ML20215H747

Consolidated Intervenors (Ci) Reply Disputing Applicant & NRC Staff Responses to Motion to Amend Ci Contentions or to Reconsider Previously Denied Contentions.Certificate of Svc & Supporting Documentation Encl

ML20215H747
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/22/1986
From:	Ellis J, Roisman A Citizens Association for Sound Energy, GREGORY, M., TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20215H673	List: ML20215H671 ML20215H747
References
CPA, NUDOCS 8610240128
Download: ML20215H747 (24)

Text

,

t BEFORE Tnd -00CKETED ONIT8D STATES Ust!RC NUCLbAR R8GdLATORY COMMISSION 8etore the Atomic Safety and Licensing 8 rh in tne Matter or )

)

T8XAS' UTILITIES G8N8 RATING COMPANY, ) Okt. Nos, du-445-CPA et al. )

)

(Comancne Peak Steam 81ectric )

Station, Unit 1) )

CONSOLIDATED INTERVENORS ' RSPLY TO P8RMITT8ES' AND STAFF'S RESPONSES TO MOTION TO AM8ND CONTENTIONS OR, ALT 8RNATIV8LY, TO RECONSID8R In tnelt oppositions to the Motion of Consolidated Intervenors, Applicants and Start (Consolidated Opponents) make tnree runaamental errors. First, they miscnaracterize tne' issue in tniG CPA proceeding and concluce tnat tne issue nere is now penalng in the operating license proceeding. Secona, they misconstrue tne ruling of tne Coommission in CLI-66-15 and 'tnus erroneously analyze 'tne aamissiDility or tne amended contentions.

Tnira, tney. misstate tne rule regarding pleading an acequate oasis tot a contention ano tnus improperly attempt to- challenge the admissibility of the contentions on tne casts of evidence tnat tney celleve proves the contentions are invalia on the merits.1 1

Consollaatea Opponents, suttering trom tactical amnesia, 'also assert tnat CAS8 naa to provice a listing of its accomp11snments in tne nearing to support its position tnat it can make a valuaole contribution to pursuing tne CPA issues. In adaltion to tne issues on design on wnica CASE nas prevailed and wnica the Start gruagingly acKnowleages, CAdd and its witnesses, including tne allegers, one of wnicn is Meddle Gregory, are tne detectors ann presenters or tne evidence tnat tormea tne oasis for most of h

G

4 A.

Miscnaracterizing the CPA Issue Tne issue in a CPA is wnetner an extension of the contruction permit should be granted. No other forum provices an opportunity to argue tnat issue. The OL proceecing may aodress some of tne same evicence ana questions which will Dear on tne CPA issue Out it will not cectae tne CPA issue. Are Consolidated l Opponents prepared to agree tnat, if tne Board aecides in tne OL tnat tne CPRT is not acequate to estaolish that tne plant nas been Duilt in compliance witn the construction permit and NRC regulations, then the extension of tne construction permit is automatically voia and all construction at Unit 1 must halt? We suspect the answer is no.

l In audition, tne Commission nolding tnat an issue cannot De raised in a CPA it it is already being addressed in an OL proceealng (see Washington Puolic Power Supply System (WPPSS, Units 1 & 21, CLI-d2-29, 10 NRC 1421, 1227 (1982)) is obviously not applicaDie where, as here, tne question sought to be excluceo I

tne narassment ana intimidation tindings of the SG&G and most of the dericiencies founa of the TRT, a substantial par t of tne Start questions aoout and TUSC's moaltications of the CPRT, the only pud 11sned critique of any of the results reports (l .a.4 ) to mention only a rew. Tne undenlaole ano selt-evident tacts are tnat, lett to their own devices, anc witnout tne intervention of tnis doara and CASE, tne'Consolicatea Opponents woula have 11 censed this woerully deficient plant long ago without ever laentitying, mucn less correcting, the problems that now nave torcea its indetinite postponement to complete a massive, aloeit inaaequate, reinspection ettort. The allegea "repuolation" which Statf claims TU6C nas now made or its past policies is tne direct result or CASE's ettorts, otten pursued over the strenuous oojections or the Statt ano always over the strenuous ob]ections or TU6C.

1 is tne question tne Commission nas just rulea is central to a construction permit extension ano tne exclusion of tne question trom the CPA would leave the Board no basis to decide tne CPA issue.

How can this Boara or tne Staff decide the issue ot wnetner the extension should be granted if the questions of what causeu the celay and, if it. were TUEC's misconouct, whether TOEC nas removed the wrongdoers and discarded and repudiated the past policies are not to be considered?

As noted in Consolidated Intervenors' Comments on CLI-86-15 (10/7/do) tiled with the Appeal Board, there is so little in-the amendment App 11 cation or tne Staff Evaluation tnat no one can tell for sure wnetner tne extension is requested because there is 9000 cause tor tne delay or because there is good cause for the extension. If the good cause for delay is alleged, on what legitimate allegations does TUEC rely for its claim? The' Commission nas rulea that good cause for delay requires finding wny tne celay occurred, not why more time is needed. CLI-86-15, pp. 7-6 TUEC nas offered ~notning on this question, as this doaro ruleo in its Frenearing Order ( 3/ 2/ d o ), p. 10. The Commission nas rulea tnat it misconduct is the source of the delay (Consolidated Intervenors so allege (Contention 2, Basis A)) tne permitttee must prove tnat it has aiscarded and repudiateo past policies ana tired tne wrongdoers. CLI-do-15, .

pp. o, 9

. In tne CPA no such allegations nave oeen made.2 2

00 Conso110atea intervenors continue to press the point tnat we not nave to present the f acts to prove tne bases in orcer to present an admissiole contention. See, e.g., M ississippi Power &

Lignt Co. (Grand Guit Units 1 & 2), ALAd-130, o AEC 423 (197Jf,

-3_

The suoissues in the CPA and the OL are also different. In tne CPA, TUEC must state what caused the delay and if the delay was its own misconduct, then prove that it removed tne wrongdoers and tnat it has discarded and repudiated tne past improper j po11cies.

In the 06 the issue of the root cause of tne problems  !

I only oecomes relevant in looking tor- generic implications which tnen nelp define tne scope of tne reinspection eftort. A proper 1

and comprenensive 1004 reinspection ot tne plant may onviate'the need for root cause investigation,-and even innocent mistakes may require such reinspection. See CAS8's Response to tne Alleged Mootness or Docket 2 Issues and Proposed Scneaule for Docket 2

! (7/16/dS).3 wnen tne tocus is on the real issue raised by the CPA, it is clear tnat the existence of similar or even identical tacts in tne OL proceeding does not Dar tne Board trom hearing the CPA issue. Significantly the Commission was equally aware of the i

sim11'arity of tacts in the OL and tne CPA and did~not choose to e

rule.tnat the existence of the OL cars any issues from the CPA.

and Houston Lighting i Power Co. (Allens Creek), ALAB-59u, 11 dRC 544, b43.

J Concedealy, in tne OL as it nas now aeveloped, the question or TUEC misconduct as a root cause witn generic 1mpilcations is very mucn in controversy. Nonetneless tne consequence ot answering l

tnat question in tavor of the position urged Dy intervenors in tne two proceedings is mucn dif f eren t. In the OL it will require a 100s reinspection. In the CPA it w111 require removal of wrongdoers ana proof of the intent to discard and repuaiate the past policies. It is not clear tnat a commitment to a 100s reinspection test.

is the only say, or a satisf actory way, to meet tnat

B.

Misconstrusng CLI-de-lo Consolidatea Intervenors incorporate'by reference their pleaaing and tne pleaaings of Consoliaatea Opponents to tne Appeal soara on tnis issue.

See Consolidatea Intervenors' Comments on CLI-de-15 (10/7/80 ); Permittees' Memorandum In Response to the Appeal Boara Oraer of deptemoer 22, 19do t9/20/co); NRC Staf f Comments on CL1-56-15 t9/30/do).

C.

Misstating the Rule og Pleading Contentions and Bases In~ arguing against Consolidated Intervenors' contentions, Consolidatea Opponents attempt to prove the contentions are wrong on tne merits.4 For instance tney argue that the existence of the CPRT is' proof enough of the repuoiation Oy TUSC of past policies.

Obviously Consoliaated Intervenors feel differently ano nave :identitied aspects of the CPRT which reflect a continuation or the past misconduct. Contention 2, Basis C.2.

Moreover, as notea in our leading to the Appeal Board (p. 5, n.

4 ),

the absence of an explicit repuaiation is not a mere oversignt but a substantive decision tnat TOSC Delieves tnere nas oeen wrongooing.

Correcting mistakes is dif terent f rom admitting 4

.Tne aosence of any allegations focussed on tne questions identified by tne Commission in CL-do-1S as relevant to a construction Opponents' permit extension is, contrary .to Consolidatea assertion, a valia casts for a contention, particularly been approvea.wnere, as nere, the action in question has alreaay In tnis CPA proceealng, Consolidated Opponents are attempting to defena tne alreaay fully pled and decided issue of extenalag the construction permit. Consolidated Intervenors nave tne c19nt to ar9ue tnat tne cecision was without adequate factual basis ano even lacked any acequate allegations.

tnat your deliberate policies caused tne mistaxes. Should there De any doubt tnat there is eviaence to support the alleged basis, we attach one. piece of evidence uncovered in an ongoing Department of ' Labor Section 210 proceeding involving Joseph James Macktal, a former employee at CPSES who was fired in January 1966 Decause, ne alleges, he reported safety proolems. His supervisor aescribec nim to a Safeteam investigator as the kind of person who woula report proolems to tne NRC, a "wnistleblower," a " snake in tne grass." See Attacnment to the Brief.

Finally, Consolidated Opponents assume, without argument or analysis, tnat tney Know how a permittee will prove repudiation or past po11cles -- i.e., announce some reinspection effort, no matter how inadequate, .and allow several (but by no means all) top management to leave while retaining mia-level managers whose airect conauct and misconduct caused the delay. Surely it is open in tne CPA ror Consolidated Intervenors to challenge whether tnis "de facto" repudiation nas any substance. As TUSC notes,

" actions speax louaer than woras," ana Consolidated Intervenors allege in C6ntention 2, Basis-C, tnat TUEC's actions show a continuation or tne past improper policies. This raises a questionior tact to De deciaea af ter admitting the contention.5 3

Consollaatea Opponents' arguments regarding Consolidatec intervenors' pos ttion on whether and wnen to appeal denial or some out not all contentions are irrelevant to the issues here.

To tne extent good cause f or late tiling an amenament to contentions and reconsideration exists, sucn good cause tully supports procedurally these requests to this Board to which the Appeal Boura nas aeterrea.

I

/

l

i CONCLUSION-

• For the reasons stated above and in our original motion, tne ,

i relief request snould be granted.

Respectfully suomitted, N.

/1 1/~ 1 S L le ANTnONY

Trial law {.j ers y ISMAN for Puolic Justice 2000 P Street, NW, 4011 Washington, D.C. 20046 (202) 463-8600 Counsel for Meddie Gregory (A Of Jp ITA ELLIS /'

1 26 South Polk Dallas, TX 75224 (2141946-9446 Representative for CASE

\

Dated: October 22, 1986

-j-

A N

UNITED STATES 00CKETED NUCL8AR R8GULATORY COMMISSION USNBC detore tne Atomic Safety anc-Licensing Boar

'86 Uci 23 R2 OO' In the Matter or J . _ , ,

) 'J TEXAS UTILITIES G8N8 RATING COMPANY, ) Dkt. Nos'. 5 0-4 4 3-CP A et al. -

)

)

(Comancne Peak Steam Electric -)

Station, Unit 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I nereby certify tnat copies ot CONSOLIDATED INTERVdNORS' MOTION FOR LBAVB TO FILE A RSPLY BRIEF and CONSOLIDATED INTERVENORS' R8 PLY TO P8RMITT8cS' AND STAFF'S RESPONSES TO MOTION TO AMBND CONT 8NTIONS OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO RECONSIDER were served toaay, October 22, 1906, oy first class mail, or by hand where inaicatea by an asterisk, and by Feaeral Express wnere indicated Dy two asterisks, upon the tollowing:

Aaministrative Judge Peter 81ocn*

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20563 Dr. Walter d. Jordan **

ddl West Outer Drive Oak Rioge, TN 37dJO Dr. Kennetn A. McColiom**

1107 west Knapp S tillwater, OK 74075 8112abeth B. Johnson oak Ridge National Lacoratory P.O. Box x, 8uilaing 3500 oak Riage, TN J78J0 Nicnolas Reynolds, 8sq.*

81snop, Lioerman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 17 tn Street, NW wasnington, D.C. 20u36 l

l l

1

Docketing & Service Section

. Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wasnington,.D.C. 20555-Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.

• Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 773d Old Georgetown Road, 10th floor Washington, D.C. 20555 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.

Ropes &' Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110

/*

ANTH g . ROISMAN / '

4 2

- .--, _ h 9

4 4

ATTACHMENT 1

1

i

, Notes prepared by Robert L. Pflueger 1

Gpft s Yt \lJ $i =<~<.cr. A' wi> vC a - .a . . A . . w.^ , .

&Q l- -

, <'L2 . 2.Q 9

, jx< .,,,: e. .h ., i

' m a.- c-.>o -

x- e. r- p * - <- ..

y<1

'I l 5.C, Fc :." ., y . . r- . u.e T .&di c~. -- $ E .~ - ~P c.Th l

l- ,

l F (* .* *_e . , / c .r,o" e . iv. - 4 e b" , r* < R ***

• ^f .c- *-'*"'#' @ ( '

h.?

• s sP c* /?'N C' c.r** t *.O A ' c' - 4N- ' " o ~~ ' ' ' * *

• C's

• c.0

. )(

o - A O .m c' *\.3 fc ; . , u . .r*o. ty'L*** y s/ W'^<>*.

cy;a q ..<*e A w 3 2 *ve

, l .A'< > , .s h" b 5 \

. * * . ' hIs '

.s f (so 's s h. *

,9,.,so r/ wm',wo

~

,pe y .

-s

{t .

& I () g

• ,o

& m f, l .

) V , eg b c~y y&%z. - o a 6 m - -- cE2 u>~~p ND~ }J

h. a

c. w) sl,,y ens . 2~ ~ .% swt O J l c6K,,y,p c) .69 ( vwu.- ./., < J GR, cD.~O 2 4 ,,

i I2 D w 2~> . s -- .'2s cymD ms- WT-+{n J e2 ., .e w A.:2 e s ca n y g w a>4

&" r o .6t=, & ~ to y . & . % , m :so ,.

g R- - 5t-/ $ L e m 2 & A r7c ~ R rq

%2_.s i 2 a. m q_s n - A 72 s_@

l

~- - Y.Oa^0J.A'*S A.L O _ m - W 4m Of zu m- x.a.e n o . w w _ m m , ,.. a .

b

.! < ~ J;2 D - A .2 a.9,,e_ e. . _ r . pv ._ <

._ l , Law :n~m ~f ,.. 2, v(x, g e- s-.o 22& .R c.,

i (.e.I c: cw.

dc,, o92- a <'%2243....&. .. (2 62 y., <x.n 52%) Qu,'2s 1

! . A l , j,; .<3A. . ; Esh ^ >s.., 6.%2',npI .. &.". . '.h ;.0_,a s c&-

e. ( .

i .- .) . .- p , b].'E

. o- ly'e a ,d': A- .>-q._. ~1 . 4

, A....../ 2 .n. /. ,, . . .- ., 3 2 c..~.r2, ,~ t e,G2.

, d, .:2~.') .f .t /'d. . D N Ji 4 n,., .

o,e9 u..~ks 42. o-fs

% . s.- . h' tc - ,.

I

. ?.' . " -

c h_ _ ~- ' -"

8, 2.n. 2rT 7L D . :m . .

,. t. 1 J h ! Nf.o./, /2, d2.N <,4  !

kk ., < . .- . , s. .,m .a'

~

• FINAL' DRAFT c ary 15, 190:

TO: SAFETEAM M.:.. e.

W-llI'l. I' ROM: Robert L. Pf1utaer 3D SAFETEAM I nvest.1 gator SUDJECT: RESPONSE TO SAFETEAM CONCERN NO. 10739-D Dased on reading the concern, it states, " Interviewee feels that he was harassed because he/she came to SAFE 1EAM. Interviewee was 4

seen by the General Foreman of Labor on night shift at SAFETEAM.

When interviewee 1of t SAFETEAM, his General Foreman. Louis Cerda, was wasting ior him, wanting to know why he was at SAFETEAM.

He/she was followed at that shift by the General Foreman. At'the end of the evening, he/she was brought in by his General Foreman and Super i niendent and

• badgered' for 45 minutes about his/her visit to SAFETEAM.

He/she was f i nall y wri tten up on a safety violation that he/she claims wou not true. All during the interview, the night coperintendent sat on the edge of the desk, hitting his own hand with a ntick. Interviewer felt i n t i r:.i dated and took t.he safets i

viofation. Gave the fol1owing names of workers t h s.t could ver;i.

the har at,ument :

(1) Carl Drookshire, (2) James Forrester. (3)

1. '

. l.,,, ,, C s .. (.. .

, ,, , ,g t t .

i

_. _ . __ - . . - . - - . _ , . - ~ . . - - - ..- --- - - - - - ----- - - - -- - - -~~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~

2

SPONSE TO '.4f IllE AM CONCERN NO. lif.39-D 2

teir.u a r y ID, 3 ?!st.

2 This harassment' lasted about a week. Appro::i matel y a week before the SAFCT EAM 2.re ter vi ew, the intervi ctvee had a very good '

t valuati on. Dur i na the week of har assment , he:/she wn de aoted from Foreman to Journeyman.

Reason given f or demoti on was a counseling sheet stating '1'ack of communicction of Brown E. F.oot pol i cy. ' Thi s was not ms nti oned on evaluation the week before.

Af t er g oi ng t o J . ~ D. Turner about the derogatory counseling sheet put in the file, Mr. Turner assured him that the report 4

would be taken out of his files. Interviewee was transferred to days and plor_ed under a new foreman. Interviewee f et-I s he c:i d not deserve the demotion and a loss of $200.00 a week in pay.

i Inter vi ewee f eel s that the journevman on nights under Louis Cerda and Cleve Buck are beino : nt:mi da ted. Interviewee f c el s t h a t. the General For eu :in . Louis Cerda, is 'br and nw and is very pruduction oricntcd.

He wentr. tc buiId a namo i e_ - ' i mt cl f . b,

r ovi ng that t h e- night crew c ou l t

do more ti a- t he d.. cr e.. tith half as many people.

_ - , . . . _ . . _ . _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ ,_ . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ . = . . _ _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _

RESPONSE Tt .r i Tf. AM CONCERN NO. *:

January 15, < n. 3

• Duality i t. no' hit concern; al1 l.. went +. to hear in how much work you*ve done.*"

in preparation f or investigating th25 concern, the following documents were reviewed. Permisnian wan given SAFETEAM br interviewee to obtain his/her personnel records, all of which were obtained and reviewed. In addition, discussions were held with the Assistani Project Manaryc; Gc,n cr al El ectri cal Superintendent; Night Project Superintendent; Night El ectrical General Foreman; Electrical Superintendent (Reactor Building);

Night Electrical Fcreman; seventeen (17) electricians from. night shift; two (2) Personnel Supervi sor s; the Safety Manager end his assistant.

Based upon a review of documentation and interviews with personnel noted obove, this SAFETEAM i nvesti gator

• s resul ts are as f ol l ows.

It is a correct statement that intervi ewee had previously been to SAFETEAM with a concern. However, S AFE1 E A!'. c on find no rel ationship between his vi sit to SAFETEAM and the eventt end statements i denti f ied by interviewee.

O ItE.SPONSC TO GAFI'fAM CONCERN NO. 10739-1)

Januar y 15, 1906 4 At the ti me -i ntervi ewee vi t.i tect SAFETEAM (ini t ial vi si the ) had just'been reclausiiled from an El ec tri c al Foreman to a Journeyman. -Mancgement contendt, it i s common pract.i ce to pa_y clcuer at.tention to an empiover who )L mal.ing thin iransiiion than other employecu.

The reason cited is, to offer guidenc.e and provide direction i or the new Foreman and to re-establish direction for work activi ties for the former Foreman.

Neither the night Superintendent nor tht. General Foreman ever questioned or asked why interviewee went to SAFETEAM.

In addi t. i on , the. interviewee contends.he was " badgered" for 45 minutes about his visit to SAFETEAM on the night of October 2, 1985.

However, in discussion with inter viewee about this specific meeting, the time was reduced to 15 minutes and it was stated that nrither indi vi ciual over rnenti oned SAFETEAM.

It is a correct uPatement that e uef et y vi ol ati on web issued to interviewee thc evrrning of Oc t ober 2. 1985, for not wearing gonalem while operatincy o r o t a t i n e. saw to cut pipe.

The Safei, Dc;ior t men t utaicd that t h r.

oc t i v t 3 pariormed was c s+foty violat2on.

However, the intcrviesec, whi1e actnowledging the s .' . 1, '. 4 I t. , j .( t,i,, 4

,, , , i t, er, ,..e ,,

. . . . . } , r.j ws.,i j t; huvE b e t.8e

s

. R: 'IfJRE TO SAFETEAM r(" :0739-D J. > > 15, 1986 5 appe t ipr i ate , and not a vit .tson- Management f eels the ac ti vi ty per f ormed was a vi ol ati on.

The i ntervi ewet clenot ed the nemet. of f ottr (4) co-d' ort:ers who nere identified as being able to ver if y the harassmerit he was i

r ecei vi ng.

Al1 4 our (4) co-wor hers were i r;t erviewed by SAFETEAM and none J

i dent: 1 f i ed any ii rst-hand knowl edge . of conversations or l statements between either the night Superintendent or General Foreman and yournelf. All four (4) stated that what they knew was conveyed to them.by yourself or via the grapevine. However, it was their opinion that management was observing more closely ac ti vi ti en yuu performed.

Management and SAFETEAM ageee that i nterviewee recei ved an Employee Evaluation dated September 3, 1985, which rated l inter vi ewee at. " Good." Management agrees that the courene1 ing sheet presented to i nt ervi owee on September 25, 1980, was uricubstant a ct et: c ric' has since been removed f r om inter 10 wet's personnul () ie 4

e 9 I

I t

l l

1 e

. . - . . . - . . . . - _ _ . . . . - . . - . - , . - - - - - . - , . ~ . - . , - - - - . . , - - - . - . . -, , -.-.-,

RESPONSE T(' ' AFETEAM CONCERN NO. .

IO739-D 6 January Ib, ! YtJ6 The trand er f r om m yhth to days as a Journeyman wt.. to provi de interviewee a change in supervi si on, which was felt was best for al 1 -parti es The pay difference from Foreman to Jour neyman J i nvol ved (c. rii f f erence 2n .t.95 per hour and not $200.00 a weck.

The int.erviewee further stated that Journeymen on ni ghts under i

the night Superintendent and General Foreman are being i n L a rr. ; tie.t ed .

i Twel ve (12) Electricient, or 2S% of the wor t force, j werc picked at' random and interviewed by SAFETEAM and the Brown &

Root Personnel Supervisor. All twelve (12) stated they have never been intimidated by either party. In fact, r i :- (6) of the twelve (12) contended that the Gener al Foreman went out of his way to help and assist any. employee with a problem. All twelve (12) ~btet ed they have been told over and over to do it right the first ti me, whatever time it takes, so we don't have to do it i-over.

In conclusits., SAFETEAM f eel s that the sequence of events and 1

counseling shoret written and destroyed by manacement were not 4

6pp6 ep':otr> managtment precl ces.

4 i

However, SAF E TE Art cannot nubutantiate the' allegations made by E 3 %I k 4 0( t

}

.o .

b RESPONSE 10 fir;' * . .. I CONCERN NO, 10739-D 7 January i t. j < ,-

i In addition, it is the opinion of SAFETEAM, as also expressed by i ritervi ewce , that reclassification from Foreman to Joureleyman was appropriote.

I I

a t

i i

1 l

, ~ . . - . - . , - . . , . . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ -. _ , - . - _ _ , . , . _ _ - . . . _ , _ . . . . , _ , - . .._ _ _ _ _,._

7 TEX iS UTILITIES GENERATING COMI%NY P. O Box 3002 C tJ.H ROSE. Ta K AS 16o43  ;

l March 5, 1986

Dear Concernee:

On October 2,1985, you had your first SAFETEAM interview and a response was nailed on January 13, 1986. You have had five interviews with SAFETEAM since the first one in October, 1985. This letter is to respond to the concerns expressed during these five interviews (Concern No. 10731, 10738, ,

10739, 10749, 10769). Your concerns are grouped for response into two general categories: Hardware / Procedures and Harassment / Intimidation.

A. Hardware / Procedures Concern No. 1 You expressed the concern that 257, or more of the Hilti Bolts are not being ,

installed according to procedure. You indicated that this condition exists in Reactor Building 2, between elevation 808 and 905. You further stated that the holes are not being cleaned out and that Hilti Bolts are hitting rebar and are being bent to go around the rebar.

During the investigation of each Hardware / Procedure concern, SAFETEAM !

reviewed the applicable documents and procedures.

After such document review for this concern, SAFETEAM contacted Quality '

Engineering (QE) and requested to review the "Hilti" installation trending data to determine if an adverse trend exists pertaining to:

1) drilled holes not being cleaned out

2) "Hilti" Bolts hitting rebar SAFETEAM received the following reply:

Inspection Report (s) (IR) were reviewed for "Hilti" installations in Unit 2 Reactor Building fron 6/85 to present. The results showed that the unsat rate for all inspection attributes (including drilled hole inspections) were less than 4.5 percent. Based on the above, QE concludes no adverse trend exists.

The Project Discipline Civil / Structural Engineering Supervisor was also contacted about bending "Hilti" bolts around rebar. l SAF L TE A'i learned that in the event rebar is hit during the drilling process, work cannot continue without Engineering's approval, because of the procedural controls governinn the use of diamond tip drill bits (which are required to allow drilling into or through rebar) as stated in MCP-13

" Request for Core Drilling". However, in the event rebar were hit and the drill bit were forced around the rebar, the results would be: ,

• 1 l

(

I 1

Concer s. tio. 10731, 10738, 10739, 10749, 10769 Page 8 l

l SAFETEAM learned that craft detected the two inch (2") hole and Myers hub when they attempted to connect conduit C24K12074 to CP2-PSMEPS-04 and wrote RFIC 1324 to request engineering evaluation. Af ter the initial, engineering evaluation, the RFIC was answered to reduce the conduit in orfer to use the existing equipment. However, further evaluation by engim ering determined that the reduced opening would not permit the pull,ing'o f cable and craft supervision was informed verbally to install the Sonduit in accordance with the existing design.from Since RFIC's are not desi and installing C24K12074) did action (deviating the RFIC response 124'gr1' documents, this correc not constitute a violation.

on of field routed conduit does not [

SAFETEAM learned that the installa require an Operation Travelf. Conduit C24K12074 was installed in f 2-602-02, Revision 14, and the connection to accordance with drawing 23 CP2-PSMEPS-04 is in at dance with drawing 2323-El-1701, Revision 11, Detail 2. No specific aveler is needed to make the connection.

j The minimum spa g criteria referenced on drawing 2323-El-1701, Revision 11, is for c uit to junction box connections, not conduit to electrical J

l equipment c nections.

Based this investigation, SAFETEAM found that no violation occurred due onnecting conduit C24K12074 to CP2-PSMEPS-04 This installation has to b,e6n QC accepted as of February 6, 1986.

I B. HARASSMENT /INTlHIDATION l Concern No. 1 1

l You indicated that you feel you were harassed because you came to SAFETEAM t )

with concerns. You stated that you were observed visiting SAFETEAM and when

" badgered" you about you returned to your work station, your supervisors that you were harassed for the your visit for 45 minutes. You felt following week, receiving an unwarranted safety violation, a demotion and a counseling sheet. You identified persons who could verify the harassment you had been experiencing. You provided SAFETEAM with additional information about this concern, in order to assist in the investigation of this concern, you agreed to neet with and identify yourself to the SAffTEAM investigator. After you gave permission to SAfETEAM, your personnel records were reviewed.

In addition, discussinns were held with the Assistant Project flanager, the General Electrical Superintendent, the Night Project Superintendent, the I

Concern No. 10731, 10738, 10739, 10744, 10769 Page 9 liight Electrical General Foreman, Electrical Superintendent in the Reactor Building, the Night Electrical Foreman, seventeen electricians from the night shift, two Personnel Supervisors, and the Safety Manager and his assistant.

Based on a review of your personnel records and interviews with these individuals, SAFETEAM found the following:

As you indicated, you have had several SAFETEAM interviews. However, no relationship could be established between your SAFETEAM interviews and the events you identified as harassment and demotion. At the time of your first SAFETEAM visit, you had already been reclassified from an Electrical Foreman to a Journeyman. Management informed us that it is common practice to pay closer attention to an employee who is making a transition from one job classification to another. This practice is intended to help the reclassified employee reestablish direction for work activities.

Regarding supervisions questioning about your visit to SAFETEAM, both the night Superintendent and the General Foreman deny questioning you about this visit. In addition, after additional meetings with the SAFETEAM investigator, ycu agreed that SAFETEAM was never mentioned during the meeting you had with these supervisors.

SAFETEAM learned that you were issued a safety violation on October 2, 1985, for failure to wear goggles while operating a rotating saw to cut pipe.

Although you acknowledge that you violated safety rules, you indicated that a warning would have been a more appropriate response. However, both Safety and !!anagenent feel that since the activity performed was a violation, the issuance of the safety violation notice was appropriate.

Tne four (4) co-workers you identify who could verify the harassment you received were interviewed by SAFETEAM. These individuals denied having any first-hand knowledge of what transpired during the meeting (s) between you and your supervision.

SAFETE.AM learned that you received a ratirg of " good" on the Enployee Evaluation dated September 3, 1985. Management found that the counseling sheet presented to you on Septenher 25, 1435 was unsubstantiated i',d, as you requested, this counseling sheet has since been removed from your personnel file. This issue of the counseling and demotion tool place prior to your coming tn $ArfifA" the first time and is, therefore, not related to your SAFLILAM visits.

Your transfer f rom nights to days (which we understand you welcomed at the time) as a .lourneyman was intended to provide you with a change in 9

f 1 l

l l

Concern No. 10731, 10738, 10739, 10749, 10769 Page 10 <

i supervision, which management felt was in the best interest of all parties involved.

You stated that Journeymen on nights under the night Superintendent and General Foreman are being intimidated. To investigate this concern, SAFETEAM and the Brown & Root Personnel Supervisor randomly selected and interviewed 25% of the night work force. The twelve (12) persons interviewed stated that they have never been intimidated by either supervisor. In fact, six (6) of the twelve (12) persons contended that the General Foreman went out of his way to help and assist any employee with a problem. All twelve (12) employees indicated that supervision directs them to do the job right the first time, and do whatever it takes, so that they don't have to do rework.

Information shows that your reclassification from Foreman to Journeyman was appropriate and was agreed to by you in a meeting with the Assistant Project Manager, and was not associated with your visit to SAFETEAM.

Concern No. 2 You informed SAFETEAM that you felt that you were being harassed because you failed to receive a message left by your spouse.

Regarding the two (2) emergency phone mssages left by your spouse on November -2 0 ,~. *985 which you did not receive, SAFETEAM learned that emergency phone calls on site are handled in the following manner: When the operatoa receives a call for a craf t employee, the call is routed to the Brown A Root Time Office. The Time Of fice verifies that person being sought is currently employed. After this determination has been made, the call is transferred to the Field Time Office. The Field Time Office takes the message and is responsible for contacting the Foreman of the employee with whatever message was given.

SAFETEAM contacted the supervisors of both Tine Offices and found that neither maintains a log of calls received. The employee you identified was also contacted, but was unable to recall which empl oyees received phnne calls that day.

SAFETEAM then contacted the General Electrical Superintendent who contacted the General Foreman and Foreman to determine if either was contacted by the field line Of fice regarding two (2) emergency calls for you that day. Both ,

supervisors stated that they received no such message.

Both SAFETEAM and nanagement regret any inconvenience this incident may have caused you.

l l

m Concern flo. 10731, 10738, 10739, 10749, 10769 '

Page 11 Concern No. 3 You recommended that SAFETEAM examine the survey reports (craft's evaluation of Supervisors and Managers) in Reactor Building 2.

information would be helpful in determining the origin ofYou felt that the some problems on site.

Although this concern is non-specific, offering no direction or item for SAFETEAM to investigate, the Brown & Root Corporate Training Manager on site, who conducted a survey of craft's evaluation of supervision, was contacted.

SAFETEAM was advised that the survey did not identify the Reactor Building 2 supervision as a problem area. In order to investigate your concern more thoroughly, SAFETEAM encourages you to provide more specific information that would make such an investigation possible.

Concern No. 4 You stated that after you gave permission for your name to be given to the l SAFETEAM investigator to pull your personnel file to investigate your concerns, your confidentiality was broken. You maintain that the SAFETEAM investigator, through the process of investigation, made your identity known to all. levels of Brown A Root Management.

Regarding your concern about confidentiality, SAFETEAM protects a concernee's tdentity and will not divulge such information unless we receive specific instructions or permission from the concernee to use this information during the investigation of a concern. As you indicated, you gave SAFETEAM permission to use your name in order to obtain copies of personnel records. You also met with a SAFETEAM investigator on several occasions and suggested persons we should talk to about yo:fr concerns. The only persons SAFETEAM used your name with during the investigation were those persons suggested by you (in your concerns or from discussions with the investigator where other names were offered).

S AF E T E Ati learned that you met with numerous Brown A Root management personnel, including the Assistant Project Manager, prior to your first visit to SAFETEAft regarding many of the same issues you later expressed in yout SAFETEAM interviews, l

You stated that the S AF E T E AM investigator took you to meet with your Superintendent and the Brown & Root Assistant project Manager. No such l necting was arranged or participated in by SAFETEAM.

l \

l l '

1

Concern No. 10731, 10738, 10739, 10744, 10769 Page 12 SAFETEAM did request thet you meet with the Brown A Root Corporate Representative for site training who, under a corporate charter, is responsible for implementing training of site supervision in supervisory skills, monitoring the success of the training and recommending corrective action, if required. This individuals identity and function were completely explained to you prior to the meeting. You appeared pleased with the No other meetings between independent corporate involvement at the time. Personnel were arranged for you and Brown & Root Supervisory or Management you by SAFETEAM, in summary, although you made many contacts with site personnel about your g" concerns prior to coming to SAFETEAM, during the SAFETEAM investigation, all actions involving disclosure of your identity were done with prior approval f rom you or in an ef fort to follow your suggestions.

Again, thank you for sharing your concerns. Should you have any questions about your concerns, or any other concerns you wish to share, please write me at the above address or call the Conanche Peak SAFETEAM. The SAFETEAM or telephone numbers are 8149 (on site), 1-800-633-6502 (in Texas) 1-800-645-0021 (out of state).

Sincerely, J'M ichard tierner SAFETEAM Manager

__ _.