ML20212H048

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Withheld Discussion Re Allegation A-84-A-58, Received Via 840520 Telcon
ML20212H048
Person / Time
Site: Wolf Creek, 05000000
Issue date: 07/23/1986
From: Renee Taylor
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML20212G491 List:
References
FOIA-85-594 NUDOCS 8608130652
Download: ML20212H048 (4)
v • d • e


Text

-

ny , -, , .

l# UNITED STATES h-b -N *N .

ON M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

I fi,E

- 3p v/- C REGION IV k j p 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 1000 ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011 o,, ,

MEMORANDUM FOR: Allegation File STN 50-482; Case A-84-A-58 FROM: R. G. Taylor, Reactor Inspector Si)8dECT: ALLEGATION A-84-A-58

1. The above noted allegation (s) as extracted from the notes of the NRC personnel who received the allegations via a telephone call on 5/20/84 were:
a. .was suspended by the licensee because of (1) anti-nuclear

~ philosophy and (2) drugs,

b. Believed the real reason was, findings made during an audit of CWP's (Construction Work PermitsJ involving disassembly of pressure boundries without Q.C. being present.
2. The essence of the above extraction was reaffirmed based on a memorandum of phone call between RIV personnel and the alleger on 6/1/84
3. Inspection Findings:

I a. The alleger had been a sub-contract employee of the licensee sassignad to the quality assurance group in the " audit" section. j employment was of approximately of'

b. The audit section supervisor confirmed that the alleger had been involved during most of the of Construction Work Permits which ultimately relialed i

the code (nSME) pressure boundary components, mostly valves, were being disassembled without the presence of Q.C. personnel. ,

c. A review of the audit file and discussions with the supervisor disclosed the audit had been initiated by one auditor who was reassigned by reason of promotion; continued by the alleger until termination; and the continued by yet another auditor until concluded. The conclusion resulted in issuance of a " Quality Program Violation" and fairly extensive corrective actions, mostly of a procedural type,
d. The audit section supervisor provided the inspector with information to the effect that the alleger had been discharged after being accused by another party of having offered drugs to the party. The supervisor provided the inspector with the name and location of the accuser. The inspector interviewed the person (on-site) and was 8608130652 860723 PDR FOIA (-

STEPHEN 85-594 PDR L

63-33 b tf-

_y, Memo for Allegation File STN 50-482; Case A-84-A-58 provided with a narrative of the incident. The narrative was reduced to a short written statement by the inspector and signed by the accuser.

e. During a second interview with the audit sec' tion supervisor, the supervisor offered the opinion that the accuser had been motivated to make the charges by yet another party who was and still is a high level manager / supervisor in the organization the alleger was

- auditing. The audit section supervisor could offer no proof to support the opinion. _

f. The inspector reviewed a file in the possession of the licensee's security department pertdning t ,

to the alleger. The file contained an unsigned note that the j The ' file also contained a record ~~

from the There as no recora to support tne cnarge that the In addition, the file h tain'ed -

signed statements by tne accuser and by co-workers of the accuser.

The statements by the co-workers were found to be statements of what the accuser had told them shortly after the incident and prior to the accuser reporting the incident to licensee management.

g. At the conclusion of the first phase of this inspection, the inspector judged that:

(1) The allegers position that he was terminated because of his audit findings was not substantiated in that his termination did not terminate the audit and further that the audit, when concluded, substantiated that programmatic co.rrective action was necessary. ,

(2) The charges by the accuser, which were den:ed by the alleger prior to his termination, reduce to one-on-one issue with no apparent way of resolving whether the accusers charges were factual.

(3) During the interview with the accuser, the inspector noted that the accuser was nervous and couldn't clearly remember when the drug offers incident had taken place.

(4)' Given (2) and (3) above, the otherwise unsupported suspicion by the audit supervisor, who has been on-site for over five years, could not be disregarded.

h. Since a degree of uncertainty remained concerning the real cause of the allegers tennination, the inspector ' presented the known facts and suspicions to RIV management and subsequently to the personnel of the

c .p-

. i

- ** .M:co for Allegatien Fili.STN 50-482; .

Case A-84-A-58 . j 01 Field Office. It was suggested that a possible way to resolve the I matter of who was mostly likely to be telling the truth, would be to review the backgrounds of the alleger and the accuser.

i

~ Thealieger,whois!in 1-. I provided a picture of a transient constructio ~uoPRbr who had in ten years worked at nine nuclear power s)ations. '

i. Taken on balance, it would appear that the young accuser with a generally rural and/or small town' background would be somewhat more likely to be providing the truth of the incident than is the older transient worker who would find employment in.the nuclear power construction field increasingly hard to obtain. The inspector is inclined to believe the accusers written and oral statements made to both the licensee and the inspector and thereby discount the denial by the alleger and the unsupported suspicions of the audit supervisor.
4. The substance of the above will be documented for the record in inspection report 50-482/84-23. -

/

R. G. a) or Reactor nspector O

d 5

u. .... . . . . >. w - n: . u . .z.......

.a; . = .w ,__ _ _ _,, c.; ___ _ _

y ~ nw n w on u> ~~w ms- ------

ff.{t]' ilhT6?2%61Wft%N$3' h WWYn%QQMM'tr<8WtLWM'.r**?'"y;ggfMyM=f

. <- s6, ~.. ^ r, vmv ':-amsemMnems&

.3'; '

.- a4, Q g.e,.7

. ., 4-e igi'..: scpic r

?%,a. =

.s.T-

% .. 2::: LOSE M

1 ,

l

/W a A , A wip~ yk I

M s w - - . . . . -

. ,. 1 e

=,

.=

.. . + w 5 qw ,

~

i

/. Jj -

S p.cd -

    • r 'n e ms (Sl& --

~ ~A 0 , ,

y .3 ,<

d N

t M -

3

.,N

@ kr

~

7h

~r~

' ~w~

g

' s.

m> +: + ..o - i MD..b, 3_C.ar_.c-er

, .. . .

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20212H048&oldid=3275159"