ML20212G637

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Withheld Summary of Interview Re Reason for Daniel Quitting First Time,Training,Harassment,Work Record,Exit Interviews W/Daniel,Affiliation W/Nrc,Drugs & Hardware Concerns
ML20212G637
Person / Time
Site: Wolf Creek, 05000000
Issue date: 04/24/1984
From: Madsen G
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To: Johnson W
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML20212G491 List:
References
FOIA-85-594 NUDOCS 8608130551
Download: ML20212G637 (5)
v • d • e


Text

' ~

, . 4 f,"h ,, f e UNITED STATES ,

y **$ NUCLEAR PEGULATORY COMMISSION

$? 't- REGloN IV

% 8 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SUITE 1000

  • ARLINGTON. TEXAS 76011 APR 2 41984 V

V MEMORANDUM FOR:

W.D. Johnson [,fCh ef, Reactor Project Section C, RPB2 FROM: G. L. Madsen, Reactor Inspector 2 ,

SUBJECT:

INTERVIEW 0F -

, I was present during an interview of.I  : y Owen On '

Thero and Ike Isenhoffer of the Kansas Gas and Electric'-Gompany (KG&E)' quality

~

investigation team. TQinterviewstartedat11:20a.m.andwascondugtedin the parking lot of the/ , on

'erview was taped by KG&E with the full knowledge and consent of! (i.2 tape and transcript will be available to the NRC at the Wolf Creek site). My presence at the interview was principally as an observer of the KG&E Quality First Task Team in action.

At the outset of,the interview, it was made clear that I was present as a representative of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

In that the interview was being taped, the discussions proceeded at a rapid rate and extensive note taking was not possible. Mr. Thero led most of the questioning. The discussions included the following:

1. Reasons for Quitting Daniel the First Time
a. Received only 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> training when hired as an engineer reviewer.

Not a formal training program.

b. _ Conc. erns relating to making duplicates of certified documents.

refused to process,

c. Violation of document processing procedures.
d. Some illegible documentation.

I f

~'

86081305S1 860723 PDR FOIA STEPHEN 85-594 PDR .

L _ --_ _ -- _ --_-_________ _________ ___

W. D. Johnson 2. Training

a. Individual A not qualified. Didn't know much about document control.

F

b. Individual.8 and Individual C quit at about the same time of;
c. No formal training program for engineering reviews.
3. Harassment $

7 feels that i ., as w harassed by Daniel's management.

a. WhenassignedtoBOPactivities,;_ and Individual D sat for 3 days with no assignment.
b. Assigned 8-inch thick package to review; given deadlines for completion.
c. 'For making issues.
d. ' concern was job security and not wanting to mess up w

,ork

]recordwhich, believes to be good.

4. Work Record

-~ --

!believel

/ car % ouble,: trecord was good. Aksences for such things as colds, ,

etc.

r-  ::

5. FurtherSpecificConcernsoff ,
a. Handling of traveler turnover records. . .; referenced drawing )

problems identified during my interview with.. . on February 22, 1984. I provided the drawing number - C-M-03HA03, Rev. 7. ]

b. Engineering change reports given to me on February 22, 1984. I provided numbers I-M-03HA03 - ECR01, ECR02, and ECR03.
c. System discrepancy list where a clerk lined out comments by Individual E, a professional engineer, which was approved by Individual A. I provided identification number as EF-1. j l

\

C____ l

4 . .

W. D. Johnson .

6. Exit Interviews with Daniel

' indicated, had a 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> discussion with Individual F; lhowever,i did not believe Individual F kept notes. At that time -

indicated . supplied the'same information as, was giving during this '

interview.

7. Affiliation with NRC

_ . 9

.~ indicated had made an application for employment with'NRC but had received no~ response.

8. Drugs
e. ~~

! .'related to knowledge of the sale _of_IO0 uppers for 550 in "the parking lot, about 3 days prior to:_ quitting the first time. Sold by an individual referred to as. Individual G.

l Individual B and Individual H were present. Believes Individual G l

works in Daniel's maintenance.

l

_; indicated drugs are readily available. Gave the name l 'lndividual I, a' Daniel document control individual, as someone with l knowledge of drug availability.

9 .' Sort of Investigation Needed

, believes that interviews of terminated employees would force a complete audit.

Intheareaoftravelers,I thinks too many people are handling documents. Four groups doing reviews not getting same answers.

Some of paper is lost.in handling. Control of documentation

, lacking.

l Concerns on safety- al=+ad work. If handling in same manner as nonsafety-related, lbelieves there would be substitute  !

documents which were prepared for lost documents. l

-t f tbelieves training on Daniel's programs needs review.

e

~

. .c W. D. Johnson -

To{ knowledge, there are no major problems with hangers.

concerns are with piping systems and the related documentation.

l identified Individual J as a very ambitious individual that i

'would do anything to get ahead. Implied work should be given particular attention.

' ~

Reevaluate use of traveler turnover records. Use of pencil versus ink. Question regarding if the TTR is a quality record.

10. Hardware Concerns

~. -

~_ .

}  ! indicated thad no knowledge, but that .' concerns are yrith documentation control which was identified to Daniel during exit interviews.

11. Summary indicated that in view, Individual J's work deserves a harf

'look, a'n'd the handling of do'cuments was a merry go-round with high potential for lost documents.

, ~

indicated that .ihad some harassing telephone calls but cannot tonnect them to the~ activities at Wolf Creek.

l ~ ~ --

i br.inging concerns forward was not

'retaliatotyindicated on s_ part; thati-ill ;is interested in is doing the job i right. indicated that - ~ ~ ~ feels there are a lot of things wrong at .;

l Wolf Creek.

)

The interview was concluded at 12:40 p.m. on, April 17, 1984, at which time Messrs. Thero and Issenhoffer departed in their automobile for Kansas and I departed in my automobile for Omaha, Nebraska / Arlington, Texas.

rs q My ooservations and conclusions regarding the interview of j on April 17, 1984, are as follows: '

1. The KG&E representatives conducted the interview in a professional manner and displayed a real desire to get to the bottom of: /

concerns. * '

f h

l a

~

W. D. Johnson .- --

2. The information presented by iwas. essentially the same as given to me during a previous interview on February 22, 1984. The informatio, in the hands of KG&E includes that presently in NRC's hands.

Additionally, ,they havLconducted interviews with many of the individuals identified by-

~ ~ ~

The context of these interviews are available to NRC for revi'hw.

3. KG&E indic.ated tha4 they would immediately initiate a task force review concerns. As a star. ting point, they would review of all of, Viewed during the time of _

packages re employment.

O ,

G. L. Madsen, Reactor Inspector cc:

J. T. Collins R. P. Denise T. F. Westerman l- .

1

,

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20212G637&oldid=3275169"