ML20236D938

Partially Withheld Ltr Discussing Nuclear Power Industry Problems as Encountered During 6 Yrs of Employment at Limerick.Shoreham, & Hope Creek.Demotions & Terminations for Reporting Safety Concerns Described

ML20236D938
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek, Limerick, 05000000
Issue date:	03/04/1987
From:	Francis A AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Asselstine J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20236D451	List: ML20236D449 ML20236D613 ML20236D655 ML20236D740 ML20236D771 ML20236D856 ML20236D902 ML20236D938
References
FOIA-87-413 NUDOCS 8710280424
Download: ML20236D938 (3)

Text

~

March 4, 1987 ,

!; James K. Asselstine, Commissioner United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. .

Washington, D.C. 20555 {

l I

Dear Commissioner Asselstine Prior to working in the nuclear industry, I had been a strong proponent of r

nuclear power, believing it was absolutely necessary for oor country's ,

energy needs and that we were able to sanage the technology. l l

After thirteen years experience in instrumentation, I entered the nuclear l profession at the' Limerick Generating Station, working as an Instrument Field Engineer for.Bechtel Power. {

I lef t the nuclear-industry six years later, in Decesber of 1986; laid off from my duties at Hope Creek Power Station in Sales, New Jersey, by l ey employer, Bogan, Inc., as directed by the Utility PSE & G.

I am writing directly to you"because of your expressed concerns about the effectiveness of your own organization and the indications of your voting history that some affinsative action will result.

What I have seen in the years of my employment leaves me no choice other r than to believe that nuclear energy is the largest organized deceptiorIiv~er imposed on the American public and is, in fact, unsafe, and the greatest threat stems from an agency seemingly motivated more to the protection of l the industry, rather than the health and safety of the consunity.

At Limerick," h aware of tremendous wasti II$h5reham,YEecah '

concerned over safety issues as I located problems with systems that had been tested and passed, but did 'not work, and never could have worked.

Initially, LIIIO was willing to address some of these problems, but as soney got tighter, the. Utility became reluctant to correct the more expensive problems -- especially those that sight delay projected start-up.

ye

~ But it was at Hope Creek that I discovered the most serious danger - . an NRC group that discouraged any grievances by esployees; a group that bent over backwards to sake allowances for the Utility each time a new crisis emerged.

As a result, internal criticise or responsibility has been stifled. ~ "

It is common knowledge among workers at these plants that if you want to stay or advance, you don't make waves. If a worker is conscienciousg believ-ing the training and instructions he has received,jand encounters" ce41tions that could compromise the ' safe operation of the plant, he knoue%)sukreport what he has observed. It he just sentions his concerns to a supervisor and y doesn't raise the issue again, his position protimbIy is safe. 'tj)Bhe' y

pushes for resolution, either by expressing,his concerns at a _ ,11evel or t couaitting thee to paper, he has focused attentionifce himselff ratherithan on the existant problems. Management recognizes his as a troublemakUPand be is dealt with as such. If he is fired, but has not made a formal complaint, then management is able to say, "We did not violate his rights under the Energy l Reorganization Act and did not know of any activity he had undertaken regarding  ;

safety." If, instead, this worker immediately reports his concerns to the NRC, 1

1 8710280424 871023 PDR FOIA

. MAXWELL 87-413 PDR

q s a L

T hej is oeitig disloye1.to his cmployer.

trigiiIrully allowithi Tha LNBC will recognize this fact and the employ h 'is'now'b, utility to,correctsthstproblem. Unfortdna tely, "whil e "

he is. no,lon6er a desirable employee, because he 6 ave' th

'to correct the condition before reporting it. He will;likely lose the respect

,' of. hisdesireable co-workers and 'will forfeit any possibility either of advancement or:

more duties.

' Clearly, then, there exists no ' workable forum for dissent .

Those from thewith .integri.y, who fight for what they feel is. r16ht, will be driven system.- .

Those who'" rat," without.giving the company a chance to-at-the first opportunity.3 correct problems, will be isolated, especially by co!

sent in the field.1. The others -- the majority -- will simply look theT {

other way, status quo.- ' taking no more action than what is necessary to protect the .

j

{

I as one .of those who' fought for what I believed. . 1 As part of the walkdown crew and 'durin6 construction construction. problems. turnover at Hope Creek, I became aware of many!

to list deficiencies prior to system acceptance by the start-up gr) in 1994, on one auch inspection, I noticed support braces'in from .ofEarly a 480 f'

.potentially Volt motor control extremely centerto --

hazardous a clear anyone violation workin6 on theseof. the electrical code breakers.

theresolve to Electrical the Inspector, brace problem.a member of the walkedown Broup, how he wasLI6oing asked I

Although his duty was to inspect all electrical .i equipment in the plant, not only didn't he know the code for clearances around;{

electrical equipment, he didn't know where to find the information.

By using a field questionnaire, I was able to get the pj{

provided by a PSE & G en61neer who had to answer the questionnaire) Although the clearance was a: serious problem. .  !

Engineer who did not know the code. I was more concerned about the Electrical Later, in August of 1984, when I was demoted from a foreman to a technician's position -- on a charge of " low productivity" -- I filed a list of safety concerns with the NBC, and I placed particular emphasis on this one. The NRC group totally 16nored list I presented to them. the broader implications, and have not yet answered the

)

.they doubted I was told I could lose my job if I contacted Also, them.Howev1 apparently they accepted the Utility's Safeteam's attempt to discredit my my concerns (this ' report and my reply would be on file with the NRC). ' 'In addition, I was subjected k to, an in-depth investigation where at least one respondin6 co-wor rate my wife's looks on a scale ~ er was asked of 1 (for completely incomprehensible reasons) to

-Shorehas workers and sent lists of their alle6ations to the NR After Boing to the NRC, I was harassed to the point I had no choice but to file a complaint with the Department;o'i Labor.  !

was that, in fact, I har The DOL's preliminary report concerns. been demotM because of my actions involving safety upheld the DOL's decision . case no. 86-ERA-008).The company taale before the Secretary of Labor. This case is currently I codinued to work as a technician at Hope Creek until December 1986 . During that time, I saw other safety problems, and reported them to supervisors , since i;

1

.^ .- . ,

. ., cq .

. ... .e .

• i . f. , . . ,..y

, . . , . , ; ., g. , ,,,, , , ., ,, ,,

I felt I. should give tM NBC time to work on the ori61nal complaints before -l addin6 to the list. ,

l

.In November of 1986, I was told by our group's PSE & G Supervisor that I would l

-be-laid off in December. Two technicians were to remain -- each of whom was certified as Level I and had less seniority than I (for the last;tko years, my '

certification has been Level II).

Th'e company made one of the Level I technicians a supervisor without upgrading his classification. This violates ANSI standards and existing company procedures.

To se, it represents the lack of respect the ' company has for the authority of the -

NRC. QS In January of 1987, I requested the DOL invest.igate ey lay-off as a, violation of my rights under the Energy Reorganization Act. I cited both ey coployer, Bogan, 'Inc. and the Utility, PSE & G, as bein6 equally responsible. The DOL has just informed me that they can take no action against the Utility. - I do not believe that it was Bo6an's intention to lay me off, but that it was so z directed by PSE & G who believes it is immune from action under the - Act. 1 Because of the 00L's position, if any action;is to be taken against the  !

l

. Utility, it must be the NRC _which.. does so. Since I. feel, tha_t, the NRC's regional' office in Pennsylvania treated se with~ unfounded' ridicule,'as described herein, I am unwillin6 to have further contact with thee. Therefore, ,

I am requesting that you direct your agency to investigate PSE & G and not allow them to subvert the intent of the Act. Further, I ask that you impose a most severe penalty to insure that the riSht of workers to speak out is protected.

Prior to expressin6 any concerns to 'the NRC, I first attempted to resolve problems using the proscribed company method. It is in this same spirit, and as a last resort that I as -writing to you. , ,_

I would be willing to meet with you for further discussion and to provide any details re: my contentions.

Thank you for your consideration.

w Yours trul

( , ' '

,,, }%

y- NCt.4

- V-

• Q. h' p :.; ' x jtigg' * 'i m aw .

7 M,. feg -

~

Albsrt L. Francis

@'" .s

'#'gcci'$togh, , hEsq..

James!Kats Hon'.fHari&M. Cuomo 4

. p. j pg.x. lyygj<gg 3 , 4ppnr[u N

- - n n,fg$.3

n W .,

u -

e,a .

s

- $*l N_ ;e

$MI%%$d%M$& -

e mdh ,

_ _ _ _ _ _