgelsang) (Vol. I) Tr. 76,011-099 (8/2/84) (Evid. Dep. of Dick Camp) (Vol. I) Tr. 76,215-250 (8/3/84) (Evid. Dep. of Dick Camp) (Vol. II) Tr. 53,390-443 (7/20/84' (Disc. Dep. of Witness F) Tr. 34-72 (8/15/84) (Prefiled testimony o' D. Arthur Lo?idon) Tr. 14,621-71 (9/9/84) (Witness F)
- 8. Alleged Harassment By Ivan Vogelsang Tr. 55,650--679 (7/18/84 (Evid. Dep. of Witness F)
Tr. 77,017-200 (8/2/84 (Evid. Dep. of I.W. Vogelsang) (Vol. I) Tr. 76,101-164 (8/2/84) (Evid. Dep. of Dick Camp) (Vol. I) Tr.-74-84 (8/15/84) (Prefiled Tesimony of D. Arthur London) Tr. 14,671-89, 14,704-43 (9/9/84) (Witness F)
28 -
?
C. Alleged Harassment by Ken Luken 4 Tr. 55.680-86 t7/18/84) (Evid. Dep. of Witness F) Tr. 78,509-538 (8/3/84) (Evid. Dep. of Kenneth L. Luken) Tr. 76,164-181) (8/2/84) (Evid. Dep. of Dick Camp) (Vol. I) Tr. 84-88 (8/15/84) (Prefiled Testimony of D. Arthur London) D. Alleged Harassment By D. Arthur London Tr. 55,686-89,706 (7/18/82) (Evid. Dep. of Witness F) Tr.94-153 (8/15/84) (Pre'iled Testimony of D. Arthur London) Tr. 14,60P-21 (9/9/84) (Witness F) Tr. 14,697-704 (9/9/84) (Witness F) o ir
?
I i t e i 4 I
e ANALYSIS OF INTIMIDATION AND DISCRIMINATION AT COMANCHE PEAK , j_ Tt)4 )m1T)A1~10 N IN CI D EN T A a\ , O a) Nam h n.e, ,ts tosition
%%%and W duties
- hhof-person Ces subject es;. to intimidation; g .
_ j cf y c. W.(L WTO) b) Name, position and duties of person alleged to have intimidated; L r. w . A . -d M W-0iC & W
~
QU.k M n w > W > W'& C4. t W Q M ) - c) Names and positions of other persons either subject to or involved in the incident; QQ d Q _ g Q, er & fhXkel*) p uA: q. A O. 9 ' ' d) Area of work involved - welding, coatings, etc.; y ,.,_ o g e) Date and place of incident; Q wh m3 ,% VO O
, . , e-> ~MOYM% QM.o+<~l- W -_ s,. % .1 f) the nature of the statement or action; Mr,,..t. fe. x , W% n
+
h .. a i n e+-aba ab h-S 4 &% - 'i l
# N W 0 - M N h pal -rnM e d d c.,4 4 , 4
,u_ ...a, w- _ ~ y_
W & M "$_wcluk"lnL(M r4jamp .-@ oc [G-o w- --px ' u n c o % "~ Crv.aw y H k%A- m LU.way) ' '
" M cm W 9422 h -tG w e im M aA & w _>
g)
%fW ~ w %%m the intent of the person making the statement of taking the action; %
I Ak.+ o.4.- p% c~ hk lim W , enon u JA. tirt.A L , - D,A s 2 4,O2. &:L_ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ . - - - - . - - --- - ---
f
- I e.c s. C
( h) the perception of the recipient of the statement or action; and ko L 31,2 1. L A_ i) the positions of and relationship between the person making the statement or taking the action'and the recipient. AQ m Q CY h R, The effect of the statement on the recipient including any specific failures to report safety problems and the basis for the conclusion that the effect occurred. h ,# m e L 9 ms m hh_ oo r J vr h #h L r7L _ V1 c-t M v w . g
, , , , 1, ,, b Ak & <L eo,dA k ch . A > 0 m,L \a t JV C.
/W(s l Br$A ' '
0 4 b- '
$nn}s35 eh d t 'mtiktnk 4 5 t n* fr.nt bt )t hns' 8*"
- inhims'kehs'en/hntlesmt . hM6 y* L h odd .
. . . ~ - cui:., u k w ,/ n i n y .
> w. n2-D 1D -m AJ1_AhO ,eWAAh & Carn. 4) GL T
$nalL Q l nit '
Q NA ' M Y an dL ed. } ( Reference to documents where incident is described such as Investigation Reports, deposition,hearingtranscripts,etc.(title, dated,pages). or 4-84 a06 m rz. c_4 A a_ A.
% Adsrob N1at - d1.H h ~ M.= l k . W f eltr~ -
. . -. .. ~
a
,,o .) Ae
- E Ud' ..
. ANALYSIS OF INTIMIDATION AND D CRIMINATI AT COMANCHE PEAK J' Tgi ) rq ) D A 'T jo d . /. Al t i D E V 'T _ 30 \n W W wbA boss J 'mt, bb Sd Auk 4- a @c J U-spkQ . .
a) Name, position and duties of person subject to intimidation; _CPC du , ( h m\ ww NM 4 s m-A ', OM po d i -A \wMt
,, (( we J f ,'ne C e sh e i M J l f
b)
~
Name, position and duties of person alleged to have intimidated; d ,' lol Asen , Gam \f<ntd 2 cdh % , L.oods i u , c) Names and positions of other persons either subject to or involved in the incident; M yk M, q qp Wk Wgs -
' [gg i ko d M 4 k\
iwt Q e xd Le ye w. - ~ <> r , d) Area of work involved - welding, coatings, etc.; hb hh gnr$ ob,y v-
}
e) Date and place of incident;
)ql j ' pgQ no~ .an
~
f) thenatureofthestatementoraction;j[ g')k k,"~g (g [g [}$[tNN
& W GW %,nXa% en. k a L agd s,: k f ;
u ,A:A. mb % J-s , usM J h&wd ( wa e \en1 eay < c. -( - A~ c). g u, A wL1 i E et - L & sL.J4 w s d slook L u s 3 m ed I w,s s td <- \ w % s,A ud d m m . sb6 d~ g) wWe w4 h Qd ad h a & the intent of he person making the' statement of t ng the action; l { 6,X3 wA kn ou w lTd Ah asil f Lp % 9 c ~ _ ~ , s. Ao s% e ,hin g m ,o Mu . . .
a 1 ANALYSIS OF INTIMIDATION AND DISCRIMINATION AT COMANCH PEAK j' %)q ) ts\ 1 T) A T la N . l.A C l D EN T _ 0 \ W W sbA b ws d i d,_ A b wwl d u b 4-a9C J U-s p A.G , a) Name, position and iluttes of person subject to intimidation; Q) C /b, (_he\ w sd\ 6Lgno,di k [-A \wMth#,e d(- wel,"a I 4 4-u-e s 's~ A " A seh G ls g
- I g
b) Name, position and duties of person alleged to have intimidated; d,' Tol nim , Ghud YccAd .I (.db isu, L ,jod5 1 u c) Names and positions of other persons either subject to or involved ir. the incident; , Ahyk s .', q q p .,t k Wgs s bM i ko d - M55 4 n\ iw(NeM / LM be g4 4
)
ha hM, , d) Area of work invc1ved , welding, coatings, etc.; hl ki g g[ gnyf ob[y v-g e) Date and place of incident; ')q *)] { =-g,d p, k 3,s *
~
f) the nature of the statement or action; ( yh3 k, ~ q sy q }$ft $d T- W $R~~ bq d ahn gnewg . 6 driassd s,lsclkd ! t, AA NA % J-s , e,ts Q b b d (Jdt M ea) < ot AC A-Q. g 7.W.- wid W 9t - L & sLJ4w sd stod Lu s.A Acd w,s sta <- b % sA ud.4 m e . AA d~ W We s,A b d Rd b a A - ' g) the intent of he person making t statement of t ng the action; 4xa a u.o ;rs Ana w m ,c _ ~,s. A sh e iwag m ,a Mu ..
. . _ _ . , , . _ . - . . , . - - - + - - - - - . - --W
,9 *
't* , .
9 i
~~E s rne. - L in t A Octchcd is 4. 4'mv., - hv4 oe CPsE5 a h gec( 6tc't c'en.4s o-9 nd wwtdaN M sum-m.ait w'. & % treby keidah caMi a . Sohd b rack ch ([ ) tR4caAc e. e.md o ccu'r tn ov er eun. e x hdcd godto d o f 4tv% , ~0o C 3ma s c c. ) a ca _ ,,sa h-Ans -
1n s c4 a. I siwbe etxaW 6 ccurr eq/ ., l t W 6lb I
p _ _. -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . , _ _ - . .__ . ... __ _ .. _. .; . M
, R%
4 e 9 e i 4 5 63 3 [44$ 5 U Mvh t 4. M g 4.{. DSfb kN hx fav
! Ig 3Vt (dth} ( 6Cnv hkVK b '74 )
hh ' - 6! . . . 4 m e TAh t .- G e e ! teso O OO
. .. T*1 e9 Ar<4 '. D.54hcr :lu<. cue Wc%r,g ew 47 9 c Supr:rt t .
ewrd,. ' S bd5 1%y O.S Mnc:p Av J - 19S1 Toly B.$Macy: Teew'udh of B.$her Dec. f Tg Mesv Erl't:- y g &s I w b Idahey, y o. Od dnj Q,c. t'n sr<cke A .y.velve Roem w ~ li S t. c Tul y Sgt3 n.s w er Ccicy m rci % proper copying
~ Tuly- 54 FI 3.ShAq : blca b o eoh Scy 1 .n-ti
~
D.S?ancr: %3 meidA4 Se p f - tec. D.Shner: 14uressrnat to laR OcA D .S'Acr: WJd S yr,.bek m Decc.s
.r,
/ h bbm s Lb . y PreWN c G,.b.p Lgpa/go--
c.ory ail <r, (5tw m ;h )
- To.h Dec.
7
/
- h F
b Spf,$-hi Suw.nvry Neve7 er : Cur %V Tek tv4&d 3 kh<>5 F : Dick G.mp (E S-ko/RC-!/75 r i too.y -Dcc. i l co-+\;&)<J. w werscsurs); ,
I o.sumx- % cm,o Ade,g tw ue,c i -I Tune.
M 33 i v. u.- S - m et 1o\y t-, e miki : o.a. co.wm txp +.rAlcm x Ged ces t
u1.<+,.,
- p. .j
[4r4.T c T $ ki d dsc(c h t La k. Tum M. Gescry : hoe ew u-5%ewco
/794 z u w e.
! L c4< T u x , b lyJ d7 to. 6.u3ery i G E 5 Ruaw SLek ma Jely M C rg cc) s RO F 3 wise /< d l I l h O C C. . (
ABSTRACT Supplement 13 to the Safety Evaluation Report for the Texas Utilities Electric Company application for a license to operate Comanche Peak Steam Electric Sta-tion, Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-446), located in Somervell County, Texas, has been prepared by the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This Supplement provides the results of the evaluations of approximately cases of allegated intimidation and harassment of QA/QC employees at the Comanche Peak facility. Many of these have been addressed at recent Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearings. The Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel and a study team which served as consultants to the panel have reached a conclusion regarding individual incidents of alleged intimidation, the climate of intimidation at the Comanche Peak site, and the management implications of the intimidation issues. e c - - . .. - e,)y
S TABLE OF CONTENTS Pag ABSTP.ACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel and Advisors / Consultants for SSER Supplement 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX P - Status of the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel Evaluation of Allegations of the intimidation and harassment of QA/QC employees at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comanche Peak SSER 13
r - ---- - - - - - -- -- - 1 INTRODUCTION On July 14, 1981, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) (NUREG-0797) related to the application by the Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC) for a license to operate Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) Units 1 and 2. Subsequently, twelve supplemental Safety Evaluation Reports (SSERs) were issued by the staff. This report, Supple-ment No.13, is an SSER dealing with various allegations of intimidation and harassment of QA/QC employees at Comanche Peak. This report addresses approxi-mately 35 allegations of intimidation and harassment. Aopendix P to this report provides details of the evaluation and findings of these allegations by the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel. The allegations of intimidation and harassment at Comanche Peak were part of the regulatory issues that remained outstanding as construction of the Comanche Peak facility neared completion. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board pre-siding over the proceedings related to the CPSES operating license application had determined in March 1984, that it must address and resolve the allegations of intimidation and harassment in order to resolve the only remaining conten-tion (Contention 5) in the proceeding. The Board began its proceedings on the r intimidation and harassment issues in the Summer of 1984. In July 1984, consultants were retained by the Project Manager of the Comanche Peak Technical Review Team (TRT) to assemble a study team and review the record of intimidation and the work climate at the CPSES site, and to develop an expert opinion as to the existence of a climate of intimidation amoung QA/QC personnel I ( l t I Comanche Peak SSER 13 i
r __ at the site. Attachment 1 to Appendix P is the report, issued in September 1984, in which the study team concluded that a climate of intimidation did not exist at CPSES. Since the study team's effort did not include an independent assessment of individual incidents of alleged intimidation and did not include a review of all of the depositions, testimony and investigation reports relating to alleged intimidation incidents at CPSES, NRC management decided that the report would not constitute an overall assessment of the intimidation and harassment issue for CPSES, but that this report will be used as one input into the deter-mination of the intimidation and harassment issue. The study team was subsequently tasked to expand their effort to include all available information related to the intimidation issue. In a parallel effort the NRC's Executive Director for Operations (EDO) issued a directive on December 24, 1984, establishing a panel (Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel) to provide a position on the intimidation question to NRC upper management. The study team was subsequently brought into close communication with the intimi-dation panel and became consultants to the panel. Attachment 2 to Appendix P is a listing of the allegations of intimidation reviewed by the panel and the study team. Attachment 3 to Appendix P provides a supplement to the initial report of the study team and includes their evaluation of each alleged incident of intimidation. The Comancte Peak Intimidation Panel has reviewed the results of the consultant's evaluation and concurs with their findings. The recommendations of the intimi-6 dation panel are discussed in Section ;$g of Appendix P. Comanche Peak SSER 13 i
7 Management and coordination of all the outstanding regulatory actions for Comanche Peak are under the overall direction of.Mr. Vincent S. Noonan, the NRC Comanche Peak Project Director. Mr. Noonan may be contacted by calling 301-492-7903 or by writing to the following address: Mr. Vincent S. Noonan Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Copies of this Supplement are available for public inspection at the NRC's Pubile Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, D. C. 20555, and the Local Public Document Room, located at the Somervell County Public Library On The Square, P. O. Box 1417, Glen Rose, Texas, 76043. Availability of all material cited is described on the inside front cover of this report. i l Comanche Peak SSER 13 l l i I _ _ - _ _ . . .___ _ - - - _ _ -- - - - - - - - -
. -. -_ . - . . --- . - - - .- a The Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel and the Advisors and Consultants to the Panel are listed below:
Panel Members Axelrad, J. - Enforcement Staff, IE, NRC Gagliardo, J. - Technical Training Center, IE, NRC Hunter, D. - Reactor Projects Branch - 2, DRP, RIV, NRC Lieberman, J. - Regional Operations Enforcement Division, ELD, NRC Panel Advisors Griffin, B. - OI Field Office, RIV, 0I, NRC Ippolito, T. - Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, NRC Kaplan, 8. - EG&G Noonan, V. - Comanche Peak Project, NRR, NRC Scinto, J. - Hearing Division, ELD, NRC Treby, S. - Hearing Division, ELD, NRC The EG&G Study Team and their Consultants are listed below: Andognini, G. - Independent Consultant s Bowers, D - Rensis Likert Associates - Kaplan, B. - EG&G 7, , ,
~
Margulies, N. - Graduate School of Management, un'/versity of California
?.
at Irvine Rice, C. - LRS Consultants Stratton, W. - Idaho State University
/'
Comanche Peak SSER 13
a APPENDIX P STATUS OF STAFF EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF ALLEGATIONS OF INTIMIDATION AND HARASSMENT OF QA/QC PERSONNEL AT COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 Comanche Peak SSER 13
- 1. Introduction As construction of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station was nearing completion, issues that remained to be resolved prior to the consideration of issuance of an operating license were complex, resource intensive, and spanned more than one NRC office. To ensure the overall coordination and integration of these issues, and to ensure their resolution prior to licensing decisions; the NRC's Executive Director for Operations (EDO) issued a memo-randum on March 12, 1984, directing the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to manage all necessary NRC actions leading to prompt licensing decisions, and assigning the Director, NRC's Division of Licensing, the lead responsibility for coordinating and integrating the related efforts of various offices within the NRC.
The principal areas needing resolution before a licensing decision on Comanche Peak can be reached include: (1) the completion and documentation of the staff's review of the Final Safety Analysis . Report (FSAR); (2) those issues in contention before the NRC's Atomic Safety an'd Licensing Board (ASLB); (3) the completion of necessary NRC regional inspection actions; and (4) the completion and documentation of the staff's review of technical concerns and allegations , regarding design and construction of the plant. l l Only one contention (Contention 5) remained unresolved in the CPSES operating license application proceeding. Contention 5 alleges: l l Comanche Peak SSER 13
The Applicant's failure to adhere to the quality assurance / quality control provisiosis required by the construction permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and the requirements of Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50, and the construction practices employed, specifically in regard to (.oncrete work; mortar blocks; steel; fracture toughness testing; expansion joints; placement of the reactor vessel for Unit 2; welding; inspection and testing; naterials used; craft labor qualifications and working conditions (as they may affect QA/QC and training and organization of QA/QC personnel, have raised substantial questions as to the adequacy of the construction of the facility. As a result, the Commission cannot make the findings required by 10 CFR S 50.47(a) necessary for issuance of an operating license for Comanche Peak. The ASLB decided in March 1984, that in order to resolve Contention 5, it must address the allegations of intimidation and harassment. Prehearing conferences were held in June 1984; depositions were taken in July and August 1984; pre-hearing testimony was filed in August 1984, and the hearings commenced'on September 10, 1984. The hearings will continue after the issuance of this SSER. In July 1984, the Director of the Comanche Peak Project, who was also the Manager of the Technical Review Team (TRT), retained the services of a group of con-sultants to form a study team. The study team was tasked to investigate the work climate at the CPSES and develop an expert opinion as to whether or not a climate of intimidation was created by CPSES management among the QA/QC personnel. Attachment 1 is the study team's report (September 1984) which concluded that a climate of intimidation did not exist at CPSES. Since the study team's effort did not include an independent assessment of individual incidents of alleged intimidation and it did not include a review of all of the depositions, testimony and investigation reports relating to Comanche Peak SSER 13
.-- - - - - . . . . . . - . . - - . - - . . w intimidation issues at CPSES, NRC management decided that the report would not constitute the agency's position on intimidation and harassment issues at CPSES.
The report would, however, be used as one of the inputs into the agency's determination of the intimidation and harassment issues. The study team was subsequently tasked to expand their effort. The expanded effort would have the study team review all of the documentation available on the known cases of alleged intimidation. The additional documentation to be reviewed included depositions taken in July and August 1984, prehearing testimony filed in August 1984, transcripts of the hearings which began on September 10, 1984, and OI investigation and inquiry reports. Attachment 2 is a listing of the allegations of intimidation reviewed by the study team. As the Comanche Peak TRT neared the completion of its efforts, a decision was made by NRC management to establish a panel to evaluate the TRT findings and the findings of other inspection, review, and investigation efforts at CPSES and to determine the relationship between these findings and Contention 5 issues. Management also decided to have a panel of senior managers review and evaluate all intimidation and harassment issues to establish an agency position on intimidation at the CPSES site. On December 24, 1984, the ED0 issued directives establishing a Comanche Peak Contention 5 Panel and a Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel. The intimidation panel was tasked with providing NRC upper management with a position on the Comanche Peak SSER 13
intimidation question at CPSES. The intimidation panel and the study team were subsequently brought together to discuss their respective findings. Because the efforts of the two groups were duplicative, and the findings of the two groups were identical for those cases which were reviewed by both groups, it was decided to use the study team as consultants for the intimidation panel and to use the study team's findings as the basis of this report. Attachment 3 is the study team's supplemental report. This report supplements the original report (Attachment 1) and documents the results of the study team's review of the additional material provided to them after there initial effort. This report is the product of the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel's efforts to satisfy its charter (Attachment 4). The intimidation panel's charter required that the panel, (1) provide NRC upper management with a position on the intimidation question at CPSES, and (2) provide input to the Comanche Peak Contention 5 Panel. The panel's findings regarding individual incidents of intimidation are discussed in Section 3. The panel's findings regarding the climate of intimidation at CPSES and the management implications of the findings are provided in Section 4. Section 4 also addresses the actions required by the applicant to improve the confidence of CPSES employees in their management and dispell the detrimental effect of past actions which were either outright intimidating or were of a management style that would provide the right chemistry for future acts of intimidation. Comanche Peak SSER 13
J The incidents of intimidation may constitute potential violations of NRC rules and regulations. These potential violations have not been addressed in this SSER, but will be reviewed by the NRC Region IV staff. The Region IV staff will initiate the appropriate followup actions. Comanche Peak SSER 13
. . . . . .- . - - -- - .--- 2
- 2. Allegation Review Process 2.1 Definition The number one action item in the intimidation panel's charter was to define the criteria for determining if an incident involved actions that constitute intimidation or harassment. The panel looked for definitions of intimidation and harassment which may have been used for other cases. Definitions of intimidation had been offered by the parties to the hearing during the pre-hearing conference. The Enforcement Staff of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement had developed a definition for harassment and discrimination in a previous enforcement action (EA-83-132) involving Comanche Peak.
The study team had also defined intimidation in its September 1984 report (Attachment 1). The panel also obtained the definition of intimidation used b the Office of Investigation in their investigations. The panel found that none of the above definitions appeared to collectively satisfy the judgment of the panel members as to what elements must exist to have an act of intimidation. After much discussion and deliberation the panel agreed to the following definitions of intimidations, harassment and discrimination: Intimidation or Harassment: Incidents, statements or other actions that are reasonably likely to influence employees to refrain from performing safety-related work in accordance with requirements or identifying or reporting quality discrepancies or safety problems. Discrimination: The showing of prejudice in the treatment of employees for performing safety-related work or reporting quality discrepancies or safety problems to their management or to the NRC. The showing of prejudice may include adverse actions such as discharge or other actions that relate to the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Comanche Peak SSER 13
m These definitions were used by the panel in determining incidents of intimidation. The study team also used this definition in their supplemental review of the alleged incidents of intimidation. It is noted that the major point of departure of these definitions from those of other sources is that under the above definition, for an act of intimidation to have occurred, it is not necessary for the intimidated person to actually do something contrary to requirements, or to refrain from performing an action in accordance with requirements. The criteria calls for a judgment as to whether or not the action is reasonably likely to influence an employee to take an action that is contrary to a requirement. Under other definitions the " thick skinned" employee may never be influenced to violate requirements, but the same actions may cause another reasonable errployee to violate requirements because of fear of reprisals. The other definitions had restricted acts of intimidation to those against only QC inspectors. The intimidation panel's definition expands the definition of intimidation to actions directed toward any individual who performs quality activities. Therefore actions which would influence a craftsman to do quality related construction activities that are contrary to requirements (procedures or specification) or to refrain from reporting known deficienc'es has been intimidated. Comanche Peak SSER 13 1
_ _ _ __ a 2.2 Documentation Reviewed . The intimidation panel and the study team reviewed all of the documentation available for the alleged incidents of intimidation. The documents that were reviewed included:
- a. Transcripts of the ASLB hearings on intimidation issues,
- b. Selected transcripts of ASLB hearings on technical issues related to the alleged intimidation incidents,
- c. Depositions taken in July and August 1984 prior to the intimidation hearings,
- d. Prefiled testimony of witnesses called into the intimidation hearings,
- e. Selected transcripts of followup interviews conducted by the TRT staff,
- f. OI investigation and inquiry reports related to the alleged intimidation incidents,
- g. Department of Labor Transcripts related to the alleged discrimination against a CPSES QC inspector.
2.3 Review Format In performing the review of the alleged intimidation events the intimidation panel considered a number of factors related to the event. These factors included:
- a. The position /s and duties of the person or persons subject to the alleged intimidation event; Comanche Peak SSER 13
. . - - ...=.: = = - . -
- b. The position /s and duties of other persons involved in the alleged intimidation event such as fellow workers or observers;
- c. The position and duties of the person or persons alleged to have intimidated the subjects and tha relationship (supervisor - employee, etc.) between the alleged intimidator /s and the recipient /s of the intimidating action;
- d. The date and place of the alleged intimidating event and the area of work involved (welding, coatings, etc.);
- e. The perceived or implied intent of the person or persons taking i
the alleged intimidating action; and
- f. The perceptions of the recipient (person /s being intimidated) of the recipient (person /s being intimidated) of the alleged i intimidating action.
2.4 Panel Review and Discussion After the intimidation panel had been formed and the definitions and review format had been established, the panel began its efforts to determine the scope of the overall task. In the Section of the Charter (Attachment 4) entitled,
" Action Items", the appropriate data base for the review was listed and included:
- a. The study team report (Attachment 1);
- b. Enforcement packages issued by IE that related to the alleged i
intimidation events;
- c. Depositions taken by the parties to the hearings;
- d. The proposed finding on the Comanche Peak intimidation issues that were filed by the parties to the hearings; t
Comanche Peak SSER 13 i
a
- e. Transcripts of the ASLB hearings related to the intimidation issues;
- f. OI reports of investigations and inquiries into alleged intimidation events; and
- g. Transcripts of the Department of Labor hearings into issues of intimidation, harassment and discrimination.
To assist in this effort the staff coun$gelintheseproceedingsprovidedthe panel with copies of the proposed findings of fact that had been filed by each party to the proceedings and with a listing of the deposition, transcript and other references related to each of the intimidation issues before the ASLB (this was not a complete listing of the issues). , The panel was also briefed by the OI investigator involved in the investigation of CPSES intimidation issues. He also provided each of the panel members with a copy of the investigation and inquiry reports that had been issued on the alleged intimidation events that were investigated by OI. Since the volume of the data base was much too large to be reviewed by each of the panel members in a reasonable time, the panel decided to divide the review among each of the panel members. Each member was assigned a number of alleged intimidation events and was tasked with the responsibility to review all of the available material applicable to their assigned events using the format in Section 2.3 ,as guidance. Upon completion of the reviews, each panel member Comanche Peak SSER 13 1
- . . . - .. - - - . . . . - - -- - - - - - d was to discuss with the panel during a scheduled panel meeting, the details of each assigned event, the. result of his/her review, and any issues associated with the events. The panel was then to make a collegial decision as to whether or not the event constituted an act of intimidation as defined in Section 2.1.
The panel began its review of the provided data in late December 1984 and began the collegial review uf the findings in February 1985. i 2.5 Interaction With Study Team As the review and evaluation of the data proceeded, the panel became aware of the parallel efforts of the study team which was now operating under its expanded charter. A decision was made to have a combined meeting of the intimidation panel and the study team to compare preliminary findings. The intimidation panel and the study team met on February 15, 1985. At that time the intimidation panel had completed about one-third of its reviews and the study team had essentially completed the review of the material assigned to them. During the discussions between the two groups, it was found that for those events which had been reviewed by both groups, similar conclusions were drawn. When this fact was communicated to the NRC management having responsibility for the efforts of the intimidation panel and the study team, it was decided to adopt the panel's recommendations and discontinue the duplication of effort and to have the study team function as consultants to the intimidation panel. The Comanche Peak SSER 13
a study team's effort was to be further expanded to include a review of additional intimidation data (they had not reviewed all of the OI reports) and their supple-mental and initial reports would be used as the basis for this SSER. The study team was provided with the additional OI reports on intimidation that had not been reviewed by them. This material was reviewed and the results of the review were included in their supplemental report. The study team and intimidation panel met on several occasions (in person or by conference call) to discuss the findings and review the study team's reports. The product of these efforts is Attachment 4 and represents the collective posi-tion of the study team.
- 3. Conclusions 3.1 Study Team Conclusions The study team performed a detailed review of all of the data available for each of the alleged intimidation events listed in Attachment 2. The conclusions of the study team for each of these events is documented in Appendix 8 of the Study Team's Supplemental Report (Attachment 3). As noted in Section 2.5 above, the intimidation panel had several discussions with the study team regarding their findings. For those events which had also been reviewed in detail by the panel, the panel's conclusions were similar to those of the study team.
Ccmanche Peak SSER 13
The discussions enabled the-intimidation panel to have an understanding of the other events and the basis for the study team's conclusion. It is noted that although the intimidiation panel did not review the "other events" in detail, the panel members had reviewed enough of the material related to these events to have a working knowledge of the events. The intimidation panel fully endorses the findings of the study team. 3.2 Events / Documents Not Reviewed by the Study Team 3.2.1 Discussion There were five alleged or suspected incidents of intimidation that were reviewed by the intimidation panel and not by the study team. Three of these events were reviewed by only the intimidation panel because they were forwarded to the panel late in the review process, and the preliminary review by the panel chairman resulted in his determination that the alleged or suspected events were not significant enough to require a review by the study team. These events were subsequently reviewed and discussed by the panel which concurred in this decision. The other two events were documented in OI investigation reports. Because of the sensitive nature of the material in the OI reports, it was decided that copies of these documents would not be provided to non-NRC employees, but could be reviewed in the OI offices in Bethesda, MD. Since the study team was com-posed of consultants, they were not provided with copies of these documents, and since the study team members lived and worked in the western half of the country, it was not practical to bring them in to Bethesda for the review. Comanche Peak SSER 13
The intimidation panel reviewed the investigation reports. The results of that review are discussed below. The panel also reviewed an investigation report that had not been provided to the study team, but involved an intimidating event which had been reviewed by the study team using the other available data. The results of the panel's review of this report is also discussed below. 3.2.2 Intimidation Panel Conclusions A description of each event and the findings of the intimidation panel are dis-cussed below.
- a. On January 15, 1985 the Comanche Peak Project Director forwarded to the intimidatior, panel a portion of the transcript of the deposition of a former CPSES QC inspector (Mr. Houser). The material was for-warded to the panel at the suggestion of the Chairman of the ASLB.
During the deposition Mr. Mouser stated that he had informed Mr. Tolson (TVEC QA Manager) as to how he and his fellow workers were going to review and verify individual DCAs (Design Change Authorizations) and CMCs (Component Modification Cards). Mr. Tolson became upset and told them, "No. That's not the way I want it done." Mr. Houser and his supervisor w'ent back to Tolson, and Tolson agreed to allow them to do the review as they had originally proposed. This incidents does not constitute an act of intimidation, because there is no evidence that Mr. Tolson's action might have caused a reasonable individual to do something that was contrary to existing requirements, and he changed his position at the urging of his employees. Comanche Peak SSER 13
- .- - -. a
- b. On January 28, 1985 the Comanche Peak Project Director forwarded to the intimidation panel a portion of the transcript of Mr. Mouser's deposition in which he alleged that an OI investigator had apparently disclosed confidential information to the applicants. There was nothing in this material that could be linked to an event of intimidation, c.
- d. OI Investigation Report 4-83-013 was the report of an investigation to determine if QC inspectors were intimidated by the termination, by Brown & Root, of a former QC inspector (Charles Atchison). The investigator interviewed 76 past and current QC inspectors at CPSES. Only one of the inspectors said that he had been intimi-dated at CPSES, but none of them indicated having failed to report a deficiency or document a nonconforming condition. Three of them did indicate that they were more careful in their inspection and NRC writing after Atchison's termination. The QC inspector who indicated that he had been intimidated said there had also been attempts to intimidate him directly, and he named other QC inspectors who had been intimidated. The QC inspectors he named were interviewed and denied that they had been intimidated. The results of the other interviews tended to question the credibility of the QA inspector who said he had been intimidated.
Comanche Peak SSER 13
. o The intimidation panel concludes that the facts presented in this investigation report do not support a finding that other workers were intimidated by the firing of Mr. Atchison.
- e. OI Investigation Report 4-84-006
- f. OI Investigation Report 4-83-001 documented the OI investigation of the alleged intimidation of Mr. Bill Dunham's supervisor (Harry Williams) who had threatened to terminate QC painting inspectors who continued to " nit pick." The investigation report added nothing to the other information that was made available to the study team regarding this event. The study team and the intimidation panel have concluded that this event did constitute an act of intimidation and the above investigation report supports that conclusion.
3.3 TRT Finding In The Area Where Intimidation Occurred On March 21, 1985 the intimidation panel met with the team leaders and other selected members of the TRT to determine if technical concerns had been found in those areas in which the panel had found intimidation events to have occurred. The following is the list of identified events of intimidation as reported in Attachment 3 followed t,y the TRT findings for each of the areas in which the intimidation occurred: Comanche Peak SSER 13
1 4 (1) D. Stiner - Weave Welding on Pipe Supports. This area was examined by both Region IV and the TRT. Neither group could substantiate the allegations made by Ms. Stiner. (2) D. Stiner - Circuit Breaker Article There is no technical area associated with this intimidating event. (3) W. Dunham - Intimidation of Coatings Inspectors The TRT Coatings Group found that the inspection procedures in this area were inadequate and that the QC inspectors had missed the big picture and were not findin0 the pinholes in the coatings, They did find a higher than normal percentage of faulty coatings, but could not conclude that it could be attributed to the inspectors having been intimidated. (4) W. Dunham - Termination The higher than normal percentage of faulty coatings at CPSES may be linked to this intimidating event, but there is insufficient information to indicate that this was a major or contributing cause. (5) 5. Neumeyer - Liner Plate Traveller Incident The QA/QC Team of the TRT did find a concern in the documentation of this area (see writeup on AQ-55 and AQ-78 in SSER-11), but the Civil / Structural Group found no significant problem in liner plate welds (see AC in SSER-8). Comanche Peak SSER 13
. , . 0 (6) C. Allen - ALARA and DCA Reviews This issue was addressed in AQ0-36 of SSER-9. The Coatings Team of the TRT found approximately eight discrepancies were significant. The generic impli-cations of the allegation is being reviewed as part 1
of the applicant's corrective action plan for TRT findings. (7) C. Allen - Detergent on Coated Surface The TRT Coatings Team reviewed this issue and deter-mined that the detergent on the coatings was not a detriment to the coatings. (8) C. Allen - Cigarette Filter Incident This issue was reviewed by the TRT Coatings Team (see AQ0-17 in SSER-9) and they concluded that small amounts of water and oil in the paint would have had no impact on its adherence properties. Large quantities of water and oil would have been obvious to a trained QC inspector. (9) T-Shirt Incident The T-Shirt incident was addressed by the QA/QC Team (see AQ-46 in SSER-11) and the Electrical Team (see E'ectrical Category No. 5 in SSER-7). Neither j team could find any indication that the incident had a negative impact on their areas. l l l l Comanche Peak SSER 13
(10) S. Neumeyer - Stanford Incident The TRT found no problem with the documentation of the welds in question in this allegation, but there was a question as to whether or not the non-destructive testing of the welds had been performed.
- 4. Management Implications 4.1 Climate of Intimidation In Attachments 1 and 3, the study team concluded that there was no climate of intimidation at CPSES. Based on the definition of " Climate of Intimidation" used by the study team, the intimidation panel agrees witn that conclusion.
The panel agrees that with the small number of intimidation events for a large site like CPSES, it would be difficult to argue that there was pervasive incidence of intimidation. The intimidation panel is concerned, however, that the management style at CPSES (to be addressed in Section 4.2) establishes a work environment in which the right chemistry exists for intimidation (actual or perceived) to occur given the right set of circumstances. This is an area that needs immediate attention and is addressed in Section 5. l 4.2 Management Style InAttachments1and3,thestudyteamaddr3sseqthemanagementstyleandinter-3.3 ei=4 3.i AM(40 'M i face problems (See Sections 3 ) as indicated by the depositional data and the survey data. The intimidation panel is also concerned about the apparent autocratic / bureaucratic style in the behavior of CPSES management. Comanche Peak SSER 13
. -. . . - - . - . - _ . -. D
, . 'o During the interchanges with TRT personnel (Section 3.3) the panel was informed that the TRT personnel observed an atmosphere characterized by the employees' f- . w i man,... i t t CS ES, T e concerns expressed by the TRT members, and the collective finding of the stud team and the intimidation panel, dictate need for action on the parts of TUEC ma ement. If the findings of TRT, Regio V, ASLB, NRR, and others indicate that U *t 1 has been safely constructed and c be licensed, the intimidation panel r ommends that action must be taken to ssure that the management style of the EC organization which is charged wi the operation of Unit 1, and the organizat n charged with the continued constr tion of Unit 2, must be changed to one w ich will provide the most assurance .f safety.
- 5. Action Required
- The Comanche Peak Intim' ation Panel cannot rovide "the solution" to the concern of management style discus d in Section 4.2. There is one solution, such as the replacement of one or re people, or a reorganizati , that will turn ound the problems of the past d instill a " safety first" a itude throughout the rganization with no more fear distrust of management. T 's cannot be done ov rnight. It will require a grea deal of study of the organ zation itself, of he strengths and weaknesses o the people in the organiza ion, and of the attitu s of the organization and the individuals in the organiz tion.
The panel is not argu g for tieing management's ands. Management has every
\\
\
right to expect performa e from its work force, and efforts to meet reasonable performance goals are also the public good. But the achievement of a performance goal can never just y a shortcut that will impact on safety. Comanche Peak SSER 13
--d , e ality requirements and specifications are established to assure the safety of t public and in this industry they ca not be ignored. The entire organi-zation m t know this and be reminded of this ften, and any actions of an individual o group of individuals which communi te another message must be dealt with promp for all to see. The intimidati panel recommends that an independent study be nitiated to identify the long ra e program for developing such an atmosphere at C S. In the interim, management st take an objectivo look at the past problems a take whatever reasonable steps re necessary to change the attitudes cf managem t and employees alike and esta lish, and hold fast to, a " safety first" goal. Th e efforts must also be direc d at estab-lishing trust between the employees an anagement. Therecanbenogfearof reprisals for anyone who identifies safety neerns. This is to be the case for the QC inspectors but also for the craftsme who, because they are human, will occasionally make a mistake. They must know at they will not face reprisals because they admit their errors and take mea res to correct them.
l Comanche Peak SSER 13
a
. .* 'o Sh c.$3C T '# 8 fear of man ement at CPSES. iwm m. d.r . ki ; a non union project' MT*" Y there is no'iniernal' grievance system,so that each employee holds his or her position at the whim of management. If there is such a system, there is no. indication from the record that it was effectively used.
In sum, it is the panel's view that the atmosphere created by the management style at the CPSES facility does not necessarily lead to
, improper construction or quality control. We assume that many projects have been built with an unquestior'ng autocratic management style.
...ever, it is the view of the panel that an important ingredient for an tffective!0A progra- to monitor the quality of construction is an atmosphere where employees may freely raise safety related concerns to an interested management W.'e it is clear that employees did raise concerns even those makirg allegations of intimidation, there was a
.y . Serceptionfether valid or not,that some management did not truly want to heat h .crns ner did they always pro ide adequate explanations to questioning e yees. , his is not to say,every employee has valid concerns. L . '- tu b ,n ,, ? :t hires, trains, and directs the Altsv'a b i 4 O W employee, I.f the company is go ng e keep the em%yee in a responsible - ib position, it must te .atisfied the v ,'.cyee understands his or her job. A
. l id It cannot'kqep thq emhoyee n. ceauetin, ar 4re;porsible Ng position gn and not g provMMg J M78 6% bh h r. S tt gg f,+,*g W e.1 ploy' 7; adequate*gcxplana'tions,l S d s.i gwlf. 4k
'to e-do sott'ku.
erfins
--6e not cary ^ ~ "^ carry,', cut the e(xpected ' ' ' d . pan.
> bttte.,
cannot conclude i that the company's management t;le contribt in er, 3 way to the quality assurance issues at Comanche Peak. Poor r- t, training, management direction eculd also have caused or contt *ec *.o the qualit) assurance issues.
, . . . *n 3
- 5. Action; Recommended The concerns expressed by some TRT participants and the collective findings of the stu .eam and the intimidation panel fuggest a need for action by TUEC management. The panel recommends that action should be taken to assure that the management style of the TUEC organization is conducive f6r a quality project. There is no one course of action is recommend such as.the replacement of one or more managers,or a
. _ reorgenization,or changing procedures to develop an internal grievance
~
aracedurel f or changing the attitudes and perctptions of the past. A Licensee's management should take an objective look at the past incicents described in this SSER as well as the current situation at the
- i site h outs eeindependentcensultantiCappropriatekandtakesteps as net :sary to assure a quality first attitude its management and
.mn
- ) erployees.gT h4% c"
- .,rts should be directed at establishing trust
.! F-Detween ..t r icyee: and management to eliminate any fear of reprisals for anyone whc drentifies safety concerns ce questions safety pre - :;. I i... In makin; these recorrrendations it is important to reiterate that the panel is r.r - 1rg there is a pervasive climate of fear or that the I ' licensee's management style in fact contribu**d to quality issues. But recprd as aptions of :ome T' giventneexamplesdescribedinthqbd hIitVtf "T
. f tctbers 2 % pw;tl
'N . : *-
' c - t ' ',, '. % . ,<
~ '-
-='~ ~ 'E) a concerned tranagement would ' ".5: pH 'r take aggressive and dynamic acticn to :o and crase any questir'i of a potential problem of intiftidation or harrassment.
% st 4 M A.Al h
,,V.
~l dr /u 41,s ', s n \ As4 m s., , _
Io od T s T. 6\ - is s.{ oldktks N co mw M s 5" * ' b N 4 '),h,ih&h, '
~
Ed --6, 14 So n ba sn ,gporzenrL m we, 1 equaot 7% c _ -su , o 1 b W Tt9
%/B
9 Draft 2 - 5/22/85 ABSTRACT Supplement 13 to the Safety Evaluation Report for the Texas Utilities Electric Company application for a license to operate Cemanche Peak Steam Electric Sta-tion, Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-445,50-446), located in Somervell County, Texas, has been prepared by the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel of the U". S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This Supplement provides the results of the evaluations of approximately __ cases of allegated intimifation and harassment
, of QA/QC employees at the Comanche Peak facility. Many cf these have been addressed at recent Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearings. The Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel and a study team which served as consultants to the panel have reached a conclusion regarding individual incidents of alleged intimidation, the climate of intimidation at the Comanche Peak site, and the management implications of the intimidation. issues, C
Comanche Peak SSER 13
-. w 9
Oraft 2 - 5/22/85 e TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . ... ......................
The Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel and Advisors / Consultants for SSER Supplement 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX P - Status of the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel evaluation of allegations of the intimidation and harassment of QA/QC employees at Comanche Peak Steam Electric
~
Station, Units 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comanche Peak SSER 13 ,
7-
. v' ~
, ,. }
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS - AEC - U. S. Atomic Energy Commission ALARA - As Low As Reasonably Achievable ANI - Authorized huclear Inspector ASME - American Society of Mechanical Engineers B&R - Brown & Root, Inc.
~
~~'
CAR - Corrective Action Request CASE - Citizens Association for Sound Energy CAT - Construction Appraisal Team (NRC) , CFR - Code of Federal Regulations CMC - Component Modification Cards CP Comanche Peak CP - Construction Permit CPSES - Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station DCA - Design Change Authorization DCC Document Control Center (TVEC) DL - Division of Licensing (NRC) DRP - Division of Reactor Projects (RIV/NRC) EA - Enforcement Action EDO - Executive Director for Operations'(NRC) ELD - Office of Executive Legal Director (NRC) ES - Extraction Steam e FSAR - Final Safety Analysis Report 7 GAP - Government Accountability Project GED - General Equivalency Diploma ' G&H - Gibbs & Hill IE INPO Office of Inspection and Enforcement-(NRC) Institute for Nuclear Power Operations
/.
IR - Inspection Report (NRC) JTG - Joint Test Group (TUEC) MCC - Motor Control Center (GE) MD - Maryland State ' N/A - Not Applicable NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration ' NCR - Nonconformance Report (TVEC) NDE - Nondestructive Examination NDT - Nondestructive Testing NERVA - Nuclear engine for rocket vehicle application , NOV Notice of Violation (NRC) NRC - U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR - Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRC) e NSSS - Nuclear Steam Supply System ,' . Comanche Peak SSER 13
OI - Office of Investigations (NRC) 0JT - On-the-job training OL - Operating License PSAR - Preliminary Safety Analysis Report ,, QE - Quality Engineer QA - Quality Assurance QES - Quality Engineering Systems . QAI - Quality Assurance Investigation (TVEC) QC Quality Control RES - Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (NRC) RFIC - Request for information or clarific& tion (B&R) RG - Regulatory Guide (NRC) RIV - NRC Region IV Office ROF - Reduction of Force SER - Safety Evaluation Report (NRC) SSER - Safety Evaluation Report Supplement SWA - Startup Work Authorization 10 CFR 50 - Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 50 Tr - Transcript
~
TRT .- . Technical Review Team (NRC) TUEC - Texas Utilities Electric Company TUGC0 - Texas Utilities Generating Company TUSI - Texas Utilities Service, Inc. UCLA - University of California at Los Angeles \ Comanche Peak SSER 13
. . ~ - . -
. Draf?. 2 - 5/22/85 1 INTRODUCTION On July 14, 1981, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) (NUREG-0797) related to the application by the Texas Utilities Electric Company (TVEC) for a license to operate Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) Units 1 and 2. Subsequently, twelve supplementa'l Safety Evaluation Reports (SSERs) were issued by the staff. This report, Supple-ment No. 13, is an SSER dealing with various allegations of intimidation and harassment of QA/QC employees at Comanche Peak. This report addresses approxi-mately 35 allegations of intimidation and harassment. Appendix P to this report provides details of the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel's evaluation of these allegations and the panel's findings.
~
The allegations of intimidation and harassment at Comanche Peak were part of the regulatory issues that remained outstanding as construction of the Comanche Peak facility neared completion. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Bc rd pre siding over the proceedings related to the CPSES operating license application had determined in March 1984 that it must address and resolve the allegations of intimidation and harassment to resolve the only remaining contention (Contention 5) in the proceeding. The Board began its proceedings on the intimidation and harassment issues in the summer of 1984. j In July 1984, consultants were retained by the Project Manager of the Comanche Peak Technical Review Team (TRT) to assemble a study team and review the record of allegations of. intimidation and the work climate at the CPSES site, and to develop an expert opinion as to the existence of a climate of intimidation amoung Comanche Peak SSER 13 l
.- . . . . - A Draft 2 - 5/22/85 QA/QC personnel at the. site. Attachment I to Appendix P is the report, issued in September 198",, in which the study team concluded that a climate of intimidation did not exist at CPSES. Since the study team's effort did not include an inde-pendentassessmentofindividualincidentsofallegedintimidationanddidnol include a review of all of the depositions, testimony and investigation reports relating to alleged intimidation incidents at CPSES, NRC management decided that the report would not constitute an overall assessment of the intimidation and harassment issue for CPSES, but %at this report would be used as one input into the resolution of the intimidation and harassment issue.
The study team was subsequently directed to expand its effort to include all available information related to the intimidation issue. In a parallel effort the NRC's Executive Director for Operations (EDO) issued a directive on ~ December 24, 1984, establishing a panel (the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel) to provide a position on the intimidation question to NRC upp'er management. The study team was subsequently brought into close communication with the intimidation panel and became consultants to the panel. Attachment 2 to Appendix P is a listing of the allegations of intimidation reviewed by the panel and the study team. Attachment 3 to Appendix P provides a supplement to the initial report of the study team and includes its evaluation of each alleged incident of intimidation. The Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel has reviewed the results of the consultant's evaluation and concurs with its findings. The recommcndations of the intimi-dation panel are discussed in Section 5 of Appendix P. Comanche Peak SSER 13
0 Draft 2 - 5/22/85 Management and coordination of all the outstanding regulatory actions for Comanche Peak are under the overall direction of Mr. Vincent 5. Noonan, the NRC Cocanche Peak Pro,iect Director. Mr. Noonan may be contacted by calling 301-492-7903 or by writing to the following address:
~
Mr. Vincent S. Noonan Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Copies of this Supplement are available for public inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, D. C. 20555, and the
~
Local Public Document Room, located at the Somervell County Public Library On The Square, P. O. Box 1417, Glen Rose, Texas, 76043. Availability of all material cited is described on the inside front cover of this report. e i 1 ak SSER 13
-. . . - - - - . . . . .w Draft 2 - 5/22/85 The Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel and the Advisors and Consultants to the Panel are listed below:
Panel Members Axelrad, J. - Enforcemer,t Staff, IE, NRC Gagliardo, J. - Technical Training Center, IE, NRC Hunter, D. - Reactor Projects Branch - 2, DRP, RIV, NRC Lieberman, J. - Regional Operations Enforcement Division, ELD, NRC Panel Advisors Griffin, B. - OI' Field Office, RIV, 01, NRC Ippolito, T. - Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, NRC Kaplan, B. - EG&G Noonan, V. - Comanche Peak Project, NRR, NRC Scinto, J. - Hearing Division, ELD, NRC Treby, S. - Hearing Division, ELD, NRC The EG&G Study Team and their Consultants are listed below: . Andognini, G. - Independent Consultant Bowers, D - Rensis Likert Associates Kaplan, B. - EG&G Margulies, N. - Graduate School of Management, University of California at Irvine Rice, C. - LRS Consultants Stratton, W. - Idaho State University 1
- Comanche Peak SSER 13
~
l t
. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . . a '. Draft 2 - 5/22/85 e
APPENDIX P STATUS OF STAFF EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF ALLEGATIONS OF INTIMIDATION AND HARASSMENT OF QA/QC PERSONNEL AT COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 i l { Comanche Peak SSER 13
D Draft 2 - 5/22/85 l
- 1. Introduction As construction of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station was nearing completion, issues that remained to be resolved prior to the consideration of issuance of an operating license were complex, resource intensive, and spanned more than one NRC office. To ensure the overall coordination and integration of these issues, and to ensure their resolution prior to licensing decisions, the NRC's Executive Director for Operations (EDO) issued a memo-randum on March 12, 1984, directing the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to manage all necessary NRC actions leading to prompt licensing decisions, and assigning the Director, NRC's Division of Licensing, the lead responsibility for coordinating and integrating the related efforts of various offices within the NRC.
~
The principal areas needing resolution before a licensing decision on Comanche Peak could be reached included: (1) the completion and documentation of the staff's review of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR); (2) those issues in contention before the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB); (3) the completion of necessary NRC regional inspection actions; and (4) the completion and documentation of the staff's review of technical concerns and allegations regarding design and construction of the plant. Only one contention (Contention 5) remained unresolved in the CPSES operating license application proceeding. Contention 5 alleges: l Comanche Peak SSER 13
_ ._ _ ._. . . _ _ _ _ _ ._ s
- e The Applicant's failure to adhere to the quality assurance /
quality control provisions required by the construction permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and the requirements of Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50, and the construction practices employed, specifically in regard to concrete work; mortar blocks; steel; fracture toughness testing; expansion joints; placement of the reactor vessel for Unit 2; welding; inspection and testing; materials used; craft labor qualifications and. working conditions (as they may affect QA/QC and training and organization of QA/QC personnel, have raised substantial questions as to the adequacy of the construction of the facility. As a result, the Commission cannot make the findings - required by 10 CFR 5 7(a) necessary for issuance of an operating license for Comanche Peak. The ASLB decided in March 1984, that in order to resolve Contention 5, it must address the allegations of intimidation and harassment. Prehearing conferences were held in June 1984; depositions were taken in July and August 1984; pre-hearing testimony was filed in August 1984, and the hearings commenced on September 10, 1984. The hearings will continue after the issuance of this SSER. In July 1984, the Director of the Comanche Peak' Project, who was also the Phnager of the Technical Review Team (TRT), retained the services of a group of con-sultants to form a study team. The study team was tasked to investigate the work climate at the CPSES and develop an expert opinion as to whether or not a climate of irtimidation was created by CPSES management among the QA/QC personnel. Attachment 1 is the study team's report (September 1984) which concluded that a climate of intimidation did not exist at CPSES. Since the study team's effort did not include an independent assessment of individual incidents of alleged intimidation and it did not include a review of all of the depositions, testimony and investigation reports relating to e Comanche Peak SSER 13
intimidation issues at CPSES, NRC management decided that the report would not constitute the agency's position on intimidation and harassment issues at CPSES. The report would, however, be used as one of the inputs into the agency's determination of the intimidation and harassment issues. ., The study team was subsequently directed to expand its effort to review all of the documentation available on the known cases of alleged intimidation. The additional documentation to be reviewed included depositions taken in July and August 1984, prehearing testimony filed in August 1984, transcripts of the hearings which began on September 10, 1984, and OI investigation and inquiry reports. Attachment 2 is a listing of the allegations of intimidation reviewed by the study team. As the Comanche Peak TRT neared the completion of its efforts, a decision was made by NRC management to establish a panel to evaluate the TRT findings and the findings of other inspection, review, and investigation efforts at CPSES and to determine the relationship between these findings and Contention 5 issues. Management also decided to have a panel of senior managers review and evaluate all intimidation and harassment issues to establish an agency position on intimidation at the CPSES site. On December 24, 1984, the EDO issued directives establishing a Comanche Peak Contention 5 Panel and a Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel. The intimidation panel was tasked with providing NRC upper management with a position.on the l Comanche Peak SSER 13 l t l l
a
. Draft 2 - 5/22/85 intimidation question at CPSES. The intimidation panel and the study team were subsequently brought together to discuss their respective findings. Because the efforts of the two groups were duplicative, and the findings of the two groups
~
were identical for those cases which were reviewed by both groups, it was decided to use the study team as consultants for the intimidation panel and to use the study team's findings as the basis of this report. Attachment 3 is the study team's supplemental report. This report supplements the original report (Attachment 1) and documents the results of the study team's review of the additional material provided to them after there initial effort. his report is the product of the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel's efforts to satisfy its charter (Attachment 4). The intimidation panel's charter required that the panel, (1) provide NRC upper management with a position on the intimidation question at CPSES, and (2) provide input to the Comanche Peak Contention 5 Panel. The panel's findings regarding the alleged intimidation issues are summarized in Section 3. The panel's findings regarding the climate of intimidation at CPSES and the management implications of the findings are provided in Section 4. Section 5 addresses the actions required by the appli-cant to improve the confidence of CPSES erapioyees in their management and dispell the detrimental effect of past actions which were either outright intimidating or were of a management style that would provide the right chemistry for future acts of intimidation. C i Comanche Peak SSER 13
w Draft 2 - 5/22/85 The incidents of intimidation may constitute potential violations of NRC rules and regulations. These potential violations have not been addressed in this SSER, but will be reviewed by the NRC staff for the appropriate followup actions. Comanche Peak SSER 13
,,~-r,.-,. , ~- +
Oraft 2 - 5/22/85
- 2. Allegation Review Process 2.1 Definition The first item in the Intimidation Panel's charter was to define the criteria for determining if an incident involved actions that constitute intimidation or harassment. The panel examined several definitions of intimidation including (1) these offered by the parties to the hearing during the prehearing canference; (2) a definition of harassment and discrimination developed by the Enforcement Staff of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement in a previous enforcement action (EA-83-132) involving Comanche Peak; (3) the study team's definition intimidation used in its September 1984 report (Attachment 1); and (4) the definition of intimidation used by the Office of Investigation in their investi-gations. The panel found that none of the above definitions appeared to collec-tively satisfy the judgment of the panel members as to what elements must exist to have an act of intimidation.
After discussing the various definitions the panel agreed to the following definitions of intimidations, harassment and discrimination: Intimidation or Harassment: Incidents, statements or other actions that are reasonably likely to influence employees to refrain from performing safety-related work in accordance with requirements or identifying or reporting quality discrepancies or safety problems. Discrimination: The showing of prejudice in the treatment of employees for performing safety-related work or reporting quality discrepancies or safety problems to their management or to the NRC. The showing of prejudice may include adverse actions such as discharge or other actions that relate to the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. e Comanche Peak SSER 13
- -- .. . . _ - - . _ P Draft 2 - 5/22/85 These definitions were used by the panel in evaluating specific incidents of intimidation. The study team also used this definition in its supplemental review of the alleged incident: of intimidation.
The major point of departure of the above definitions from those of other sources is that under the above definition, the intimidated person need not have actually done something contrary to requirements, or have refrained from performing an action in accordance with requirements. The criteria call for a judgment of whether the action was reasonably likely to influence an employee to take an action that is contrary to a requirement. Under other definitions the " thick skinned" employee might never be influenced to violate requirements, but the same actions could cause another reasonable employee to violate require-ments because of fear of reprisals. The other definitions addressed only intir,idating acts against QC inspectors. The intimidation panel's definition includes actions directed toward any
~
individual who performs quality activities. Therefore, actions which would influence a craftsman to do quality related construction activities that are contrary to requirements (procedures or specifications) or to refrain from reporting known deficiencies may be considered intimidating.
$ yf *"d N3 Ym MAu w % . 4 k * (X N M % k s'd d',,
;, AA m ma c._ s w sqwis.L w2 n wsd u ass.-a,k pc.,
& 4.mW, 4, so _tns 6{ ao -q-( '
bN
- 5. -tM ; m g M 'il 40 NM 3.A J A B tusd ys Ccmanche Peak SSER 13 ' '""
t Qa , sal}'f)0'^ c, - Y'.
___ _ _ . _ . ___ - _ _ . s . Draft 2 - 5/22/85 2.2 Documentation Reviewed The intimidation panel and the study team reviewed all of the documentation available for __ alleged incidents of intimidation. The documents that were reviewed included:
- a. Transcripts of the ASLB hearings on intimidation issues,
- b. Selected tr.anscripts of ASLB hearings on technical issues related to the alleged intimidation incidents,
- c. Depositions taken in July and August 1984 prior to the intimidation hearings,
- d. Prefiled testimony of witnesses called into the intimidation hearings,
- e. Selected transcripts of followup interviews conducted by the TRT staff,
- f. OI investigation and inquiry reports related to the alleged intimidation incidents,
- g. Department of Labor Transcripts related to the alleged discrimination against a CPSES QC inspector.
2.3 Review Format In performing the review of the alleged intimidation events the intimidation panel considered a number of factors related to the event. These factors included:
- a. The position /s and duties of the person or persons subject to the alleged i.ntimidation event;
- O Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 2 - 5/22/85
- b. The position /s and duties of other persons involved in the alleged intimidation event such as fellow workers or observers;
- c. The position and duties of the person or persons alleged to have intimidated the subjects and the relationship (supervisor - employee, etc.) between the alleged intimidator /s and the recipient /s of the intimidating action;
- d. The date and place of the alleged intimidating event and the area of work involved (welding, coatings, etc.);
- e. The perceived or implied intent of the person or persons taking the alleged intimidating action; and
- f. The perceptions of the recipient iperson/s being intimidated) of the alleged intimidating action.
~
2.4 Panel Review and Discussion After the intimidation panel had been formed and the definitions and review format had been established, the panel began its efforts to determine the scope of the overall task. In the Section of the Charter (Attachment 4) entitled,
" Action Items", the appropriate data base for the review was listed and included:
- a. The study team report (Attachment 1);
- b. Enforcement packages issued by IE that related to the alleged intimidation events;
- c. Depositions taken by the parties to the hearingt;
- d. The proposed finding on the Comanche Peak intimidation issues that were filed by the parties to the hearings; Comanche Peak SSER 13
. Draft 2 - 5/22/85
- e. Transcripts of the ASLB hearings related to the intimidation issues; '
f. 0I reports of investigations and inquiries into alleged intimidation events; and
- g. Transcripts of the Department of Labor hearings into issues of intimidation, harassment and discrimination.
To assist in this effort the staff counsel in these proceedings provided the panel with ccpies of the proposed findings of fact that had been filed by each party to the proceedings and with a listing of the deposition, transcript and other references related to each of the intimidation issues before the ASLB (this was not a complete listing of the issues). The panel was also briefed by the OI investigator involved in the investigation o' CPSES intimidation issues. He also provided each of the panel members with a copy of the investigation and inquiry reports that had been issued on the alleged intimidation events that were investigated by OI. Since the volume of the data base was much too large to be reviewed by all of the panel members in its entirety within a reasonable time, the panel decided to divide the review responsibility between the panel members. Each member was assigned a number of alleged intimidation events and was given the responsibility to review all of the available material applicable to their assigned events using the format in Saction 2.3 as guidance. Upon completion of the reviews, each panel member was to discuss with the panel during a scheduled panel meeting, the details e Comanche Peak SSER 13
_. - .- . . - ~ . - .- . Draft 2 - 5/22/85 of each assigned event,. the result of his/her review, and any issues associated with the events. The panel was then to make a collegial dacision as to whether or not the event constituted an act of intimidation as defined in Section 2.1. The panel began its review of the provided data in late December 1984 and began the collegial review of the findings in February 1985. , 2.5 Interaction With Study Team As the review and evaluation of the data proceeded, the panel became aware of the parallel efforts of the' study team which was now operating under its expanded charter. A decision was made to have a combined meeting of the intimidation panel and the study team to compare preliminary findings. The intimidation panel and the study team met on February 15, 1985. At that time, the intimidation panel had completed about one-third of its reviews and the study team had essentially completed its review of the material assigned to them. During the discussions between the two groups, it was found that for
~
those events which had been reviewed by both groups, similar conclusions were drawn. When this fact was communicated to the NRC management having responsibility for the efforts of the intimidation panel and the study team, it was decided to adopt the panel's recommendations and discontinue the duplication of effort and to have the study team function as consultants to the intimidation panel. The Comanche Peak SSER 13
= . . Draft 2 - 5/22/85 study team's effort was to be further expanded to include review of additional intimidation data (they had not reviewed all of the OI reports) and their supple-mental and initial reports would be used as toe basis for this SSER.
The study team was provided with the additional OI reports on intimidation that had not been reviewed by them. This material was reviewed and the result's of the review were included in their supplemental report. The study team and intimidation panel met on several occasions (in person or by conference call) to discuss the findings and review the study team's reports. The product of these efforts is Attachment 4 and represents the collective posi-tion of the study team.
- 3. Conclusions 3.1 Study Team Conclusions The study team performed a detailed review of all of the data available for each of the alleged intimidation events listed in Attachment 2. The conclusions of the study team for each of these events is documented in Appendix B of the Study Team's Supplemental Report (Attachment 3). As noted in Section 2.5 above, the intimidation panel had several discussions with the study team regarding their findings. For those events which had also been reviewed in detail by the panel, the panel's conclusions were similar to those of the study team.
i i e l l Ccmanche Peak SSER 13
. Draft 2 - 5/22/85 The discussions enabled the intimidation panel to have an understanding of the other events and the basis for the study team's conclusion. It is noted that although the intimidiation panel did not review the "other events" in detail, the panel members had reviewed enough of the material related to these events" to have a working knowledge of the events. The intimidation panel fully endorses the findings of the study team.
3.2 Events /Decuments Not Reviewed by the Study Team 3.2.1 Discussion There were five alleged or suspected incidents of intimidation that were reviewed by the intimidation panel and not by the study team. Three of these events were reviewed by only the intimidation panel because they were forwarded to the panel i late in the review process, and the preliminary review by the panel chairman resulted in his determination that the alleged or suspected events were not significant enough to require a review by the study team. These events were subsequently reviewed and discussed by the panel which concurred in this
~
decision. The other two events were documented in OI investigation reports. Because of the sensitive nature of the material in the OI reports, it was decided that copies of these documents would not be provided to non-NRC employees, but could be reviewed in the OI offices in Bethesda, MD. Since the study team was com-posed of consultants, they were not provided with copies of these documents, and since the study team members lived and worked in the western half of the country, it was not practical to bring them in to Bethesda for the review. Comanche Peak SSER 13
Q
= .
Draft 2 - 5/22/85 ; Tne intimidation panel reviewed the investigation reports. The results of that review are discussed below. The panel also reviewed an investigation report that had not been provided to the study team, but involved an intimidating event which had been reviewed by the study team using the other available data. The results of the panel's review of this report is also discussed below. 3.2.2 Intimidation Panel Conclusions A description of each event and the findings of the intimidation panel are dis-cussed below.
- a. On January 15, 1985 the Comanche Peak Project Director forwarded to the intimidation panel a portion of the transcript of the deposition of a former CPSES QC inspector (Mr. Mouser). The material was for-warded to the panel at the suggestion of the Chairman of the ASLB.
~
During the deposition Mr. Mouser stated that he had informed Mr. Tolson (TUEC QA Manager) as to how he and his fellow workers were going to review and verify individual DCAs (Design Change Authorizations) and CMCs (Component Modification Cards). Mr. Tolson became upset and told them, "No. That's not the way I want it done." Mr. Mouser and his supervisor went back to Tolson, and Tolson agreed to allow them to do the review as they had originally proposed. This incident does not constitute an act of intimidation, because Mr. Tolson's action was not likely to have caused a reasonable individual to do something that was contrary to existing requirements, and he changed his position at the urging of his employees. e Comanche Peak SSER 13
[.'- , Draft 2 - 5/22/85
- b. On January 28., 1985 the Comanche Peak Project Director forwarded
,tc the intimidation panel a portion of the t.anscript of Mr. Mouser's deposition in which he alleged that an OI investigator had apparently disclosed confidential information to the applicants. There was -
nothing in this material that could be linked to an event of intimidation by CPSES individuals. C. ', g(W i n i o t5
~ L&,
- d. OI Investigation Report 4-83-013 was the report of an investigation to determine if QC' inspectors were intimidated by the termination, by Brown & Root, of a former QC inspector (Charles Atchison). The investigator interviewed 76 past and current QC inspectors at ,
CPSES. Only one of the i'nspectors said that he had been intimi-dated at CPSES, but none of them indicated having failed to report d' fN a deficiency or document a nonconforming condition. Three of %d ne Nt them did indicate that they were more careful in their inspection hellf nuyg Q and NCR writing after Atchison's termination. The QC inspector ** who indicated that he had been intimidated said there had also Y*Nbe.W5 been attempts to intimidate him directly, and he named other QC inspectors who had been intimidated. The QC inspectors he named were interviewed and denied that they had been intimidated. The results of the other interviews tended to refute the statement of the QA inspector who said he had been intimidated. Comanche Peak SSER 13
.~.
)
t Y s 3s,, s.3 4 4a d dt 4 A
%ss sse (d e<Q Nu 3
& 5er n w t- su
~ ~
N% 11PhM .. A I"3b D Y M Q a y;,_.44 oy gg( _ .ma -o-m o e ap , , _ dis sscas jwfgi try 7en SM R _Si e ~ ~p 1 o,Ad f 6 h "A _ . _ . _ -Am J e
%)
( - . l . - l l
r Draft 2 - 5/22/85 l The intimidation panel concludes that the facts presented in this investigation report do not support a finding that other workers were intimidated by the firing of Mr. Atchison.
- e. OI Investigation Report 4-84-006 C\ ( W ^
'1 % &
f. OI Investigation Report 4-83-001 documented the OI investigation of the alleged intimidation of Mr. William Dunham's supervisor (Harry Williams) who had threatened to pull the certification and in effect terminate QC painting inspectors who continued to
" nit pick." The investigation report added nothing to the other :
information that was made available to the study team regarding this event. The study team and the intimidation panel have , concluded that this event did constitute an act of intimidation I and the above investigation report supports that conclusion. 'I 3.3 TRT Findings In Those Areas Where Intimidation Occurred
- On March 21, 1985 the intimidation panel met with the team leaders and other selected members of the TRT to determine if technical concerns had been found in those areas in which the panel had found intimidation events to have occurred.
The following is the list of identified events of intimidation as reported in Attachment 3 followed by the TRT findings for each of the areas in which the intimidation occurred: o Comanche Peak SSER 13
r Draft 2 - 5/22/85 (1) D. Stiner - Weave Welding on Pipe Supports. This area was examined by both Region IV and the TRT. Neither group could substantiate the technical allegations made by Ms. Stiner. (2) D. Stiner - Circuit Breaker Article There is no technical area associated with this intimidating event. (3) W. Dunham - Intimidation of Coatings Inspectors The TRT Coatings Group found that the inspection - procedures in this area were inadequate and that the QC inspectors had missed the big picture and were not finding-the pinholes in the coatings. They did find a higher than normal percentage of faulty coatings, but could not conclude that it could be attributed to the inspectors having been intimidated. . (4) W. Dunham - Termination The higher than normal percentage of faulty coatings at CPSES may be linked to this intimidating event, but there is insufficient information to indicate that this was a major or contributing cause. (5) 5. Neumeyer - Liner Plate Traveller Incident The QA/QC Team of the TRT did find a concern in the documentation of this area (see writeup on AQ-55 and AQ-78 in SSER-11), but the Civil / Structural Group found no significant problem in liner plate welds (see AC in SSER-8). l
- Comanche Peak SSER 13
I
. Draft 2 - 5/22/85 (6) C. Allen - ALARA and DCA Reviews This issue was addressed in AQ0-36 of SSER-9. The Coatings Team of the TRT found approximately eight discrepancies were significant. The generic impli-cations of the allegation are being reviewed as part of the applicant's corrective action plan for TRT findings.
(7) C. Allen - Detergent on Coated Surface The TRT Coatings Team reviewed this issue and deter-mined that the detergent on the coatings was not a detriment to the coatings. (8) C. Allen - Cigarette Filter Incident This issue was reviewed by the TRT Coatings Team (see AQO-17 in SSER-9) nnd they concluded that small amounts of water and oil in the paint would have had no impact on its adherence properties. Large quantities of water and oil would have been obvious to a trained QC inspector. (9) T-Shirt Incident The T-Shirt incident was addressed by the QA/QC Team (see AQ-46 in SSER-11) and the Electrical Team (see Electrical Category No. 5 in SSER-7). Neither team could find any indication that the incident had a negative impact on their areas. e Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 2 - 5/22/85 (10) 5. Neumeyer . Stanford Incident The TRT found no problem with the documentation of the welds in question in this allegation, but there was a question as to whether or not the non-destructive testing of the welds had been performed.
- 4. Management Implications 4.1 Climate of Intimidation In Attachments 1 and 3, the study team concluded that there was no climate of intimidation at CPSES. ,
Based on the definition of " Climate of Intimidation" used by the study team, the intimidation panel agrees with that conclusion.
~
The panel agrees that the small number of intimidation events at a large site like CPSES suggests that intimidation was not pervasive. The intimidation
. panel is concerned, however, that the management style at CPSES (to be addressed
~
in Section 4.2) establishes a work environment in which the right chemistry exists for intimidation (actual or perceived) to occur given the right set of circumstances. This is an area that needs immediate attention and is addressed in Section 5. 4.2 Management Style la Attachments 1 and 3, the study team addressed the management style and inter-face problems (See Sections 3.3 and 3.4 respectively) as indicated by the depositional data and the survey data. The intimidation panel is also con-cerned about the apparent autocratic / bureaucratic style in the behavior of j CPSES management. Comanche Peak SSER 13
f, **
- Draft 2 - 5/22/85 During the interchanges with TRT personnel (Section 3.3) the panel was informed
- na; the TRT personnel observed an atmosphere characterized by the employees' fear of management at CPSES. Since CPSES is a non-union project there is apparently no internal grievance system, so that each employee holds his or her position at the whim of management. If there is such a system, there is
~
no indication fr.om the record that it was effectively used. In sum, it is the panel's view that the atmosphere created by the management style at the CPSES facility does not necessarily lead to improper construction or quality control. We assume that many projects have been built with an unquestioning autocratic management style. However, it is the view of the panel that an important ingredient for an effective QA program to moni. tor the quality of construction is an atmosphere where employees may freely raise safety
~
related concerns to an interested management. While it is clear that employees did raise concerns, even those making allegations of intimiation, there was a perception, whether valid or not, that some management individuals did not truly want to hear concerns nor did they always provide adequate explanations to questioning employees. This is not to say that every employee has valid concerns. The utility hires, trains, and directs the activities of the employee, but if it . is going to keep the employee in a responsible position, it must be satisfied that the employee understands his or her job. It cannot keep the employee in a responsible position and not provide adequate explanations regarding his/her concerns. Failure to do so invites an employes attitude of not caring which will result in the employee not carrying out the expected job. The panel cannot conclude, however,. that the company's management style contributed in any way to the quality assurance issues at Comanche Peak. Poor procedures, training, management direction could also have caused or. contributed to the quality e assurance issues. Comanche Peak SSER 13
- - ,.s--
. - - - - - A o , .
1* A Draft 2 - 5/22/85 '
- 5. Action Recommended The concerns expressec ey some TRT participants and the collective findings of the study team and the intimidation panel suggest a need for action by TUEC anacement. The panel recommends that action should be tak6n to assure that ' .
the management style of the TUEC organizatiori is conduciv$ to assuring a quality project. There is no one course of action such as the replacement of one or more managers, or a reorganization, or changing procedures to develop'an internal grievance procedure that is recommended for changing the attitudes and p rceptions
^
of the past. Licensee's management should take an objective look at the past incidents described in this'SSER as well as the current situation at the site.and take steps as necessary to assure a quality first attitude by its management and employees. The use of outside independent consultants may be appropriate and should be considered. The overall efforts should be directed at establishing , trust between the employees and management to eliminate any fear of reprisals for anyone who identifies safety concerns or questions safety procedures. In making these recommendations it is important to reiterate that~the panel is not saying there is a pervasive climate of fear or that the licensee's manage - ment style in fact contributed to quality issues. But given the examples' des-cribed in the record and perceptions of some TRT members,the panel believes that a concerned management would take aggressive and dynamic action to avoid and erase any question of a potential problem of intimidation or harassment. l ,- Ccmanche Peak SSER 13 l
' ' j f p - C )3 l
ANALYSIS OF INTIMIDATION AND DISCRIMINATION AT C0fMNCHE PEAK
./
TA/q3rti)1)ATfoA/ " '* OI { / A/ C l D E N I _
- r. M L ( 'T 0 )h 3q 'I d 6 'I GM W /I T ' o n of C H Ad LEs A TC# 1 Io d a)
Name, position and duties of person subject to intimidation; hwd o 76 CTws,f V +/ As m8 h -
) -, , ,
NN b) Name, position and duties of person alleged to hav 4 dts A h Lis,. . L // Fo d ,u d ki A/IM N , t,, u g , , n ,} c) Names and positions of other persons either subject to or involved in the incident; " " S "' * * * ( fM M C I"f , Ib bl7US, Y)L -n ) \ S w s('\ ' \ g og /j Sp)g Q f Z,q kg S() S& y a d) Area of work involved - welding, coatings, etc.; e) Date and place of incident; 'A /
/
I f) the nature of the statement or action; /) ,,,m n f o s s c[, ) bf 7 p ll,s fq, 4 . v3 M L. k hsi V , kt- 5 M - Q M g; g, gn p , n , %. ,
<L a s snik l e l', s - s' t I'i 0 >- <1 lad i coma 4 hT, LN"1 M n e r,, tk O 3 as sa a p6,im&s a( et > < y - aerU ~,w l.m 4 9 *sJa ~ 8 4k d kr< i h J t f ce j h f it v m1,M s dt A W . nis w. 4 s itnc'hl M'n f nri Ah d 'n f ce,$l d41Fr.4 d 4 > rso s A.4 t L.N AAn-)4 5 re,41 h H %/ M k,. d 4 t's A16,J.1/,l"Qa,',~3(d Lf ign4 /., A , 79 c b o,, L ,, Jo - e r se:4 HLJ T -c. n f a rt t ui v l-. cners #H f
% , t ti ( ( N A.- g y(' &gcss t f Don t hi; h-ss % l, . 6 q4) 3 /W,d A;s tidic,'e >,ca wens nd M,~ c o A .u t Ve d Je nu wi - p.Ae s nwr o n s r @, l % nel -ntin Ma J oqs / t q q n,, J o[
>u (A w M.u t le ($ cr cf,a!, sI, ',rW
% ea: A h ~ ,.
- r. , i he i. . . ,t i m > <t 4 ,. ;f L . .;i d n S ~4,,/ -/.
,aW am iv c. A ba ~o 1-id no* v 6- ! Lo p ,-g w. .,
J . e) g) u y O n 4 ~ d h the 1ntent of the person,d m L. 3! n . TLg4 4'-) Mm L.( n s t v<hp,;
,. [ '
',;{O l (y ,d , _ .e q ));,..
s, c. makingthestatementoftakingthea}ction; / ,4,'97
.. a w4 ..e -..a.* _ - g . c--u w - # 4 -*,-e-. -- -, u. # u- a 4
e ,e + Q: I' 4
. ,y \
1 e,
')
n$ v (._ \dd k\h . l. y Qrgh' kqhDJk e %d w .@,c un idanud o.f sal 4 au s i & -sMu ; 4,ad cdd edtko e s%d 4R., nd,k)wWr(
- 4t $png Lol gn, ~
$ ?"N ;- ,\ i b4 hu
, c- Tne l 6 H wu e daal a "d > ) e g,hel1A kzu % e6 u t,t 3 ,
%' " ^ ] S i I, '
n een%. L; -f,)s( cJona od and WR ild s
% 'U$ sA M esi a,\d.m1.aray w a mi a-),n1.He e,a ml eh SQuh\
.A im 4 kd Se',h1 A.clw es mr(
w s. J %s.k %b(J , .ea c4 s m 3 as R.d 'nt a w4 d co g , go d h, 9et1 wsd t, I s- + 4 ensfi W cl- v l. e rm hea t ..c 4-. m ms st . ye 01( e ,J . 4 , ., n,fgd J t \o ss i l fonk 4 L,s , y c, s, t il i ,53t d oil +- C
- U 'd d ,
a ss se,a w ,- s e1.c'A bl,f/,1,. aa > <, A w ea 34 b,-sm -A ,c4 n.,%m.a " % bs.4 1,a ~/d 3 l $ d & ,_ _ We s,s cad acltl b A4,L n o.J e s n ,4 4 l, r :k.M, % ners
<9 % c, M -}L d k ~ Y. d 'M i~i bedd '
Mc b 5 =- ba
- % g,a a wM m i ao-o s d Le4 ett-and lil ",
a o m Js Fal saa k L1 w.m W 'd4Un 'ao i d i ve ., \ .,A mb d ,a
, ,i d
_1&,ovuni$ts thh L'L U d , i Ls W ., ' l.l '\ ',c,$ p'y,(4 d ih ~fh 1
, b' 7'"krifnI 6 d Atcd
--. n .
L nn Mcn b A$']:d 4 fGs1v,Vd*d k,h~'rd? 1 (
'~k' X.r ,lll ,au & c.J'lu h sd v ,;,,.ec.b k.1hal+ ?
- 7. n . , a s'
h) the h kerception
\ %d kof the recipient of the statement or action; and ind, ge['s psd on ws \ ', t.
\M hsn k a nse d 43m snN '3 2 'im ,h een L m4 i) the positions of and relationship between the person making the statement or taking the action'and the recipient.
? The effect of the statement on the recipient including any specific failures to report safety problems and the basis for the conclusion that the effect occurred. 4 a 3- MnA}sts3s eh d nt 'mdktnk 4 5 no 7n nt t 3t h ni i n k , k , M ,e , /% a n n w .d . ' 1, Reference to documents where incident is described such as Investigation Reports, deposition, hearing transcripts, etc. (title, dated, pages).
Draft 3 - 6/10/85 9
. ABSTRACT r
Supplement 13 to the Safety Evaluation Report for the Texas Utilities Electric Company application for a license to operate Comanche Peak Steam Electric Sta-tion, Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-446), located in Somervell County, " Texas, has been prepared by the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel of the U. S. Nuclear Ragulatory Commission. This Supplement provides the panel's evaluations , of approximately 33 cases of allegated intimidation and harassment of quality assurnce/ quality control (QA/QC) employees at the Comanche Peak facility. Many of these cases have been addressed at recent Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearings. The Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel and a study team which served , as consultants to the panel concluded that ten of the alleged incidents did l met the criteria for intimidation, but the panel and study team did not find , pervasive incidents of intimidation. The panel did find that the mangement Co a ld style at CPSES creates a work environment which lead / to intimidation. I l iii l Comanche Peak SSER 13 1 11 .
e ' Oraft 3 - 6/10/85 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii
- 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
- 2. THE COMANCHE PEAK INTIMIDATION PANEL AND ITS ADVISORS AND CCNSULTANTS.2-1 APPENDIX Q - Status of the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel Evaluation of Allegations of the Intimidation and Harassment of QA/QC Employees at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q-1 v
Comanche Peak SSER 13
t I ACRONYMS AND ASBREVIATIONS AEC - U. S. Atomic Energy Commission ALARA - As low As Reasonably Achievable ANI - Authorized Nuclear Inspector ASLB - Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ASME - American Society of Mechanical Engineers B&R - Brown & Root, Inc. CAR - Corrective Action Request CASE - Citizens Association for Sound Energy CAT - Construction Appraisal Team (NRC) CFR - Code of Federal Regulations CMC - Component Modification Cards CP - Comanche Peak CP - Construction Permit CPSES - Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station DCA - Design Change Authorization DCC - Document Control Center (TVEC) DL - Division of Licensing (NRC) DRP - Division of Reactor Projects (RIV/NRC) EA - Enforcement Action EDO - Executive Director for Operations (NRC) ELD - Office of Executive Legal Director (NRC) 4 ES - Extraction Steam FSdR - Final Safety Analysis Report GAP - Government Accountability Project GED - General Equivalency Diploma G&H - Gibbs & Hill IE - Office of Inspection and Enforcement (NRC) INP0 - Institute for Nuclear Power Operations IR - Inspection Report (NRC) JTG - Joint Test Group (TUEC) MCC - Motor Control Center (GE) MD - Maryland State N/A - Not Applicable NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration NCR - Nonconformance Report (TVEC) Nondestructive Examination NDE NDT - Nondestructive Testing NERVA - Nuclear engine for rocket vehicle application NOV - Notice of Violation (NRC) NRC - U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR - Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRC) l NSSS - Nuclear Steam Supply System vii Comanche Peak SSER 13
t I e- , OI - Office of Investigations (NRC) OJT - On-the-job training OL - Operating License PSAR - Preliminary Safety Analysis Report QE Quality Engineer QA Quality Assurance QES Quality Engineering Systems QAI Quality Assurance Investigation (TVEC) QC Quality Control RES - Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (NRC) RFIC - Request for information or clarification (B&R) RG - Regulatory Guide (NRC) RIV - NRC Region IV Office ROF - Reduction of Force SER - Safety Evaluation Report (NRC) SSER - Safety Evaluation Report Supplement SWA - Startup Work Authorization 10 CFR 50 - Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 50 Tr - Transcript TRT - Technical Review Team (NRC) TUEC - Texas Utilities Electric Company TUGC0 - Texas Utilities Generating Company TUSI - Texas Utilities Service, Inc. UCLA - University of California at Los Angeles viii Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 3 - 6/10/85 0 1 INTRODUCTION On July 14, 1981, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) (NUREG-0797) related to the application by the Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC) for a license to operate Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) Units 1 and 2. Subsequently, twelve supplemental Safety Evaluation Reports (SSERs) were issued by the staff. This report, Supple-ment No. 13, addresses approximately 33 allegations of intimidation and harass-ment of QA/QC employees at Comanche Peak. Appendix Q to this report provides details of the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel's evaluation of each allegation and the panel's findings. The allegations of intimidation and harassment at Comanche Peak were part of the regulatory issues that remained outstanding as construction of the Comanche Peak facility neared completion. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board pre-siding over the proceedings related to the CP5ES operating license application
-hee determined in March 1984 that it must address and resolve the allegations of intimidation and harassment to resolve the only remaining contention (Contention 5) in the proceeding. The Board began its proceedings on the intimidation and harassment issues in the summer of 1984.
In July 1984, the Project Manager of the Comanche Peak Technical Review Team (TRT) directed a team of consultants to review the record of allegations of intimidationandtheworkclimateattheCPSESsitetodetermineMejer[a climate of" intimidation existed among QA/QC personnel at the site. Their report, 1-1 Comanche Peak SSER 13
e Oraft 3 - 6/10/85 issued in September 1984, concluded that a climate of intimidation did not exist d.h U CH? - at CPSES (See Attachment 1 to this Appendix). Since the study team did not inde-pendently assessh individual incidents of alleged intimidation and did not a OZ review all W itiem +erti eny and investigation. reports relating to alleged intimidation incidents at CPSES, the NRC TRT recognized that the report did not constitute an overall assessment of the intimidation and harassment issue, but
'd that would contribute to resolution of the intimidation and harassment issue, te M W v4 h of The study team was sub cqucatly dir h c exp rd its review W nclude all available information related to the intimidation issue. In a parallel effort, NRC's Executive Director for Operations (ED0) issued a directive on December 24, 1984, establishing the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel to provide its findings on intimidation to NRC management. The study team subsequently became con-sultants to the Intimidation Panel. Attachment 2 to this Appendix is a listing of intimidation allegations reviewed by the panel and the study team.
Attachment 3 to this Appendix is a supplement the study team's initial report and includes its evaluation of each alleged incident of intimidation. The Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel has reviewed the results of this evaluation and concurs with its findings. The recommendations of the Intimidation Panel are discussed in Section 5 of this Appendix. 1-3 Comanche Peak SSER 13
_ m. _ . . _ ___ _ - . _ _ .. _ _
, -i Draft 3 - 6/10/85 i Management and coordination of all the outstanding regulatory actions for Comanche Peak are under the overall direction of Mr. Vincent S. Noonan, the NRC Comanche Peak Project Director. Mr. Noonan may be contacted by calling 301-492-7903 or by writing to the following address:
Mr. Vincent S. Noonan Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 1 1 Copies of_this Supplement are available for public inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, D. C. 20555, and the Local Public Document Room, located at the Somervell County Public Library On The Square, P. O. Box 1417, Glen Rose, Texas, 76043. Availability of all material cited is described on the inside front cover of this report. r 4 4 i 1-5 - t , Comanche Peak SSER 13 l 1
-. . . . . . , _ , .. . - - , . . , . - ~ , , , _ _ . - , . . . . , .,,. .,__-w.,.m,..-,__.,__......__,
--mm.__,-,,_..-,- ....-.--m,m., -_ - _ - . . ,
Draft 3 - 6/10/85
- 2. THE COMANCHE PEAK INTIMIDATION PANEL AND ITS ADVISORS AND CONSULTANTS Panel Members Axelrad, J. -
Enforcement Staff, IE, NRC Gagliardo, J. - Technical Training Center, IE, NRC Hunter, D. - Reactor Projects Branch - RIV, NRC Lieberman, J. - Regional Operations Enforcement Division, ELD, NRC Panel Advisors Griffin, B. - OI Field Office, RIV, 01, NRC Ippolito, T. - Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, NRC Kaplan, B. - EG&G Noonan, V. - Comanche Peak Project, NRR, NRC Scinto, J. - Hearing Division, ELD, NRC Treby, S. - Hearing Division, ELD, NRC The EG&G Study Team and Its Consultants: Andognini, G. - LRS Consultants Bowers, D - Rensis Likert Associates Kaplan, B. - EG&G Margulies, N. - Graduate School of Management, University of California at Irvine Rice, C. - LRS Consultants Stratton, W. - Idaho State University 2-1 Comanche Peak SSER 13
Oraft 3 - 6/10/85 APPENDIX Q STATUS OF STAFF EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF ALLEGATIONS OF INTIMIDATION AND HARASSMENT OF QA/QC PERSONNEL AT COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 t l l l Comanche Peak SSER 13 l l
,,,,,___------~.~,,,,,-...-..~---*-e_ -
Oraft 3 - 6/10/85 TABLE OF CONTENTS P390 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q-1
- 2. AllegationReviewProcess......................Q-f 2.1 Definition...........................Q-6' 2.2 Documentation Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g-7 2.3 Review Format. ........................
9_q 2.4 PanelReviewandDiscussion...................g-p 2.5 InteractionwithStudyTeam...................g)-lo
- 3. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 -11 3.1 Study Team Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9 - Il 3.2 Events and Documents Not Reviewed by the Study Team. . . . . . . Q-/L 3.2.1 Discussion..................... 9 - 12. 3.2.2 Intimidation Panel Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - f2. 3.3 TRT Findings in Those Areas Where Intimidation Occurred.
. . . . g, g
- 4. ManagmentImplications........................$"/4 4.1 ClimateofIntimidation.....................q-/f 4.2 ManagementStyle........................g-/[
- 5. Action Recommended. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........g-17 Q-fii Comanche Peak SSER 13
o Draft 3 - 6/10/85
- 1. INTRODUCTION As construction of the. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station was nearing completion, issues that remained to be resolved prior to the consideration of issuance of an operating license were complex, resource intensive, and spanned more than one NRC office. To ensure the overall coordination and integration of these issues, and to ensure their resolution prior to licensing decisions, the NRC's Executive Director for Operations (E00) issued a memo-randum on Marcn 12, 1984, directing the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to manage all necessary NRC actions leading to prompt licensing decisions, and assigning the Director, NRC's Division of Licensing, the lead responsibility for coordinating and integrating the related efforts of various offices within the NRC.
The principal areas needing resolution before a licensing decision on Comanche Peak could be reached included: (1) the completion and documentation of the staff's review of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR); (2) those issues in contention before the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB); (3) the completion of necessary NRC regional inspection actions; and (4) the completion and documentation of the staff's review of technical concerns and allegations regarding design and construction of the plant. To evaluate and resolve the technical concerns and allegations regarding design and construction of the plant, a Technical Review Team was formed. On July 9, 1984, the TRT began its 10-week (five 2-week sessions) onsite effort, ircluding interviews ~of allegers and TUEC personnel, to determine the validity of the technical concerns and allegations, to evaluate their safety significance, and Q-1 lomanchePeakSSER13
Draft 3 - 6/10/05 to assess their generic implications. The TRT consisted of about 50 technical specialists from NRC Headquarters and NRC Regional Offices, and NRC consultants, who were divided into groups according to technical disciplinef Each group was- % also assigned a group leader. Of the contentions before the ASLB, only one (Contention 5) remained unresolved in the CPSES operating license application proceeding. Contention 5 alleges that: The Applicant's failure to adhere to the quality assurance / quality control provisions required by the construction permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and the requirements of Appendix 8 of 10 CFR Part 50, and the construction practices employed, specifically in regard to concrete work; mortar blocks; steel; fracture toughness testing; expansion joints; placement of the reactor vessci for Unit 2; welding; inspection and testing; materials used; craft labor qualifications and working conditions (as they may affect QA/QC and training and organization of QA/QC personnel, have raised substantial questions as to the adequacy of the construction of the facility. As a result, the Commission cannot make the findings required by 10 CFR S 50.47(a) necessary for issuance of an operating license for Comanche Peak. Q-2 Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 3 - 6/10/85 The ASLB decided in March 1984, that in order to resolve Contention 5, it must consider the allegations of intimidation and harassment. Prehearing conferences were held in June 1984; depositions were taken in July and August 1984; pre-hearing testimony was filed in August 1984, and the hearings commenced on September 10, 1984. The hearings will continue after the issuance of this SSER. In July 1984, the Manager of the Technical Review Team (TRT), retained the services of a group of consultants to determine whether or not a climate of
- intimidation was created by CPSES management among QA/QC personnel. The study team's report, issued in September 1984, concluded that a climate of intimidation did not exist at CPSES (See Attachment 1).
Since the study team did not independently assess individual, incidents of alleged CL intimidations and did not review all depesttiens,- tesWeny and investigation reports relating to intimidation issues at CPSES, NRC management decided that the report would not constitute the sole basis for the agency's final position on intimida-tion and harassment issues at CPSES. The report would, however, contribute to the agency's final determination of intimidation and harassment issues, to n' ut I cf The study team er n6:c';oantly dbactad +n avnend its e Uert-to-review all g r. documentation available on tha P m fcaN a g ' intimidation The addi-s tional documentation included depositions taken in July and August 1984, pre- 'N N hearing testimony filed in August 1984, transcripts of the hearings which began on September 10, 1984, and NRC Office of Investigations (01) investigation and ! inquiry reports. (Attachment 2 lists.the allegations reviewed by the panel and the study team.) p- __ aga s Comanche Peak SSER 13 Q-3 M qiSfM*A g' gf} p
+ a n,ned .ps & ^ 1 q ., > w e v., .
o Draft 3 - 6/10/85 As the Comanche Peak TRT neared completion of its efforts, NRC management esta-blished a panel to evaluate findings by TRT and other inspection, review, and investigation efforts at CPSES to determine the relationship between these findings and the issues raised in Contention 5. Management also organized a panel of senior managers to review, evaluate, and establish an agency position on all intimidation and harassment issues at CPSES. Accordingly, on December 24, 1984, the EDO issued directives establishing a Comanche Peak Contention 5 Panel and a Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel. The Intimidation Panel was tasked with providing NRC management with a position on the intimidation question at CPSES. The Intimidation Panel and the study team subsequently discussed their respective findings, found that their efforts were duplicative, and that the findings of the two groups were similar for those cases reviewed by both groups. The Intimida-tion Panel decided to retain study team members as consultants and to use the study team's findings as the basis of this SSER. Attachment 3 is the study team's supplemental report of the original report (Attachment 1) and documents the team's review of the additicnal material provided to it after its initial effort. This SSER documents the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel's efforts to comply wit 5 its charter (Attachment 4) to provide (1) NRC management with a position on the intimidation question at CPSES, and (2) information to the Comanche Peak Contention 5 Panel. Findings regarding alleged intimidation issues are sum-marized in Section 3. The panel's findings regarding the climate of intimidation Q-4 k Comanche Peak SSER 13
Oraft 3 - 6/10/85 ! at CPSES and the management implications of the findings are provided in Section - 4. Section 5 addresses the actions required by TUEC to improve the confidence of CPSES employees in their management and to dispel the detrimental effects of both past acts of outright intimidation and a management style that left the clear impressive that acts of intimidation would occur in the future. The confirmed incidents of intimidation may constitute potential violations of NRC rules and regulations. These potential violations have not been addressed in this SSER, but will be reviewed by the NRC staff for the appropriate followup actions.
- 2. ALLEGATION REVIEW PROCESS 2.1 Definition To define the criteria for determining if an incident involved actions that constituted intimidation or harassment, the Intimidation Panel examined the following definitions: (1) those offered by the parties to the hearing during the prehearing conference, (2) the definition of harassment and discrimination developed by the Enforcement Staff of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement in a previous enforcement action (EA-83-132) involving Comanche Peak; (3) the study team's definition of intimidation used in its September 1984 report (Attachment 1); and (4) the definition of intimidation used by the NRC Office of Investigations.
After considering the various definitions, the panel took elements from these definitionstoarriveatthefollowingdefinitionsofintimidationf, harassment and discrimination: Q-5 Comanche Peak SSER 13
Oraft 3 - 6/10/85
- Intimidation or Harassment: Incidents, statements or other actions that are reasonably likely to influence employees to refrain from performing safety-related work in accordance with requirements or identifying or reporting quality discrepancies or safety problems.
Discrimination: The showing of prejudice in the treatment of employees for performing safety related work or reporting quality discrepancies or safety problems to their management or to the NRC. The showing of prejudice may include adverse actions such as discharge or other actions that relate to the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The panel used these definitions in evaluating specific incidents of intimidation. The study team also used the above definition of intimidation in its supplemental review of the alleged incidents of intimidation. The major point of departure of these definitions from others is that the intimi-dated person need not have actually done something contrary to requirements, or have refrained from doing something in accordance with requirements. The criteria call for a judgment of whether an action was reasonably likely to influence an employee to act contrary to a requirement. According to other definitions, under some circumstances a " thick skinned" employee might never be influenced to vio-late requirements, while the same circumstances could cause another employee to violate requirements because of fear of reprisals. The other defintt1 mis 7ddressed uniy out vi intiii;idation egeln d Q M pectors, The intimidation panel's definition includes actions directed against any indivi-dual who performs quality related activities. Therefore, actions which would influence a craftsman to perform quality-related construction activities that are contrary to required procedures or specifications, or to refrain from reporting known deficiencies, may be considered intimidating. Q-6 Comanche Peak SSER 13
- o .
Oraft 3 - 6/10/85 2.2 Documentation Reviewed The Intimidation Panel and the study team reviewed all documentation available i for thc 33 alleged incidents of intimidation. The documents that were reviewed included:
- a. Transcripts of the ASLB hearings on intimidation issues.
l b. Selected transcripts of ASLB hearings on technical issues
- related to the alleged intimidation incidents,
- c. Depositions taken in July and August 1984 prior to the j in?.imidation hearings,
- d. Prefiled testimony of witnesses called into the intimidation hearings,
- e. Selected transcripts of followup interviews conducted by the TRT staff, 4
- f. OI investigation and inquiry reports related to the alleged i
intimidation incidents, j g. Department of Labor Transcripts related to the alleged discrimination against a CPSES QC inspector. 1 i
. 2.3 Review Format i
In performing the review of the alleged acts of intimidation, the Intimidation ! i
- Panel considered a number of factors related to the reported incident. These 4
factors included: f 1 i i Q-7 i Comanche Peak SSER 13 1
- .,--r ,__._ m .~,_. _, - - ,_ - _m r-- _x. _ .-.-- - -,, _ __ _ . - , _ _ , . , . . . . , . . - -
Draft 3 - 6/10/85
- a. The positions and duties of the person or persons subject to the alleged intimidation event;
- b. The positions and duties of other persons involved in the alleged intimidation event, such as fellow workers or observers;
- c. The position and duties of the person or persons alleged to have intimidated the subjects and the relationship (supervisor employee, etc.) between the alleged intimidators and the recipients of the intimidating action;
- d. The date and place of the alleged intimidating event and the area ofworkinvolvede.g.(welding, coatings);
- e. The perceived or inferred intent of the person or persons taking the alleged intimidating action; and
- f. The perceptions of the recipient (persons being intimidated) of the alleged intimidating action.
2.4 Panel Review and Discussion After the Intimidation Panel had been formed and the definitions and review format had been established, the panel determined the scope of the overall task. In the Section of the Charter (Attachment 4) entitled, " Action Items," the appropriate data base for the review included:
- a. The study team report (Attachment 1);
- b. Enforcement packages issued by IE that related to the alleged intimidation events; Q-8 Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 3 - 6/10/85
- c. Depositions taken by the parties to the hearings;
- d. The proposed finding $on the Comanche Peak intimidation issues #
that were filed by the parties to the hearings;
- e. Transcripts of the ASLB hearings related to the intimidation issues;
- f. OI reports of investigations and inquiries into alleged intimidation events; and
- g. Transcripts of the Department of Labor hearings into issues of intimidation, harassment and discrimination.
To assist in this effort the staff counsel in these proceedings provided the panel with the proposed findings of fact that had been filed by egh party to the proceedings and with a listing of the deposition, transcript and other referencesrelatedtoeachoftheintimidationissuesbeforetheASLB(although D these did not comprise a complete listing of the issues). The panel was also briefed by the OI investigator involved in the investigation of CPSES intimidation issues. He also provided each of the panel members with a copy of the investigation and inquiry reports that had been issued on the alleged intimidation events that were investigated by OI. Since the W data base was much too large to be reviewed by all the panel j members in its entirety within a reasonable time, the panel divided the review responsibility among the panel members. Each member was assigned a number of alleged intimidation events and was responsible for reviewing all available Q-9 Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 3 - 6/10/85 materialapplicabletotheirassignedeventsusing(reviewkformatlistedin Section 2.3 above as guidance. Upon completion of the reviews each panel member was to discuss with the panel during a scheduled panel meeting the details of each assigned event, the result of his/her review, and any issues associated with the events. The panel was then to make a collegial decision as to whether or not the event constituted an act of intimidation as defined in Section 2.1, above. The panel began its review of the data provided in late December IS34 and began the collegial review of the findings in February 1985. 2.5 Interaction With Study Team As the review and evaluation of the data proceeded, the panel became aware of the parallel efforts of the study team, which was now operating under its expanded charter and decided to meet with the study team to compare preliminary findings. When they met on February 15, 1985, the I.1timidation Panel had completed about one-third of its reviews and the study team had essentially completed its review. The two groups found that for those events which had been w vicwed by both groups, they had reacned similar conclusions. When this finding was communicated to the NRC management responsible for the Intimidation Panel and the study team, they decided to adopt the panel's recom- i h 4 mendations 26 discontinue the duplication of effort, and assigned the study team to act as consultants to the Intimidation Panel. The study team's effort was Q-10 Comanche Peak SSER 13
\
Oraft 3 - 6/10/85 expanded to include a review of additional intimidation data (since they had not reviewed all 01 reports) and the results of the review were included in their supplemental report. Their supplemental and initial reports would be used as the basis for this report. The study team and Intimidation Panel met on several occasions (in person and by conference call) to discuss their respective findings and to review the study team's reports. The results of their joint effort appears in Attachment 4 and represents the collective position of the study team.
/7i[ (g 1 '
- 3. Conclusions 3.1 Study Team Conclusions The study team performed a detailed review of all data available for each of the alleged intimidation events listed in Attachment 2. Their conclusions appear 4
in Appendix 8 of the Study Team's Supplemental Report (Attachment 3). On the basis of several discussions with the study team regarding their findings, the ; Intimidation Panel came to an understanding of the other events and of the basis for the study team's conclusion. Although the Intimidiation Panel did not review the "other events" in detail, the panel members reviewed enough of the material , related to these events to have a working knowledge of them. The Intimidation Panel fully endorses the findings of the study team. Q-11 Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 3 - 6/10/85 3.2 Events / Documents Not Reviewed by the Study Team ! 3.2.1 Discussion ' The Intimidation Panel reviewed three alleged or suspected incidents of intimi-i i-
- dation that were not reviewed by the study team. These events were reviewed i only by the intimidation panel because they were forwarded to the panel late in {
i the review process, and after a preliminary review by the panel chairman he t determired that the alleged or suspected events were not of significant concern 4 i
- to require a review by the study team. The incidents were subsequently reviewed by the panel, which concurred in this decision, l
~
, 3.2.2 Intimidation Panel Conclusions " A description of each event and the findings of the Intimidation Panel are dis-cussed below. I
- a. On January 15, 1985 the Comanche Peak Project Director forwarded to the Intimidation Panel a portion of the deposition of Mr. Mouser, a former CPSES QC inspector (FL. L ;;:J. (The material was for-warded to the panel at the suggestion of the Chairman of the ASLB.)
- In the depositiog,Mr. Mouser stated that he had informed Mr. Tolson !
(TUEC QA Manager) as to how he and his fellow workers were going to review and verify individual DCAs (Design Change Authorizations) and CMCs (Component Modification Cards). Mr. Tolson became upset and l told them, "No. That's not the way I want it done." Subsequent to i this meeting Mr. Houser and his supervisor went back to Mr. Tolson, t i I , Q-12 l i Comanche Peak SSlR 13 i i v ,--e-p--ve-,- +--------.w-,mpn--.-,n--, ,,-.----n--~-.. ,,-w.--,,,e.vne-...w----, --p>.eog--+ve
, . - - - ~ , ,,w, , , - , , , , - , - - , ,,---.-m,v,,. m. .,. --n ,,n.--
01 Investi personnel,gation Report includedconcerned the investigation an interview of a f4-84-006,concerni harassment, particularly the alleged ormer f boilermaker foremanng llboilermaker intimidation foreman all o deficiencies to the Brown that he had been subject dofnel,e QCthe person. Althoug The individual alsoand id Root (B&R)u management on. ty-rela ted in [ H diesel generator TRT), shieldsTechnical including concerns a Review Team (ent [ steam generator head insulation concerns which were reviewe swipe rebar. testing, the The results of The fuel transfer tube (t ssociated with the y the also providin the-4ppepe component the TRTu44-344et cooling water surge tsupports, review of the the fue ank supports , cleanliness of , f_Miuader "% 44st1Q 6ed Subsequent t i'1 formation the seconda.y water b ih is not e ng supplied regarding safety-related
, but the main W The individyalre c%nd documented on,enqH$4 4 Pouston he i
*W"o thedndiv_iduals' i to the mnin steaSan :enerators.
directly affect ithe i was $pecifically given t te 'athehdate summer R corporate man of 198 to the B& ,k; the plant site from Houst t ir egree"boi agement in placed in " confinement" i on. Further by the int lermaker management uponforeman his indicat afterwards, when ng." he was cage" The interview facedmake
" view like e revealed that hereturn to was I was doin he did not the boilermaker foreman feel comfortabl e or being subjectedwith revea. .as told to "just transferredthat either shortly being af ter working forquit B&R B&R.
since 1970 The individua' t V concluded that the tBased on the with a o a quit reduction-in-force B&R i information n September 1982,
, (RIF
\~
av il have; "" theli ts presented final months ir. the O! inable of enployment of for review, tNe intimid eempa448-y wo@rk vestigation reportation panel to have been treated by hak e aperform chillingdthe effect on boilemaker foreman ce , associated this e tU ainstance, management by fellow quality workers management in a fashion 'hi htre was interested incost c demonstratedThis individual appea h7itie identification o do % chtMM sa fet that, in
%J related activitiesproduction, and sch 3
ia
) ed Wlll.
$$Ekg"Y jl
'qh e
Draft 3 - 6/10/85 who agr to allow them to do the review as they had originally ~ proposed. This incident does not constitute an act of intimidation, because Mr. Tolson's statement was not likely to have caused a rea-sonable individual to do something that was contrary to existing requirements. Further, Mr. Toldson later +e changed his position at the urging of his employees.
- b. On January 28, 1985 the Comanche Peak Project Director forwarded to the intimidation panel a portion of Mr. Mouser's deposition in which he alleged that an NRC OI investigator had apparently disclosed confidential information to TUEC employees. Nothing in ,
nn wfi o 8 5 this alleged incident linked any CPSES employees toaet $y e&
,~(G*ptd intimidatic; ad g ytd hati N to e 5Y hi!4h % o[
4.uali.,, c. 3.3 TRT Findings'In Those Areas Where Intimidation Occurred On March 21, 1985 the Intimidation Panel met with members of the TRT to determine if they had found technical concerns in accessing krthose areas in which the panel found acts of intimidation. In the following list, identified acts of AAL intimidation, as reported in Attachment 3 correlated with the TRT's technical - findings. Q-13 Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 3 - 6/10/85 (1) D. Stiner - Weave Welding on Pipe Supports.
' ~
This area was examined by both Region IV and e TRT. Neither group could substantiate the technical allegations. (2) D. Stiner - Circuit Breaker Article There is no technical area associated with this - intimidating event.
~
(3) W. Dunham - Intimidation of Coatings Inspectors The TRT Coatings Group found that the inspection procedures in this area were inadequate and that the QC inspectors were not finding the pinholes in the ' coatings. They did find a higher-than-normal percentage ' of faulty coatings, but could not conclude that it could ' be attributed to the inspectors having been intimidated. (4) W. Dunham - Termination . The higher-than-normal percentage of faulty coatings . at CPSES may be linked to this intimidating event, but there is insufficient information to indicate that this was a major or contributing cause. (5) S. Neumeyer - Liner Plate Traveller Incident. The QA/QC Team of the TRT did find a concern in ( the documentation of this area (see AQ-55 and A0-78 in SSER-11), but the Civil / Structural Group found no significant problem in liner plate welds (see AC in SSER-8). l l
'I Q-14 Comanche Peak SSER 13
o
- Draft 3 - 6/10/85 (6) C. Allen - ALARA and DCA Reviews The TRT Coatings Group found approximately eight significant discrepancies. The generic implications of the allegation are being reviewed as part of TUEC's (a
corrective action plan for TRT findings. (See AQ0-3) of SSER-9) (7) C. Allen - Detergent on Coated Surface The TRT Coatings Group deter:ained that the detergent on the coatings was not a detriment to the coatings. (8) C. Allen - Cigarette Filter Incident The TRT Coatings Group concluded that small amounts of water and oil in the paint would have had no impact on its adherence properties. Large quantities of water and oil would have been obvious to a trained QC inspector. (See AQ0-17 in SSER-9) (9) T-Shirt Incident The T-Shirt incident was addressed by the QA/QC Group (see AQ-46 in SSER-11) and the Electrical Group (see Electrical Category No. 5 in SSER-7). Neither team could find any indication that the incident had a negative impact on their areas. (10) S. Neumeyer - Stanford Incident The TRT found no problem with the documentation of the welds in question in this allegation, but there was a question as to whether or not the non-destructive testing of the welds had been performed. Q-15 Comanche Peak SSER 13
l Draft 3 - 6/10/85
- 4. MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Climate of Intimidation In Attachments 1 and 3, the study team concluded that there was no " climate of intimidation" at CPSES. Based on the definition of " climate of intimidation" usedbythestudyteam,theIntimidatidnPanelagreeswiththatconclusion.
ThepanelagreeswiththestudyteamthatthesmallnumberofreportedincidenIs of intimidation at a large site like CPSES suggests that intimidation was not pervasive. The Intimidation Panel is concerned, however, that the management style at CPSES (to be addressed in Section 4.2) establishes a work environment in which the right chemistry existsfor actual or perceived intimidation to occur, given the right set of circumstances. Immed,iate attention is needed and actions ~ which would offset this conditions are addressed in Section 5f { M (t of, , [ 4. 2 Management Style In Attachments 1 and 3, the study team addressed the management style and inter-M face problems (See Sections 3.3 and 3.4 respectively)Areported in depositions and in the surveys. The Intimidation Panel is also concerned about the apparent autocratic / bureaucratic, and on occasions arrogant, style in the behavior of. CPSES management. TRT personnel (Section 3.3) informed the panel that they observed a work environment characterized by employee fear of management at CPSES. Since CPSES is a non-union project, and there was no effective internal grievance system, :: that each employee holds his or her position at the discretion of management. Q-16 Comanche Peak SSER 13
Oraft 3 - 6/10/85 In sum, it is the panel's view that the environment created by the management style at the CPSES facility does not necessarily lead to improper construction or quality control. The panel is aware that many projects have been built effectively with an unquestioning autocratic management style. However, it is the view of the panel that an important ingredient for an effective QA program to monitor the quality of construction is an environment where employees may freely raise safety related concerns to an interested management. While it is clear that employees did raise concerns, some even making allegations of inti-midation, there was a perception by employees, whether valid or not, that some management personnel did not want to hear concerns nor did they always provide adequate explanations to employees with these types of questions. This is not to say that every employee had valid concerns. TUEC hires, trains, and directs the activities of the employee, but if it is going to keep the employee in a wss wR responsible position, it must ha ratisfied that the employee understands his or her job. It cannot keep the employee in a responsible position and not provide adequate explanations regarding his or her congeras. F ilure to do sp '""i h ) f,1) M<4 ,, n
\~ g di o- 4 L( Mrf xJ t ,
f 4 f g lo us /
-ae S le -
( darm'y mtti'tude r ns af irrespcneih414ty which wi44 M result in the emplo ee not , meryim - expected je. The panel cannot conclude, however, that the management style at CPSES contributed in any way to the quality assurance pro-blems there. Poor procedures, inadequate training, and insufficient management direction could also have caused or contributed to the quality assurance problems.
- 5. ACTION RECOMMENDED The concerns expressed by some TRT participants and the collective findings of the study team and the Intimidation Panel suggest a need for action by TUEC management. The panel recommends that TUEC take action to assure that the Q-17 Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 3 - 6/10/85 management style of the TUEC organization is conducive to assuring a quality project. The panel does not recommend any one course of action such as the replacement of one or more managers, or a reorganization, or a change in pro-cedures to develop an internal grievance procedure that is recommended for changing the attitudes and perceptions of the past. TUEC's management should take an objective look at the past incidents described in this SSER, as well as the current situation at the site, and take steps as necessary to assure a an
" quality first" attitude by its management and employees. The use of inde- --
pendent consultants to conduct this evaluation may be appropriate and should be considered. The overall effort should be directed at establishing trust d' % @l between the employees and management 4e eliminate any fear of reprisals for anyone who identifies safety concerns or questions safety procedures. In making these recommendations it is important to reiterate that the panel is not saying that there is a pervasive climate of fear or that TUEC's manage-ment style in fact directly contributed to the quality problems. But given the examples described in the record and the perceptions of some TRT members, the panel believes that a concerned management would take aggressive and dynamic action to avoid and erase any question of a potential problem of intimidation or harassment. I i Comanche Peak SSER 13
Oraft 3 - 6/7/85 ATTACHMENT 2 List of Allegations of Intimidation Review by the Intimidation Panel and The Study Team. A. Allegations Reviewed by the ASLB
- 1. Intimidation of QC Inspector in Auxiliary Building Mr. Robert Messerley alleged that he observed Mike Robinson, a general forman for cable tray supports, yelling and shouting obscenities at a QC inspector for " red-tagging" too many cable tray supports.
- 2. Termination of Henry Stiner
' Henry Stiner, a welder, alleged that he was terminated for report-ing a gouge in a pipe to a QC inspector. Stiner allegedly dis-covered a gouge in a pipe near where he was welding on a pipe hanger. His foreman supposedly wanted to cover it up and witnessed Stiner showing the gouge to QC inspector Sue Ann Neumeyer. Shortly thereafter, Stiner was terminated. Applicants assert Stiner was terminated for absenteeism.
- 3. Weave Welding on a Pipe Support in the Auxiliary Building Mrs. Darlene Stiner, a former welder and QC inspector at CPSES, alleged that she wrote an NCR identifying unacceptable weave welds on a pipe support in the Auxiliary Building. According to Mrs. Stiner, she was intimidated by craftworkers and by her supervisor, Harry Williams, into improperly accepting the welds on the NCR.
SSER-13
Oraft 3 - 6/7/85
- 4. Welding of Diesel Generator Skids Mrs. Darlene Stiner, a former welder and QC inspector at CPSES, alleged that she was harassed and intimidated by her supervisor, Harry Williams, when he assigned her to conduct inspections of welds on the diesel generator skids for CPSES, even after she protested that she was unqualified to conduct these inspections.
- 5. Voiding of NCR on Polar Crane Mrs. Darlene Stiner, a former welder and QC inspector at CPSES, alleged that an NCR which she wrote regarding a hole in the polar crane rail was improperly voided and the hold tage improperly removed.
- 6. Incidents Intended to Have Mrs. Stiner Leave CPSES Mrs. Darlene Stiner, a former welded and QC inspector at CPSES, related a series of incidents which she believes were intended to force her to leave her employment at the CPSES site. These related incidents are (1) meetings with Ronald Tolson and C. Thomas Brandt where Mrs. Stiner claims they pressed her about her health and her ability to continue work due to her pregnancy; (2) Mr. Brandt's request that she provide a doctor's note each week to certify her capability to work; and (3) an incident where she was refused admittance to a bus carrying workers to CPSES, which she blames upon articles in the Circuit Breaker (a company newsletter distributed at the site).
SSER-13
. . o Draft 3 - 6/7/85
- 7. Harassment Due to Relocation of an Office Mrs. Darlene Stiner, a former welder and QC inspector at CPSES, '
claims that she was harassed by Applicants after giving testi-mony in the July 1982 hearing session. Tha harassment consisted of moving her office four times over a two-day period, and of finally placing her in a shack that she claimed was not sturdy, dirty, not provided with airconditioning for three days, and was smaller than her original office.
- 8. Harassing Telegram Accusing Mrs. Stiner of Improperly Copying Documents Mrs. Darlene Stiner, a former welder and QC inspector at CPSES, alleged that a letter sent by Applicant's counsel to Mrs. Juanita Ellis (President of CASE) and to the other parties accused her of stealing and lying, and threatened her termination if caught.
In actuality, a telegram, not a letter, was sent to Mrs. Ellis, and the telegram did not accuse Mrs. Stiner of lying and stealing. Rather the telegram suggests that Mrs. Ellis was improperly encouraging Mrs. Stiner to copy and remove documents from on-site.
- 9. Weld Symbols on Doors Mrs. Darlene Stiner, a former welder and QC inspectors at CPSES, contends that she was told by Thomas Brandt to improperly accept doors which had not been properly weloed in accordance with the design drawings for the doors.
SSER-13
, , , Draft 3 - 6/7/85
- 10. Intimidation of Welding QC Inspector in North Valve Room Mr. Stanley Miles, a former iron worker at CPSES, alleged that he saw a QC inspector identify improper welding in the North Valve Room. According to Mr. Miles, the QC inspector left, saying he was going to stop it, but later returned and did not stop the improper welding.
- 11. Intimidation of Protective Coating QC Inspectors Mr. William Dunham, a former protective coatings QC inspector at CPSES, alleged that he was aware of attempts by his super-visor, Mr. Harry Williams, to intimidate protective coatings QC inspectors.
- 12. William Dunham's Termination l
l Allegation that QC inspector William Dunham was terminated because of his complaints concerning QC. Dunham's termination paper states he was terminated for insubordination. Dunham filed a complaint with the Department of Labor claiming he was fired for criticizing the QC program, and one Harry Williams in particular.
- 13. Liner Plate Traveler Incident Sue Ann Neumeyer alleged that she was intimidated into signing i
off on QC weld hold points on liner plate travelers. Neumeyer allegedly was ordered to sign off QC weld hold points for fitup and cleanliness on travelers for the stainless steel liner plates SSER-13
. . . Draft 3 - 6/7/85 of the Unit 2 reactor cavity. Her signature was to be verified by inspection chits purportedly done by other inspectors for these hold points a few years previously. Neumeyer did not agree that the chits matched the hold points she was to sign. She alleges she was compelled to sign under threat of losing the upcoming weekend off. Applicants assert that the procedure Neumeyer was to follow was proper and therefore she was not intimidated.
- 14. Cory Allen Cory Allen testified as a Board witness on September 18-19, 1984.
Mr. Allen was employed by Ebasco Construction Services, his administrative supervisor was C. Thomas Brandt; however, his field supervisor was Harry Williams and later Fred Dunham and Evert Mouser. Mr. Allen recounted several incidents relating to harassment and intimidation. The first incident involved Mr. Allen's job inter-view with Mr. Brandt. According to Mr. Allen, as a result of his meeting with Mr. Brandt, he had a strong impression that notwith-standing his expertise, Mr. Brandt did not want him tequestion QC procedures or engineering judgments. The second incident involved a concern Mr. Allen had regarding ALARA review and reviews of ( l design change authorizations (DCAs), According to Mr. Allen, he l l raised these questions to Cecil Manning, Training Quality Engineer, l t who was unable to answer his questions. Mr. Manning instead took SSER-13
.. - Draft 3 - 6/7/85 Mr. Allen to Ron Tolson's office to discuss the matter. At that meeting, according to Mr. Allen, Mr. Tolson indicated to Mr. Allen that he was not to concern himself with engineering matters but instead was to concentrate all of his efforts on performing inspections. Mr. Allen was calle? later called to discuss the same matter with Mr. Brandt. As a result of these encounters, Mr. Allen testified that he was reluctant to write an NCR unless it was a " garden-variety" type NCR.
The third instance of harassment alleged by Mr. Allen involved members of the painting crew. According to Mr. Allen, he was ordered by Mr. Haley, a paint foreman, and other painters to perform inspections. Mr. Allen stated that if he did not accede readily to their demands, a complaint would be lodged with his supervisor, Harry Williams, who invariably sided with craft. The fourth incident involved an NCR written by Mr. Allen report-ing an indeterminate substance on a coated surface which he had inspected. Mr. Allen testified that after writing the NCR Harry ! Williams told him not to report for work the next day but instead report directly to Mr. Brandt on his next scheduled work day. During this meeting, Mr. Brandt questioned Mr. Allen's judgment and suggested that he was paranoid. l SSER-13
, . . Draft 3 - 6/7/85 The final incident recounted by Mr. Allen involved the alleged use by painters of cigarette filters in the spray painting equipment. In Mr. Allen's view, painters inserted cigarette filters in the cheater valves of spray guns to pass the air y acceptability inspection because the filters made the air supply appear cleaner than it was; the painters then would remove the filters after the test. Before Mr. Allen could report this alleged non-conforming condition, however, a complaint was lodged with Mr. Allen's supervisors. A meeting was held between Mr. Allen, Mr. Brandt, Jim Bracken, the paint foreman, and Mr. Williams. According to Mr. Allen, Mr. Brandt sided with the painters because Mr. Allen did not have personal knowledge that the filters were removed by painters subsequent to the air acceptability test and because the use of cigarette filters was not a violation of any procedural requirement. , Consequently, Mr. Allen did not write an NCR. n siwuid Lc u;ted that +h i cuiin n.o i nt:v i e , Tc= has r.cafi mad "r. "ler. ' : 211ag=+ien-
- 15. T-Shirt Incident Intervenor alleged that electrical QC inspectors wearing T-shirts were intimidat.ed by management. Certain electrical QC inspectors were wearirg T-shirts referring to " nitpickers."
They were subsequently sequestered by management and their desks searched. (There is a question of their prior involvement with
" destructive testing" prior to the incident.) Some of those SSER-13
. . . Draft 3 - 6/7/85 involved were later transferred or terminated. Applicants assert management might have overreacted, but the actions taken were not intimidatia.
- 16. Valve Disk Incident Linda Barnes alleged that when she brought a discrepancy in valve disk numbers to the attention of her supervisor, he told her it didn't matter, which made Barnes " discouraged." She was shown a traveller by Meddie Gregory with a valve disk number which did not match the disk number of the Data Report. When she brought this to the attention of her supervisor, Gregory Bennetzen, he told her it didn't matter and would cost too much money to check. Applicants assert that it really didn't matter and deny that cost would be a factor if the discrepancy were real.
- 17. Witness F l
Witness F was a system test engineer ("STE") employed by Impell Corporation at CPSES from Septemoer 1982 through April 1982. Witness F was assigned to the Electrical Startup Group, which 1 is part of the Startup Organization. Witness F described five
- incidents which he believed were examples of intimidation or l
l threats against him. In brief, these are: (1) an allegation that Fred Powers told Witness F, "You're treading on thin ice," l in response to Witness F's refusal to sign a startup work authorization ("5WA") because of his belief that there was an l inconsistency between ES-100 and Regulatory Guide 1.75 1 l l l SSER-13
. .
- Draft 3 - 6/7/85
("R.G. 1.75"); (2) that Dick Camp tried to discourage Witness F from calling the NRC on the ES-100/RG-1.75 conflict; (3) an allegation that Ivan Vogelsang threatened Witness F that he would get John Merritt to " pull his chain;" (4) that Ken Luken harassed Witness F in connection with a problem with ferro-resonant transfers; and (5) that Art London told Vitness F that if he had enough time to find problems (such as the ferro-resonant transformer problem and the apparent conflict between ES-100 and R.G. 1.75) that he had time to do more work. to these An.-;deat; ::3 be fund oii-18 Stanford Incident Alleged intimidation regarding voided NCR written by Sue Ann Neumeyer. Neumeyer wrote the NCR on a QC inspector (Stanford) who indicating he had falsified dates, thus enabling a draft to bypass QC hold points. The NCR was voided. Applicants assert that the dates were changed only to correct error.
- 19. Pressure on N-5 Viewers Meddie Gregory alleged that undue pressure was applied to QA/QC l
- document reviewers. She alleged that her supervisor, Gregory l
Bennetzen pressured / intimidated the N-5 document reviewers by: (1) demanding 40 iso's a week; (2) threatening the use of job shoppers; (3) commenting on company loyalty. SSER-13
. .. Draft 3 - 6/7/85
- 20. QES Review Sheet Incident Meddie Gregory alleged that her supervisor ordered a reviewer to sign off a QES review sheet without doing the review. She alleged that Bennetzen ordered a reviewer, Darby, to sign off on a QES cover sheet when the original was missing without having Darby do the review. Applicants assert that this is an acceptable practice.
- 21. Reduction of Force (ROF) Incident Meddie Gregory alleged that there is something wrong with the way employees are selected for a ROF. She alleged that the more qualified people were ROF'd. Applicants response is that there is a comprehensive, mainly objective method of selection.
- 22. QC Coatings Inspectors Terminated for Refusal to Inspect at High Elevations Three QC Coatings Inspectors (Hamilton, Krolak, and Shelton) alleged that they were terminated on March 9, 1982 for refusing to inspect coatings from the elevated platform rail in the Unit 2 Reactor Building.
SSER-13
1
. . . e Draft 3 - 6/7/85 2 .a
- 8. OI Inquiry Reports Q4-82-005 Alleged' Improper Weld Practices Q4-82-0011' Alleged Improper Termination of a QC Inspector Q4-82-025 Alleged Radiographic Irregularities
- Q4-83-009 Alleged Inadequacies in As-Build QC Inspection Program 1
i Q4-83-011 Alleged Poor Construction Practices Q4-83-021 Alleged Intimidation of Electrical Craft Personnel Q4-83-022 Alleged Improper Implementation of Technical Procedures Q4-83-023 Alleged Poor Management Practices 4 Q4-83-025 Alleged QA Supervisor Discouraging the Use of Nonconformance Reports Q4-83-026 Alleged Deficiencies in Coatings Program Q4-84-001 Alleged Improper Construction Practices Q4-84-007 Alleged Violations of Construction Practices 8 Q4-84-011 Alleged Intimidation of a 80P Inspector 4 Q4-84-014 Preserved Testimony of a Witness l Q4-84-016 Alleged Improper Construction Practices Q4-84-037 Alleged Threat of " Blackballing" a Former QC Inspector Q4-84-046 Suspected Harassment of a QC Inspector i C. OI Investigation Reports i 4-82-012 Alleged Electrical Deficiencies A former Electrical Department worker alleged four occasions of improper construction practices at CPSES in 1980. i SSER-13
Oraft 3 - 6/7/85
. e >
l 4-83-001 Alleged Intimidation of QC Coatings Inspectors A former QC Coatings Inspector alleged that the supervisor (Harry Williams) of the QC Coatings Inspectors had twice threatened the inspectors to stop nit-picking during their inspections or he would pull their certifications (See A-11 above). d _-83-006 4 Alleged Falsification of QC Recor s A QC inspector alleged that a signature had been forged on an NCR that had been prepared by a former QC inspector and had been an issue before the ASLB. 4-83-011 Suspected Falsification of QC Records _ A QC inspector alleged that records of some of his prior inspections had been altered or falsified. 4-83-013 Potential Intimidation of QC Inspectors by the Termination of C. Atchison Investigation to determine if QC inspectors were intimidated by the termination of a former QC inspector (Charles Atchison). I nspectors by the Alleged Intimidation of QC Coatings __ 4-83-016 Termination of W. Dunham Investigation to determine if QC Coatings Inspectors had been intimidated by the termination of another QC Coatings Inspector (William Dunham). (See A-12 above) SSER-13
= - -
g es y Draft 3 - 6/7/85 D 4-84-006 Alleged Intimidation of Twenty-Four (24) CPSES Employees Juanita Ellis (President, CASE) gave.two NRC representatives a list of 24 CPSES employees who she alleged had been intimidated. 4-84-008 Alleged Intimidation of QC Personnel A QC inspector alleged that she was subjected to a series of eight meetings intended to intimidate her following her appearance before the ASLB. 4-84-012 Alleged Intimidation of Welding Crew An iron-worker alleged that a superintendent of ironworkers regularly threatened and intimidated the fronworkers. SSER-13 9
-- - - - - - .e, ,-, , - , ~ , , , , - - - ~ ~ - - -n---e , , - , ,--- , , , , - - - - - - - - - , . - , , . ~ ~ - - - - , < - -
Ch Draft 3 - 6/10/85 ABSTRACT Supplement 13 to the Safety Evaluation Report for the Texas Utilities Electric Company application for a license to operate Comanche Peak Steam Electric Sta-tion, Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-446), located in Somervell County, Texas, has been prepared by the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This Supplement provides the panel's evaluations of approximately 33 cases of allegated intimidation and harassment of quality assurnce/ quality control (QA/QC) employees at the Comanche Peak facility. Many of these cases have been addressed at recent Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearings. The Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel and a study team which served as consultants to the panel concluded that ten of the alleged incidents did met the criteria for intimidation, but the panel and study team did not find pervasive incidents of intimidation. The panel did find that the mangement style at CPSES creates a work environment which could lead to intimidation, iii i Comanche Peak SSER 13 t
s Draft 3 - 6/10/85 TABLE OF CONTENTS. P. age ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
- 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
- 2. THE COMANCHE PEAK INTIMIDATION PANEL AND ITS ADVISORS AND CONSULTANTS.2-1 APPENDIX Q - Status of the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel Evaluation of Allegations of the Intimidation and Harassment of QA/QC Employees at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q-1 d
i i l l i l I i l
~
l l i l l Comanche Peak SSER 13 l l l
s Draft 3 - 6/10/85 3 s 1 INTRODUCTION ! N On July 14, 1981, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a . Safety Evaluation Report (SER) (NUREG-0797) related to the application by the Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC) for a license to operate Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) Units 1 and 2. Subsequently, twelve supplemental Safety Evaluation Reports (SSERs) were issued by the staff. This report, Supple-ment No. 13, addresses approximately 33 allegations of intimidation and harass-ment of QA/QC employees at Comanche Peak. A,cpendix Q to this report provides details of the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel's evaluation of each allegation
- and the panel's findings.
4 i The allegations of intimidation and harassment at Comanche Peak were part of the regulatory issues that remained outstanding as construction of the Comanche. Peak facility neared completion. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board pre-siding over the proceedings related to the CPSES operating license application had determined in March 1984 that it must address and resolve the allegations . i of intimidation and harassment to resolve the only remaining contention (Contention 5) in the proceeding. The Board began its proceedings on the intimidation and harassment issues in the summer of 1984. In July 1984, the Project Manager of the Comanche Peak Technical Review Team , (TRT) directed a team of consultants to review the record of allegations of intimidation and the work climate at the CPSES site to determine whether a ' climate of intimidation existed among QA/QC personnel at the site. Their report, 1 1-1 Comanche Peak SSER 13 1 f s
,,-.--- , ,. . _ -.---.- --_-, ,.,,. _ er-,n.,,, ,- -
e,- . _ - . , , . _n,.. ,ng .,,-r,,,, ,,,,n., v. ,.., ._ , . - - - _ - .
Draft 3 - 6/10/85 issued in September 1984, concluded that a climate of intimidation did not exist
, at CPSES (See Attachment 1 to this Appendix). Since the study team did not inde-pendently assess individual incidents of alleged intimidation and did not a review all 01 investigation reports relating to alleged intimidation incidents at CPSES, the NRC TRT recognized that the report did not constitute an overall assessment of the intimidation and harassment issue, but that it would contribute to resolution of the intimidation and harassment issue.
The study team continued its review of all available information related to the intimidation issue. In a parallel effort, NRC's Executive Director for Operations (EDO) issued a directive on December 24, 1984, establishing the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel to provide its findings cn intimidation to NRC management. The study team subsequently became consultants to the Intimidation Panel. Attachment 2 to this Appendix is a listing of intimidation allegations reviewed by the panel and the study team. Attachment 3 to this Appendix is a supplement the study team's initial report and includes its evaluation of each alleged incident of intimidation. The Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel has reviewed the results of this evaluation and concurs with its findings. The recommendations of the Intimidation Panel are discussed in Section 5 of this Appendix. 1-3 t Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 3 - 6/10/85 Management and coordination of all the outstanding regu'iatory actions for
, Comanche Peak are under the overall direction of Mr. Vincent 5. Noonan, the NRC Comanche Peak Project Director. Mr. Noonan may be contacted by calling 301-492-7903 or by writing to the following address:
Mr. Vincent S. Noonan Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Copies of this Supplement are available for public inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, D. C. 20555, and the Local Public Document Room, located at the Somervell County Public Library On The Square, P. O. Box 1417, Glen Rore, Texas, 76043. Availability of all material cited is described on the inside front cover of this report. 1-5 Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 3 - 6/10/85
- 2. THE CCMANCHE PEA'K INTINIDATION.PANEi AND ITS ADVISORS AND CONSULTANTS Panel Members Axelrad, J, -
Enforcement Steff, IE, NRC Gagliardo,J. - Technical Training Center, IE, hRC Hunter, D. - Reactor Projects Bran 6a a RIV, NRC Lieberman, J. - Regional Dperatiens E1forcement Divis-lon, ELD, NRC Panel Advisors - Griffin, B. + OI Field Offf;e, RIV, 01, NRC Ippolito, T - Office for Analysis and Evaluatio4 of Operational Osta, NPC r Kaplan, B. EG&G Noonan, V. - Comanche Peak Project, NRR, NRC Scinto, J. - Hearing Divisic.1, EID, NRC I Treby, S. - Hearing Divisian, ELD, NR; The EG&G Study Team and Its Consultants: Andognini, G. - LRS Cor.sultants Bowers, D - Rensis Likert Associates Kaplan, B, - EG&G f Margulies, N. - Graduate School of Managsment, Uniyersity of California at Irvine ', Rice, C. - LRS Consultants Stratton, W. - Idaho State University 2-1 Comanche Peak SSER 13 ' t __,_--n.,--..-... 2,- , .. - . ,
. _. ~ . . .-. -. .. .. . . . - . _ - . - . . . . ..- - . . - . .. ..
Draft 3 - 6/10/85 4 APPENDIX Q ! STATUS OF STAFF EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF ALLEGATIONS OF 4 INTIMIDATION AND HARASSMENT OF QA/QC PERSONNEL AT' i COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 e l' i i 1 t i ,i i l r 7 i E 1 Ccna,,cte Peak SGER 13 l i-l
Draft 3 - 6/10/85 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q-1
- 2. Allegation Review Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q-5 2.1 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q-5 2.2 Documentation Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q-7 2.3 Review Format. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q-7 2.4 Panel Review and Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q-8 2.5 Interaction with Study Team. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q-10
- 3. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q-11 3.1 Study Team Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q-11 3.2 Events and Documents Not Reviewed by the Study Team. . . . . . .Q-12 3.2.1 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q-12 3.2.2 Intimidation Panel Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . .Q-12 3.3 TRT Findings in Those Areas Where Intimidation Occurred. . . . .Q-13
- 4. Management Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q-16 4.1 Climate of Intimidation. . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . .Q-16 4.2 Management Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q-16
- 5. Action Recommended. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q-17 Q-iii Comanche Peak SSER 13
Oraft 3 - 6/10/85
- l. INTRODUCTION
. As construction of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station was nearing completion, issues that remained to be resolved prior to the consideration of issuance of an operating license were complex, resource intensive, and spanned more than one NRC office. To ensure the overall coordination and integration of these issues, and to ensure their resolution prior to licensing decisions, the NRC's Executive Director for Operations (EDO) issued a memo-randum on March 12, 1984, directing the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to manage all necessary NRC actions leading to prompt licensing decisions, and assigning the Director, NRC's Division of Licensing, the lead responsibility for coordinating and integrating the related efforts of various offices within the NRC.
The principal areas needing resolution before a licensing decision on Comanche Peak could be reached included: (1) the completion and documentation of the staff's review of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR); (2) those issues in contention before the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB); (3) the completion of necessary NRC regional inspection actions; and (4) the completion and documentation of the staff's review of technical concerns and allegations regarding design and construction of the plant. To evaluate and resolve the technical concerns and allegations regarding desigr) and construction of the plant, a Technical Review Team was formed. On July 9, 1984, the TRT began its 10 week (five 2-week sessions) onsite effort, including interviews of allegers and TUEC personnel, to determine the validity of the technical concerns and allegations, to evaluate their safety significance, and Q-1 Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 3 - 6/10/85 to assess their generic implications. The TRT consisted of about 50 technical
, specialists from NRC Headquarters and NRC Regional Offices, and NRC consultants, who were divided into groups according to technical disciplines. Each group was also assigned a group leader.
Of the contentions before the ASLB, only one (Contention 5) remained unresolved in the CPSES operating license application proceeding. Contention 5 alleges that: Th0 Applicant's failure to adhere to the quality assurance / quality cortrol provisions required by the construction permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and the requirements of Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50, and the construction practices employed, specifically in regard to concrete work; mortar clocks; steel; fr:cture toughness testing; expansion joints; place:nent of the .eactor vessel for Unit 2; welding; inspection and testing; aiaterials used; craft labor qualifications and working conditions (as they may affect QA/QC and training and organization of QA/QC personnel, have raised substantial questions as to the adequacy of the construction of the facility. As a result, the Commi.ssion cannot make the findings required by 20 CFR 6 50.47(a) necessary for issuance of an operating license for Coma che Peak. l Q-2 l l Comuche 94ak SSCR 13 i __ , . _ .
;' 4 Draft 3 - 6/1'0/85 O ~
The ASLB decided in March 1984, that in order to resolve Contention *5, it must consider the allegations of intimidation and harassment. Preboabing conferences were held in June 1984; depositions were taken in July and August 1984; pre-hearing testimony was filed in August 1984, and tre' hearing.< commenced on. I 1 i , i September 10, 1984. The hearings will continue'af ter the issua'nce ~of this SSER. '
,l In July 1984, the Manager of the Technical Review Team (TRT), re Uined the services of a group of consultants to determine whether or not a climate of intimidation was created by CPSES management among QA/QC' personnel. The study i
~
team's report, issued in September 1984, concluded that a climate of in.timidation did not exist at CPSES (See Attachment 1). Since the study team did not independently assess individual incidents of alleged intimidations and did not review all OI investigation reports relating to intimi-dation issues at CPSES, NRC management decided that the report would not con-stitute the sole basis for the agency's final position on. intimidation and harassment issues at CPSES. The report would, however,' contributri to the agency's fin'al dete'rmination of intimidation and harassment iss.Jes. -
<1 The study team continued its review of all documentation availabl_e on alleged cases of intimidation, and expanded its effort to include an assessment of individual cases of alleged intimidation. The additional documentation included depositions taken in July and August 1984, prehearing testircony filed in August 1984, transcripts of the hearings which began on September 10, 1984, and NRC Office of Investigations (01) investigation and inquiry reports. (Attachment 2 lists the allegations reviewed by the panel and the study team.)
Q-3 Comanche Peak SSER 13
r Draft 3 - 6/10/85
~
As the Comanche Peak TRT neared completion of its efforts, NRC management esta-blished a panel to evaluate findings by TRT and other inspection, review, and investigation efforts at CPSES to determine the relationship oetween these findings and the issues raised in Contention 5. Management also organized a panel of senior managers to review, evaluate, and establish an agency position on all intimidation and harassment issues at CPSES. Accordingly, on' December 24, 1984, the ED0 issued directives establishing a Comanche Peak Contention 5 Panel and a Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel. The Intimidation Panel was tasked with providing NRC management with a position on the intimidation question at CPSES. The Intimidation Panel and the study team subsequently discussed their respective findings, found that their efforts were duplicative, and that the findings of the two groups were similar for those cases reviewed by both groups. The Intimida-tion Panel decided to retain study team members as consultants and to use the study team's findings as the basis of this SSER. Attachment 3 is the study team's supplemental report of the original report (Attachment 1) and documents the team's review of the additional material provided to it after its initial effort. This SSER documents the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel's efforts to comply with its charter (Attachment 4) to provide (1) *nt Finagement with a position on the l intimidation question at CPSES, and (;) .nfot ,; ion to the Comanche Peak i l Contention 5 Panel. Findings regarding alleged intimidation issues are sum-marized in Section 3. The panel's findings regarding the climate of intimidation l 1 Q-4 Comanche Peak SSER 13 a - ,-
~ n
Draft 3 - 6/10/85 at CPSES and the management implications of the findings are provided in Section
- 4. Section 5 addresses the actions required by TUEC to improve the confidence of CPSES employees in'their management and to dispel the detrimental effects of both past acts of outright intimidation and a management style that left the clear impressive that acts of intimidation would occur in the future.
3 The confirmed incidents of intimidation may constitute potential violations of NRC rules and regulations. These potential violations have not been addressed in this SSER, but will be reviewed by the NRC staff for the appropriate followup i actions.
- 2. ALLEGATION REVIEW PROCESS '
2.1 Definition To define the criteria for determining if an incident involved actions that constituted intimidation or harassment, the Intimidation Panel examined the following definitions: (1) those offered by the parties to the hearing during the prehearing conference, (2) the definition of harassment and discrimination developed by the Enforcement Staff of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement in a previous enforcement action (EA-83-132) involving Comanche Peak; (3) the study team's definition of intimidation used in its September 1984 report (Attachment 1); and (4) the definition of intimidation used by the NRC Office of Investigations. After considering the various definitions, the panel took elements from these definitions to arrive at the following definitions of intimidation, harassment and discrimination: Q-5 Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 3 - 6/10/85 Intimidation or Harassment: Incidents, statements or other actions
, that are reasonably likely to influence employees to refrain from performing safety related work in accordance with requirements or identifying or reporting quality discrepancies or safety problems.
Discrimination: The showing of prejudice in the treatment of employees for performing safety-related work or reporting quality discrepancies or safety problems to their management or to the NRC. The showing of prejudice may include adverse actions such as discharge or other actions that relate to the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The panel used these definitions in evaluating specific incidents of intimidation. The study team also used the above definition of intimidation in its supplemental review of the alleged incidents of intimidation. The major point of departure of these definitions from others is that the intimi-dated person need' not have actually done something contrary to' requirements, or have refrained from doing something in accordance with requirements. The criteria
, call for a judgment of whether an action was reasonably likely to influence an employee to act contrary to a requirement. According to other definitions, under some circumstances a " thick skinned" employee might never be influenced to vio-late requirements, while the same circumstances could cause another employee to violate requirements because of fear of reprisals.
The intimidation panel's definition includes actions directed against any indivi-dual who performs quality related activities. Therefore, actions which would influence a craftsman to perform quality-related construction activities that are contrary to required procedures or specifications, or to refrain from reporting known deficiencies, may be considered intimidating. Q-6 Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 3 - 6/10/85 2.2 Documentation Reviewed The Intimidation Panel and the study team reviewed all documentation available
< for the 33 alleged incidents of intimidation. The documents that were reviewed included:
- a. Transcripts of the ASLB hearings on inti.iidation issues,
- b. Selected transcripts of ASLB hearings on technical issues related to the alleged intimidation incidents, -
- c. Depositions taken in July and August 1984 prior to the intimidation hearings,
- d. Prefiled testimony of witnesses called into the intimidation hearings,
- e. Selected transcripts of followup interviews conducted by.the TRT staff,
- f. 01 investigation and inquiry reports related to the alleged intimidation incidents, g Department of Labor Transcripts related to the alleged discrimination against a CPSES QC inspector.
2.3 Review Format In performing the review of the alleged acts of intimidation, the Intimidation Panel considered a number of factors related to the reported incident. These factors included: Q-7 Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 3 - 6/10/85
- a. The positions and duties of the person or persons subject to the alleged intimidation event;
- b. The positions and duties of other persons involved in the alleged intimidation event, such as fellow workers or observers;
- c. The position and duties of the person or persons alleged to have intimidated the subjects and the relationship (supervisor employee, etc.) between the alleged intimidators and the recipients of the intimidating action;
- d. The date and place of the alleged intimidating event and the area of work involved (e.g. welding, coatings);
- e. The perceived or inferred intent of the person or persons taking
, the alleged intimidating action; and
- f. The perceptions of the recipient (persons being intimidated) of the alleged intimidating action.
i 2.4 Panel Review and Discussion After the Intimidation Panel had been formed and the definitions and review i format had been established, the panel determined the scope of the overall task. In the Section of the Charter (Attachment 4) entitled, " Action Items,".the appropriate data base for the review included:
- a. The study team report (Attachment 1);
- b. Enforcement packages issued by IE that related to the alleged intimidation events; 1
Q-8 i i Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 3 - 6/10/85
~
lt . Depositions taken by the parties to the hearings;
- d. The proposed find'ings on the Comanche Peak intimidation issues that were filed by the parties to the hearings;
- e. Transcripts of the ASLB hearings related to the intimidation issues;
- f. OI reports of investigations and inquiries into alleged intimidation events; and
- g. Transcripts of the Department of Labor hearings into issues of intimidation, harassment and discrimination.
To assist in this effort the staff counsel in these proceedings provided the panel with the proposed findings of fact that had been filed by each party to the proceedings and with a listing of the deposition, transcript and other references related to each of the intimidation issues before the ASLB (although these did not comprise a complete listing of the issues). The panel was also briefed by the 01 investigator involved in the investigation of CPSES intimidation issues. He also provided each of the panel members with a copy of the investigation and inquiry reports that had been issued on the alleged intimidation events that were investigated by 0I. Since the data base was much too large to be reviewed by all the panel members in its entirety within a reasonable time, the panel divided the review res-ponsibility among the panel members. Each member was assigned a number of alleged intimidation events and was responsible for reviewing all available Q-9 Comanche Peak SSER 13
N Draft 3 - 6/10/85 material applicable to their assigned events using the review format listed in Section 2.3 above as guidance. Upon completion of the reviews each panel member was to discuss with the panel during a scheduled panel meeting the details of each assigned event, the result of his/her review, and any issues associated with the events. The panel was then to make a collegial decision as to whether or not the event constituted an act of intimidation as defined in Section 2.1, above. The panel began its review of the data provided in late December 1984 and began the collegial review of the findings in February 1985.
- 2. 5 Interaction With Study Team As the review and evaluation of the data proceeded, the panel became aware of the parallel efforts of the study team, which was now operating under its expanded charter and decided to meet with the study tean to compare preliminary findings.
When they met on February 15, 1985, the Intimidation Panel had completed about one-third of its reviews and the study team had essentially completed its review. The two groups found that for those events which had been reviewed by both groups, they had reached similar conclusions. When this finding was communicated to the NRC management responsible for the Intimidation Panel and the study team, they decided to adopt the panel's recom-mendations, to discontinue the duplication of effort, and to assign the study team to act as consultants to the Intimidation Panel. The study team's effort was Q-10 Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 3 - 6/10/85 expanded to include a review of additional intimidation data (since they had not reviewed all OI reports) and the results of the review were included in their supplemental report. Their supplemental and initial reports would be used as the basis for this report. The study team and Intimidation Panel met on several occasions (in person and by conference call) to discuss their respective findings and to review the study team's reports. The results of their joint effort appears in Attachment 4 and represents the collective position of the study team.
- 3. CONCLUSIONS 3.1 Study Team Conclusions The study team performed a detailed review of all data available for each of the alleged intimidation events listed in Attachment 2. Their conclusions appear in Appendix B of the Study Team's Supplemental Report (Attachment 3). On the basis of several discussions with the study team regarding their findings, the Intimidation Panel came to an understanding of the other events and of the basis for the study team's conclusion. Although the Intimidiation Panel did not review the "other events" in detail, the panel members reviewed enough of the material
{ related to these events to have a working knowledge of them. The Intimidation , Panel fully endorses the findings of the study team. Q-ll Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 3 - 6/10/85
, 3.2 Events / Documents Not Reviewed by the Study Team 3.2.1 Discussion The Intimidation Panel reviewed three alleged or suspected incidents of intimi-dation that were not reviewed by the study team. These events were reviewed only by the intimidation panel because they were forwarded to the panel late in i
the review process, and after a preliminary review by the panel chairman he determined that the alleged or suspected events were not of significant concern ' to require a review by the study team. The incidents were subsequently reviewed by the panel, which concurred in this decision. 3.2.2 Intimidation Panel Conclusions A description of each event and the findings of the Intimidation Panel are dis-cussed below.
- a. On January 15, 1985 the Comanche Peak Project Director forwarded to
- the' Intimidation Panel a portion of the deposition of Mr. Mouser, a former CPSES QC inspector. (The material was forwarded to the panel at the suggestion of the Chairman of the ASLB.) In the deposition, Mr. Mouser stated that he had informed Mr. Tolson (TVEC QA Manager) ds to how he and his fellow workers were going to review and verify individual DCAs (Design Change Authorizations) and CMCs (Component Modification Cards). Mr. Tolson became upset and told them, "No.
That's not the way I want it done." Subsequent to this meeting Mr. Mouser and his supervisor went back to Mr. Tolson, Q-12 Comanche Peak SSER 13
- -- ~ .. --
Draft 3 - 6/10/85 who agreed to allow them to do the review as they had originally proposed. f This incident does not constitute an act of intimidation, because Mr. Tolson's statement was not likely to have caused a rea-sonable individual to do something that was contrary to existing requirements. Further, Mr. Toldson later changed his position at the urging of his employees.
- b. On January 28, 1985 the Comanche Peak Project Director forwarded to the intimidation panel a portion of Mr. Mouser's deposition in which he alleged that an NRC OI investigator had apparently disclosed confidential information to TUEC employees. Nothing in
^ this alleged incident linked any CPSES employees to any improper actions, and thus this event does not constitute an act of intimidation.
- c. 01 Investigation Report 4-84-006, concerning alleged intimidation of QC personnel, included an interview of a former boilermaker foreman. Although the investigation concerned the alleged intimida-tion of QC personnel, the boilermaker foremea'n indicated that he had been subjected to systemmatic harassment, particularly following the
-:dentification of quality-related deficiencies to the Brown and Root (B&R) management in Houston.
l Q-13 i Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 3 - 6/10/85
~
The individual also identified technical concerns which were
, reviewed by the Technical Review Team (TRT), including concerns associated with the emergency diesel generator shields. The fuel transfer tube (transition piece), the steam generator head insula-tion supports, the fuel pool liners, cleanliness swipe testing, the component cooling water surge tank supports, and welding to rebar. The results of the TRT review of the technical concerns are documented in SSERs 8, 10 and 11. The individual also provided information regarding the main condenser installation, which is not safety-related, but can directly affect the quality of the secondary water being supplied to the main steam generators.
Subsequent to the individuals' visit in late summer of 1982 to the B&R corporate management in Houston, the boilermaker foreman 4 identified that he was specifically given the " third degree" by management upon his return to the plant site from Houston. Further, the interview revealed that ha was placed in " confinement" in the shop area in a " cage" and was told to "just make like I was doing something." The interview revealed that shortly afterwards, when he was faced with either being transferred to an area where he did not feel comfortable or being subjected to a reduction-in-force (RIF), the boilermaker foreman quit B&R. The individual ! quit B&R in September 1982, after working for B&R since 1970. Q-14 i Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 3 - 6/10/85
~
Based on the information available for review, the intimidation panel concluded that the facts presented in the OI investigation report, associated with the final months of employment of the boilermaker foreman certainly could have had a chilling effect on the identification of deficiencies in the work performed by fellow quality workers. This individual appeared to have been treated by management in a fashion which demonstrated that, in this instance, management was interested in cost, production, and scheduling of safety related activities to the dretriment of quality. A 3.3 TRT Findings In Those Areas Where Intimidation Occurred On March 21, 1985 the Intimidation Panel met with members of the TRT to determine if they had found technical concerns in accessing those areas in which the panel
- found acts of intimidation. In the following list, identified acts of intimi-dation, as reported in Attachment 3 are correlated with the TRT's technical findings.
4 (1) D. Stiner - Weave Welding on Pipe Supports. This area was examined by both Region IV and the TRT. Neither group could substantiate the technical allegations. J Q-15 Comanche Peak SSER 13 4
- . . . , . _ . _ _ . . - _ , . . , _ - - - , , - . . . . . _ _ . ~ , - . _ , . _ , . , . . . - . , . _ . . .. . . _ . . , , _
Draft 3 - 6/10/85 (2) D. Stiner - Circuit Breaker Article There is no technical area associated with this intimidating event. (3) W. Dunham - Intimidation of Coatings Inspectors The TRT Coatings Group found that the inspection procedures in this area were inadequate and that the QC inspectors were not finding the pinholes in the i coatings. They did find a higher-than normal percentage of faulty coatings, but could not conclude that it could be attributed to the inspectors having been intimidated. (4) W. Dunham - Termination The higher-than-normal percentage of faulty coatings at CPSES may be linked to this intimidating event, but there is insufficient information to indicate that this was a major or contributing cause. (5) S. Neumeyer - Liner Plate Traveller Incident. The QA/QC Team of the TRT did find a concern in the documentation of this area (see AQ-55 and AQ-78 in SSER-11), but the Civil / Structural Group found no significant problem in liner plate welds (see AC in SSER-8). 4 I i ! Q-16 Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 3 - 6/10/85 (6) C. Allen - ALARA and DCA Reviews The TRT Coatings Group found approximately eight significant discrepancies. The generic implications of the allegation are being reviewed as part of TUEC's corrective action plan for TRT findings. (See AQ0-36 of SSER-9) (7) C. Allen - Detergent on Coated Surface The TRT Coatings Group determined that the detergent on the coatings was not a detriment to the coatings. (8) C. Allen - Cigarette Filter Incident The TRT Coatings Group concluded that small amounts of water and oil in the paint would have had no impact on its adherence properties. Large quantities of water and oil would have been obvious to a trained QC inspector. (See AQ0-17 in SSER-9) (9) T-Shirt Incident The T-Shirt incident was addressed by the QA/QC Group (see AQ-46 in SSER-11) and the Electrical Group (see Electrical Category No. 5 in SSER-7). Neither team could find any indication that the incident had a negative impact on their areas. (10) S. Neumeyer - Stanford Incident The TRT found no problem with the documentation of the welds in question in this allegation, but there was a question as to whether or not the non-destructive testing of the welds had been performed. Q-17 i Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 3 - 6/10/85
- 4. MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Climate of Intimidation In Attachments 1 and 3, the study team concluded that there was no " climate of intimidation" at CPSES. Based on the definition of " climate of intimidation" used by the study team, the Intimidation Panel agrees with that conclusion.
The panel agrees with the study team that the small number of reported incidents of intimidation at a large site like CPSES suggests that intimidation was not pervasive. The Intimidation Panel is concerned, however, that the management style at CPSES (to be addressed in Section 4.2) establishes a work environment in which the right chemistry exists for actual or perceived intimidation to occur, given the right set of circumstances. Immediate attention is needed, and actions which would offset this condition are addressed in Section 5 of this report. 4.2 Management Style In Attachments 1 and 3, the study team addressed the management style and inter-face problems (See Sections 3.3 and 3.4 respectively) as reported in depositions and in the surveys. The Intimidation Panel is also concerned about the apparent autocratic / bureaucratic, and on occasions arrogant, style in the behavior of CPSES management. TRT personnel (Section 3.3) informed the panel that they observed a work environment characterized by employee fear of managemeat at CPSES. Since CPSES is a non union project, and there was no effective internal grievance system, each employee holds his or her position at the discretion of management. Q-18 Comanche Peak SSER 13
Draft 3 - 6/10/85 In sum, it is the panel's view that the environment created by the management style at the CPSES facility does not necessarily lead to improper construction or quality control. The panel is aware that many projects have been built effectively with an unquestioning autocratic management style. However, it is the view of the panel that an important ingredient for an effective QA program to monitor the quality of construction is an environment where employees may freely raise safety-related concerns to an interested management. While it is clear that employees did raise concerns, some even making allegations of inti-midation, there was a perception by employees, whether valid or not, that some management personnel did not want to hear concerns nor did they always provide adequate explanations to employees with these types of questions. This is not to say that every employee had valid concerns. TUEC hires, trains, and directs the activities of the employee, but if it is' going to keep the employee in a responsible position, it must assure that the employee understands his or her job. It cannot keep the employee in a responsible position and not provide adequate explanations regarding his or her concerns. Failure to do so will have an impact on the attitude of the employees which can result in the employee not performing as expected. The panel cannot conclude, however, that the management style at CPSES contributed in any way to the quality assurance problems there. Poor procedures, inadequate training, and insufficient management direction could also have caused or contributed to the quality assurance problems. '
- 5. ACTION RECOMMENDED The concerns expressed by some TRT participants and the collective findings of the study team and the Intimidation Panel suggest a need for action by TUEC management. The panel recommends that TUEC take action to assure that the Q-19 Comanche Peak SSER 13
Oraft 3 - 6/10/85 [
, management style of the TUEC organization is conducive to assuring a quality i
project. The panel does not recommend any one course of action such as the replacement of one or more managers, or a reorganization, or a change in pro-l cedures to develop an internal grievance procedure that is recommended for ; changing the attitudes and perceptions of the past. TUEC's management should I take an objective look at the past incidents described in this SSER, as well as the current situation at-the site, and take steps as necessary to assure a i " quality first" attitude by its management and employees. The use of an ! independent consultant to conduct this evaluation may be appropriate and should
- be considered. The overall effort should be directed at establishing trust i
between the employees and management which will eliminate any fear of reprisals for anyone who identifies safety concerns or questions safety procedures. 1 lu making these recommendations it is important to reiterate that the panel is l j not saying that there is a pervasive climate of fear or that TUEC's manage- l f j ment style in fact directly contributed to the quality problems. But given the j examples described in the record and the perceptions of some TRT members, the i 3 panel believes that a concerned management would take aggressive and dynamic action to avoid and erase any question of a potential problem of intimidation f j or harassment, i 1 i I Q-20 ! Comanche Peak SSER 13 4 I i __,.,,-__,-_---...i
. . . _ ~ . . _ . .-- ._ _ _ - _ . _ _ , _ _ . _ _ _ . - _ . . - _ , - . _ - _ _ _ _ _ -
d r - Draft 3 - 6/7/85 j ATTACHMENT 2 I List of Allegations of Intimidation Review by the Intimidation Panel
- - and The Study Team.
4
; A. Allecations Reviewed by the ASLB
- 1. Intimidation of QC Inspector in Auxiliary Building Mr. Robert Messerley alleged that he observed Mike Robinson, r
a general forman for cable tray supports, yelling and shouting j obscenities at a QC inspector for " red-tagging" too many cable i tray supports, b i J
- 2. Terminat,fon of Henry Stiner j Henry Stiner, a welder, alleged that he was terminated for report-l- ing a gouge in a pipe to a QC inspector. Stiner allegedly dis-covered a gouge in a pipe near where he was welding on a pipe i
hanger. His foreman supposedly wanted to cover it up and witnessed Stiner showing the gouge to QC inspector Sue Ann Neumeyer. Shortly j thereafter, Stiner was terminated. Applicants assert Stiner was t
- terminated for absenteeism.
i 1
- 3. Weave Walding on a Pipe Su gart in the Auxiliary Building i t
) Mrs. Darlene Stiner, a former welder and QC inspector at CPSES, l-i alleged that she wrote an NCR identifying unacceptable weave f welds on a pipe support in the Auxiliary Building. According i l ! to Mrs. Stiner, she was intimidated by craf tworkers and by her [ supervisor, H&rry William;, into improperly accepting the welds on the NCR. l S$ER-13
l
~ Draft 3 - 6/7/85 4
- 4. Welding of Diesel Generator Skids.
j , Mrs. Darlene Stiner, a former welder and QC inspector at CPSES, alleged that she was harassed and intimidated by her supervisor, t Harry Williams, when he assigned her to conduct inspections of ; welds on the diesel generator skids for CPSES, even siter she : . ( protested that she was unqualified to conduct these inspections. ' ? L
- 5. Voiding of NCR on Polar Crane r i
Mrs. Darlene Stiner, a former welder and QC inspector at CPSES, < i alleged that an NCR which she wrote regarding a hole in the p0lar l ) crane rail was improperly voided and the hold tage improperly i i removed. : i l* !, i l 6. Incidents Intended to Have Mrs. Stiner Leave CPSES ! { Mrs. Darlene Stiner, a former welded and QC inspector at CPSES, t related a series of incidents which she believes were intended i 6 , to force her to leave'her employment at the CPSES site. These j related incidents are (1) meetings with Ronald Tolson and : l C. Thomas Brandt where Mrs. Stiner clains they pressed her [ l about her health and her ability to continue work due to her j pregnancy; (2) Mr. Brandt's request that she provide a doctor's ; note each week to certify her capability to work; and (3) an incident where she was refused admittance to a bus carrying I l werkers to CPSES, which she blames upon articles in the Circuit t l Breaker (a company newsletter distributed at the site). I i i SSER-13 l ! ! i I I
Draft 3 - 6/7/85 L
- 7. Harassment Due to Relocation of an Office
, Mrs. Darlene Stiner, a former welder and QC inspector at CPSES, claims that she was harassed by Applicants after giving testi-many in the July 1982 hearing session. The harassment consisted of moving her office four times over a two-day period, and of finally placing her in a shack that she claimed was not sturdy, dirty, not provided with airconditioning for three days, and was smaller than her original office.
- 8. Harassing Telegram Accusing Mrs. Stiner of Improperly Copying Documents Mrs. Darlene Stiner, a former welder and QC ins,pector at CPSES, alleged that a letter sent by Applicant's counsel to Mrs. Juanita Ellis (President of CASE) and to the other parties accused her of stealing and lying, and threatened her termination if caught.
In actuality, a telegram, not a letter, was sent to Mrs. Ellis, and the telegram did not accuse Mrs. Stiner of lying and stealing. Rather the telegram suggests that Mrs. Ellis was improperly encouraging Mrs. Stiner to copy and remove documents from on-site.
- 9. Weld Symbols on Doors Mrs. Darlene Stiner, a former welder and QC inspectors at CPSES, contends that she was told by Thomas Brandt to improperly accept doors which had not been properly welded in accordance with the design drawings for the doors.
SSER-13 I
Draft 3 - 6/7/85
- 10. Intimidation of Welding QC Inspector in North Valve Room Mr. Stanley Miles, a former iron worker at CPSES, alleged that he saw a QC inspector identify improper welding in the North Valve Room. According to Mr. Miles, the QC inspector left, saying he was going to stop it, but later returned and did not stop the improper welding.
- 11. Intimidation of Protective Coating QC Inspectors Mr. William Dunham, a former protective coatings QC inspector at CPSES, alleged that he was aware of attempts by his super-visor, Mr. Harry Williams, to intimidate protective coatings QC inspectors.
- 12. William Dunham's Termination Allegation that QC inspector William Dunham was terminated because of his complaints concerning QC. Dunham's termination paper states he was terminated for insubordination. Dunham filed a complaint with the Department of Labor claiming he was fired for criticizing the QC program, and one Harry Williams in particular.
- 13. Liner Plate Traveler Incident Sue Ann Neumeyer alleged that she was intimidated into signing off on QC weld hold points on liner plate travelers. Neumeyer allegedly was ordered to sign off QC weld hold points for fitup and cleanliness on travelers for the stainless steel liner plates SSER-13
- Draft 3 - 6H/85 of the Unit 2 reactor cavity. Her signature was to be verified by inspection chits purportedly done by other inspectors for these hold points a few years previously. Neumeyer did not agree that the chits matched the hold points she was to sign. She alleges she was compelled to sign under threat of losing the upcoming weekend off. Applicants assert that the procedure Neumeyer was to follow was proper and therefore she was not int.imidated.
- 14. Cory Allen Cory Allen testified as a Board witr.ess on September 18-19, 1984.
Mr. Allen was employed by Ebasco Construction Services, his administrative supervisor was C.' Thomas Brandt; however, his field supervisor was Harry Williams and later Fred Dunham and Evert Mouser. - Mr. Allen recounted several incidents relating to harassment and intimidation. The first incident involved Mr. Allen's job inter-view with Mr. Brandt. According to Mr. Allen, as .a result of his ( meeting with Mr. Brandt, he had a strong impression that notwith-i standing his expertise, Mr. Brandt did not want him to question QC proceduresorengineeringjudgments. The second incident involved ! a concern Mr. Allen had regarding ALARA review and reviews of 1 design change authorizations (DCAs). According to Mr. Allen, he raised these questions to Cecil Manning, Training Quality Engineer, who was unable to answer his questions. Mr. Manning instead took l SSER-13 l l L
, q , Draft 3 - C/7/65 Mr. Allen to Ron Tolson's office to discuss the matter. At that meeting, according to Mr. Allen, Mr. Tolson indicated to Mr. Allen that he was not to concern hisiself with engineering mattert but '
instead was to concentrate all of his efforts on performing inspections. Mr. Allea was lhter called to discuss the sam; matter with Mr. Brandt. As a result of these encounters, Mr. Allen testified that he was reluctant to write an NCR unless it was a " garden variety" type NCR. The third instance of harassiaent alleged by Mr. Allen involved members of the painting crew. According i.o Mr. Allen, he was ordered by Mr. Haley, a paint foreman, and otner painters to perform inspections. Mr. Allen stated that if he dii tnot accede readily to their demands, a complaint would be lodged with his supervisor, Harry Williams, who invariably sided with craft. The fourth incident involved an NCR written by Mr. Allen report-ing an indeterminate substance on a coated surface whi:h he (,ad inspected. Mr. Allen testified that after writing the NCR Harry Williams told him not to report for work the next day but ir. stead report directly to Mr. Brandt on his next scheduled work day. During this meeting, Mr. Brandt questioned Mr. Allen's jsdgment and suggested that he was paranoid. I SSER-13
Oraft 3 - 6/7/85 The final incident rec 0Jnted by Mr. Allen involved the alleged use by painters of cigarette tilters in the tpray pa.inting equip 1ent. In Mr. Allen's view, p-into c insertec cigarette filters in the cheater valves of spray cuns to pass the air acceptability inspection because the filters made the mir supply appear ciecner than it was; the paintsrs then would me.tove ; the filters after the test. Before Mr. Allen could report this alle0ed non conforming 'enfidi(pan, howe.'er, a ensplaint wat (pdged ' with Mr. All2n's suparvisors. A meeting uas held bQtween ' i Mr. Allen, Mr. Brarzdt , Jio Oracken, the paint forecan, and Mr. ililliams. According to str. Alien, Mr, Brandt 'sideo w'ith toe i painters tecause Nr. Allen did hot have personal Pncvledge that the tilters we,e renoved by paiaters stbsequent to the air i acceptability test and tecause the tso cf :igarette filte rs was not a violation of any procecurai tequircmdtt. Ccnsecuently, Mr. Allen did nct write as NC'd.
- 15. T-Shirt Incident , .
Intervencr alleged that electrical QC inspectors wearing T-shirts were intimidated by manageme,it. Cartain electrical QC inspectors were wearing T-shirts referrf,ng to " nitpickers." They were subsequently sequestered by nayagement and their dest s l searched. (There is a questio.n of their prior invcivament. with !
- " destructive testing" prior to the incident.) Sore of tf;ose t i
I 1 i SSER-13 1
e Draft 3 - 6/7/85 involved were later transferred or terminated. Applicants assert management might have overreacted, but the actions taken were not intimidating.
- 16. Valve Disk Incident Linda Barnes alleged that when she brought a discrepancy in valve disk numbers to the attention of her supervisor, he told her it didn't matter, which made Barnes " discouraged." She was shown a traveller by Meddie Gregory with a valve disk number which did not match the disk number of the Data Report. When she brought this to the attention of her supervisor, Gregory Bennetzen, he told her it didn't matter and would cost too much money to check. Applicants assert that it really didn't matter and deny that cost would be a factor if the discrepancy were real.
- 17. Witness F Witness F was a system test engineer ("STE") employed by Impell Corporation at CPSES from September 1982 through April 1982.
Witness F was assigned to the Electrical Startup Group, which is part of the Startup Organization. Witness F described five incidents which he believed were examples of intimidation or threats against him. In brief, these are: (1) an allegation that Fred Powers told Witness F, "You're treading on thin ice," in response to Witness F's refusal to sign a startup work authorization ("SWA") because of his belief that there was an I inconsistency between ES-100 and Regulatory Guide 1.75 i SSER-13
o
- Draft 3 - 6/7/85
("R.G.1.75"); (2) that Dick Camp tried to discourage Witness F from calling the NRC on the ES-100/RG-1.75 coeflict; (3) an allegation that Ivan Vogelsang threatened Witness F that he would get John Merritt to " pull his chain;" (4) that Ken Luken harassed Witness F in connection with a problem /ith ferro-resonant transfers; and (5) that Art London told Witness F that if he had enough time to find problems (such as the ferro resonant transformer problem and the apparent conflict between ES-100 and R.G. 1.75) that he had time to do more work.
- 18. Stanford Incident I Alleged intimidation regarding voided NCR vritten by Sue Ann Neumeyer. Neumeyer wrote the NCR on a QC inspector (Stanford) who indicating he had falsified dates, thus enabling a draft to bypass QC hold points. The NCR was voided. Applicants assert that the dates were changed only to correct error.
(
- 19. Pressure on N-5 Viewers Meddie Gregory alleged that undue pressure was applied to QA/QC document reviewers. She alleged that her supervisor, Gregory Bennetzen pressured / intimidated the N-5 document reviewers ty:
(1) demanding 40 iso's a week; (2) threatening the use of job shoppers; (3) commenting on company loyalty. l SSER-13 l L
. - - - - _ - - . - . . . - -_ .. _ _. - _ . .~- . . . . - - _.-.- -. - -
- ,- Draft 3 - 6/7/85 i
- a
- 20. CES Review Sheet IncidGnt Meddie Gregory alleged that her supervis;r ordered a reviewer
- to sign of f a QES re view sheet without doing th'a review. She j alleged that Bennetzen ordered a reviewer, Darby, to sign off 3 an a OES cover sheet when the original was missing without j having harby do the review. Applicants assert that this is i
4 an acceptable practice. 1 1 21. Reduction of Force (ROFT Incident j Meddie Gregory alleged that there is something wrong with the { way employees are selected for a R0F. She alleged that the more j qualified people were R0F8d. Applicants response is that there j is a comprehensive, mainly objective method of selection. I I- 22. DC toatings Inspectors Terminated for Refusal to, Inspect at High_Ejevat(Cns ! Three QC Coatings Inspectors (Hamilton, Krolak, and Shelton) 1 l alleged tLat they were terminated on March 9, 1982 for refusing to inspect coatings from the elevated platform rail in the ( Unit 2 Reactor Building. l l i t I ! SSER-13 l l
,o
, 9'- .
- Draft f - 6/7/85 B. OI Inquiry Reports
, Q4-82-005 Alleged Improper Weld Practices Q4-82-0011 Alleged Improper Termination of a QC Inspector Q4-82-025 Alleged Radiographic Irregularities Q4-83-009 Alleged Inadequacies in As-Build QC Ins'ection p
Program >
- Q4-83-011 Alleged Poor Construction Practices Q4-83-021 Alleged Intimidation of Electrical Craft Personnel Q4-83-022 Alleged Impro'per Implementatica of"fech'nical Procedures Q4-83-023 Alleged Poor Management Practices Q4-83-025 Alleged QA Supervisor Discouraging the Use of Nonconformance Reports' .
Q4-83-026 Alleged Deficiencies in Coatings Program Q4-84-001 Alleged Improper Construction Practices Q4-84-007 , Alleged Violations of Construction' Practices ' Q4-84-011 Alleged Intimidation of a B0P Inspector Q4-84-014 Preserved Testimony of a Witness Q4-84-016 Alleged Improper Construction Practices Q4-84-037 Alleged Threat of " Blackballing" a Former QC Inspector
,1 Q4-84-046 Suspected Harassment of a QC Inspector C. OI Investigation Reports 4-82-012 Alleged Electrical Deficiencies A former Electrical Department worker alleged four occasions of improper construction practices at CPSES in 1980.
1 SSER-13
.. ______-_ _A
e Draft 3 - 6/7/85 e 4-83-001 Alleged Intimidation of QC Coatings Inspectors A former QC Coatings Inspector alleged that the supervisor (Harry Williams) of the QC Coatings Inspectors had twice threatened the inspectors to stop nit picking during their 1 inspections or he would pull their certifications (See A-11 above). 4-83-005 Alleged Falsification of QC Records A QC inspector alleged that a signature had been forged on an NCR that had been prepared by a former QC inspector and had been an issue before the ASLB. 4-83-011 Suspected Falsification of QC Records A QC inspector alleged that records of some of his prior inspections a had been altered or falsified. 4-83-013 Potential Intimidation of QC Inspectors by the Termination of C. Atchison Investination to determine if QC inspectors were intimidated by the termination of a former QC inspector (Charles Atchison). i l 4-83-016 Alleged Intimidation of QC Coatings Inspectors by the Termination of W. Dunham Investigation to determine if QC Coatings Inspectors had been ! intimidated by the termination of another QC Coatings Inspector (William Dunham). (See A-12 above) l SSER-13
- i Draft 3 - 6/7/85 o .
. e 4-84-006 Alleged Intimidation of Twenty-Four (24) CPSES Employees Ju$nitaEllis(President, CASE)gavetwoNRCrepresentativesa list of 24 CPSES employees who she alleged had been, intimidated.
4-84-008 Alleged Intimidation of QC Personnel A QC inspector alleged that she was subjected to a series of eight meetings intended to intimidate her following her appearance before the ASLB. 4-84-012 Alleged Intimidation of Welding Crew An iron-worker alleged that a superintendent of ironworkers regularly threatened and intimidated the ironworkers. t r 1 SSER-13 l l
-,...-- _ . . . _ _ _ , - , - - - _ _ , _ . . _ . . . . _ . _ _ .__ - _ _ . . . _ _ , . . _ , , _ . , , . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ . _ _ .}}