ML20214B269

Intervenor Exhibit I-ROREM-84,consisting of Synopsis of Region III Investigation Into Alleged Harassment & Intimidation of Welding QC Inspector.Portions of Case 3-84-005 Encl

ML20214B269
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	07/29/1986
From:	NRC
To:
References
OL-I-ROREM-084, OL-I-ROREM-84, NUDOCS 8705200208
Download: ML20214B269 (7)

Text

_ _ _ . . _ . __ - __

56 /"/5 j WD WW

" ,jze c U^ '

gqfy6 .g sp. 22 97 SHOPSIS

[gg g}3 '

1 OnFebruary8,1986.}NRC-RegionIII(RIII)requestedthataninvestigationbe j initiated concerning alleged harassment and intimidation of a Level II welding ,

QualityCentrol(QC) Inspector. The incident occurred on September 19, 1983, after two handwritten notes threatening a QC inspector had been found in the Braidwood Unit 1 Diesel Generating Room. The notes were addressed to the inspector by nickname and stated in obscene language that the inspector's head would be smashed unless the inspector moved to another inspection area. The inspector works for L. K. Comstcck & Company, Inc. (LKC), at the Braidwood Station, Braceville, Illinois.

When interviewed, the LKC welding QC inspector stated that he found both of the notes inside of the Diesel Generating Room, Unit 1, imediately upon return from his lunch break. One of the notes was found lying on the floor, and the second note was found taped to a support hanger. The inspector said that he did not feel threatened by either of the notes because he knew all three of the welders who were working in the Diesel Generating Room at the time of the incident, and did not consider them to be violent men. The inspector did not know who wrote either of the notes; however, he suspected that on'e of the welders probably was responsible.

Interviews of two of the welders and LKC management personnel were unable to identify the author of either note.

The third welder admitted being responsible for writing both of the notes to the QC inspector because the QC inspector had rejected several of his welds the morning of the incident. The welder said that he did not feel that the QC inspector knew what he was doing and wrote the notes in order for the inspector to "see the light." The welder said that he did not have any intention of carrying out the threat and that he acted alone.

A review of LKC records disclosed that the QC inspector, who had been pre-viously decertified for poor work performance, was decertified on October 6, 1983, due to his high reject rate.

i S E N S I"' YE -

6 f,i0 N OT Di S C L L MAT.Fhl.' _,

{ft* m '" W nR, 01 ~

j '

, [

I 3 C N1ERwNds( 8705200208 860729 N?- }K/M4 PDR ADOCK 05000456 PDRt l EXHIBIT nz n2easz y C (R senstes me, wens

~

• ' ? " *

-[,

Case No. 3 84 095 1 {"%-

ACCOUNTAB'ILITY l The following portions of this Report of Investigation (Case No. 3-84-005) will not be included in the material placed in the PDR. They consist of pages 2 through 13.

SENSITIVE OI

!.i A I i R I A i

~

0FBMils O!RY l

< i l

Case No. 3-84-005 3

1

. 4 ,

I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SYNOPSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ACCOUNTABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Purpose of Investigation ...................9 Background ........................... 9 Interview of Victim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Interviews of LKC Management Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Interview of LKC Welding Crew . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 10 Wi11 fulness / Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Agent's Conclusion ......................11 St,atus of Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 LIST OF EXHIBITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 13 SENSITIVE OI tiATERIAL fhh Case No. 3-84-005 5

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion I:

" Sufficient authority and organizational freedom to identify quality problems."

10 CFR, Section 50.7: Employee Protection Atomic Energy Act, Section 235(b), 1954, as amended:

"Whoever forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates or interferes."

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. Title II, Section 210(a):

Employee Protection E

E N S 1;;]f 0

M A ?iR A .

1 Egin EE 0',RY Case No. 3-84-005 7

,- - - - , , e -

DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Purpose of Investigation l

This investigation was initiated to determine who was responsible for writing l two threatening notes addressed to a LKC QC inspector.

Background

1 On February 8, 1984, the Regional Administrator of RIII requested an investiga-tion into the alleged threat of a LKC QC inspector (Exhibit 1). Information was received on February 6, 1984, that two handwritten notes threatening a LKC QC welding inspector had been found on September 19, 1984, in the Braidwood Unit 1 Diesel Generating Room. The notes (Exhibits 2 and 3) were addressed to the inspector by nickname and stated in obscene language that the inspector's head would be smashed unless the inspector moved to another inspection area.

Interview of Victim On September 26, 1985, Richard L. MARTIN, aka " Opie," LKC QC welding inspector, was interviewed by the Office of Investigations (OI) relevant to this matter.

MARTIN stated that on September 19, 1983, he was performing QC inspections inside of the Diesel Generating Room, Unit 1, Braidwood Station, Braceville, Illinois. MARTIN said that upon returning from lunch, he observed a small white piece of paper lying on the floor in the general area in which he was previously working. MARTIN said he picked up the paper and realized that it was a note addressed to him utilizing his nickname " Opie," which was commonly used around the plant. The note criticized his work performance, but he did not overly concern himself with the note, and put it in his pocket. After securing the first note, MARTIN said he started up the ladder and discovered a second note hanging from a hanger that he had reinspected earlier that day.

MARTIN said the second note stated in obscene language that his head would be smashed unless he moved to another work area. MARTIN said that after he discovered the second note, he realized that it must be someone in the welding crew that he was working with who was responsible for writing the notes.

MARTIN identified the welders in the crew that were working with him in the Diesel Generating Room as James SANCHEZ, Bernard SHREFFLER, and Kevin OTT.

i MARTIN acknowledged that he was having problems with the welders because,.in

his opinion, they were generally performing unsatisfactory welding. MARTIN stated that he did not recognize the handwriting on either of the notes; however, in his opinion, if any of the welders were responsible for writing either of the notes, it was OTT. MARTIN said the only reason he felt that it possibly could have been OTT was because OTT was having more problems getting his welds to pass inspection. MARTIN subsequently gave both notes to his immediate supervisor, Irving F. DEWALD. MARTIN said that he never really felt threatened by either note because he knew all of the welders and did not consider them to be violent (Exhibit 3).

MARTIN stated that he had previously been decertified in April 1983 for poor 3 work performance; however, he was reinstated as a Level II welding QC inspector in July 1983. On October 6, 1983, MARTIN said that he again was i

Case No. 3-84-005 9

~

hh,h,L1 .

i never overheard OTT or SHREFFLER ever make any. derogatory comments about MARTIN. SANCHEZ further denied any knowledge any knowledge about the notes and agreed to submit to a polygraph examination to substantiate the truthfulness

of his statement (Exhibit 8).

' On November 12, 1985, Bernard E. SHREFFLER was interviewed by OI relevant to this matter. SHREFFLER said that he is presently employed as a welder and electrician with the Reed Electric Company, Joliet Illinois.

~

SHREFFLER said that he recalled the incident with MARTIN on September 19, 1984.

SHREFFLER denied being the author of either note. When specifically asked about the possibility that OTT was responsible for writing the notes to MARTIN, SHREFFLER replied that "you're on the right track," but refused to elaborate.

SHREFFLER provided samples of his handwriting and agreed to take a polygraph examination to confinn the truthfulness of his statements (Exhibit 9).

! On November 16, 1985, Kevin J. OTT was interviewed by OI relevant to this matter. OTT provided a signed sworn statement admitting that he was responsible for writing both of the threatening notes to MARTIN. OTT :, aid that he wrote the notes because he was upset with him. MARTIN had rejected approximately four or five of his welds the morning of September 19, 1983. OTT said that he did not really mean to threaten MARTIN, and had no intention of carrying through with the threat to " smash his head." OTT said that he had been a

- welder for approximately three years and never had a problem with any inspector prior to MARTIN. OTT said that he acted alone and no one knew that he was the individual who wrote the notes. OTT said that he did not consider the consequences of his actions until after ROLAN had his meeting, but by then it was too late, so he just decided to keep quiet about the entire incident (Exhibi.t 10).

Willfulness / Intent 4 OTT provided a signed sworn statement admitting he wrote the two threatening notes to MARTIN. OTT said that he wrote the two notes after MARTIN rejected several of his welds, and did it in an attempt to convince MARTIN "to stop j

being so picky in his inspections" (Exhibit 10).

Agent's Conclusion It is the cpinion of the investigator that based on OTT's confession, the threats made to MARTIN were willful.

I Status of Investigation .

This investigation is CLOSED.

l SENSITil

0I

\

l M A 7ER!

I

.J Case No. 3-84-005 11 w----m-,g- -

-,,,,ww, - , - , , - - - , - . - , . e e.---- , - ., , -. _ , - . a._,,-n--,,.,,,.,-n-. .r,-, - - - - ,----~-,,,,----.,-m,, w

LIST OF EXHIBITS

1. Memorandum dated February 8,1984 from James G. KEPPLER to Eugene T. Pawlik re: Request for Investigation.

2. Handwritten Note.

3. Handwritten Note. l

4. Report of Interview of Richard L. MARTIN.

5. Report of Interview of Irving F. DEWALD.

6. Report of Interview of Robert V. COOK.

7. Report of Interview of Francisco ROLAN.

8. Report of Interview of James A. SANCHEZ.

9. Report of Interview of Bernard E. SHREFFLER.

10. Sworn Statement of Kevin John OTT.

d a

, ~

D0 NOT DISCli CONTACT DECTOR, Oi o

, =_

i r 'fth i

l Case No. 3-84-005 13

_ _ _ _