ML20237L097

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re NRC Investigation of Alleged Harassment of QC Inspectors by Pullman Power Products.App J Documents Encl & in Pdr.App K Documents Partially Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemptions 6 & 7)
ML20237L097
Person / Time
Site: Vogtle  Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 09/03/1987
From: Grimsley D
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
To: Fowler L
SPEARS, B.
Shared Package
ML20237L100 List:
References
FOIA-86-42 NUDOCS 8709080215
Download: ML20237L097 (4)


Text

C  : e - '

F01A-86-42'  !

f, '"%,\, '

y Respout tvet

!

  • 5 RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF l P '**' k I'*" "

g eeeee h INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST

^"

DOCKET hvM8tRi$, in appecebars SEP - 3 1987 atoutsna 50-424/425 Laurie Fowler. Esauire PART 1.-RECORDS RELEASED OR NDT LOCATED (See checked bones)

No agency records subject to the request have been located. j i

No additonal agency records subpoet to the request have been located. 1 Agency records subject to the request that are identffed in Appendix - are already evadable for public inspection and copying in the NRC Puleiic Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC.  ;

Agency records sutsect to the request that are adentifed in Appendix __. are being enade avaasbie for pubic inspection and copying in the NRC Public Document XX Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washengtor,, DC, in a folder u1 der this FOIA number end requester name The novcoprietary versson of the proposal (s) that pu agreed to accept in a telaphone conversation wwth a twmber of my staM is now being made avaiable for public inspection end coying at the NRC Pubic Document Room,1717 H Street, N W., Washington, DC, in a fo6 der under the FOlA number and requester name.

Enclosed is information on how you may obtain accese to end the charges for copying records placed in the NRC Public Document Poom,1717 H Street, N.W,, Washington, DC.  ;

Agency records subsect ta the re@est are enclosed. Any applicable charge for copes of the records provided and payment procedures are noted h the comments section.

Records subject to the request has been referred to another Federal agency (ies) for revew and direct response to you.

In vow of NRC s response to the request, no further action is being teken on appeal letter dated PART li.A-INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PUBUC DISCLOSURE Certain irdormaton in the requested records is being withheld from public disclosure pursuar't to the FOtA exemptions described in and for the reasons stated in Part it, sec-tions B. C, and D Any released portx>ns of the documents for which only part of tne record is being withhek! are being made available for public inspecton and Copying in g the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC, in a folcar under this FOLA numtw and requester nana Comments The records listed on the enclosed Appendix J and the nonexempt portions of the records listed on the enclosed Appendix K are also available in the Vogtle Local Public Document Room (LPDR) located at the Burke County Library, 412 4th Streets Waynesboro, Georgia 30830.

I i

l 8709080215 070903 PDR FOIA FOWLER 86-42 DDR 5 OR D OFRut 5 JRECORD NRC FORM 464 LPari11 i9 so

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT RESPONSE FOIA NUMBER (Sh F0!A-86-42 DATE: CFD = 3 g PMT tl B- APPLICABLE FOIA EXEMPTIONS Records subject to the reQuc'4 that are described in the enclosed Appendices . E are being withheld in their entrety or in part under FOIA Exemptions and for the reasons set forth below pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and 10 CFR 9.5(a) of NRC Regulations.

1. The withheld information is properly classrfied pursuant to Esecutrve Order 12356 IEXEMPTION 1)
2. The wthheld information relates solely to the intomal personnel 'utes and procedures of NRC. (EXEMPTION 2)
3. The withheld information e specifically esempted from public dec40sure by statute indicated: (EXEMPTION 3)

I Secten 141.ia5 of the Atomic Energy Act which prohibits the declosure of Restricted Data'or Formerly Restrcted Data (42 U.S C. 21612165L l

Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act which prohibats the dociosure of Unclassified Safeguards information (42 U.S.C. 2167).

4 The withheld information is a trade secret or commercial or fnencial informaton that is being withheld for the reasonts) indicated: (EXEMPTION 4)

The information is cormdered to be confidential business (propretary) inforfrotion.

The information is considered to be propretary informaton pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790tdH1).

The information was submrtted and received in confidence from a foreign source pursuant to 10 CFR 2.7904dH2).

a

5. The wrthheld informaton constats of interagency or intrangency records that are not available through discovery dunng litigation. Deelosure of predeceional information ,

would tend to intubit the open and frank exchange of ideas amantial to the deliberative process. Where records are wtthheid .in their entirert the facts are inextreably intertwmed with the predecisional informaton. There also are no reasonabit segregabte factual portions because the release of the facts unnAf permit an indirect mouiry into the predecesonal process of the agency. IEXEMPTION of y 6. The withheld information is enempted from public declosure because rts declosure would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of persorisi privacy (EXEMPTION 6)

7. The withheld information consists of investigatory records comp 6ed for law enforcement purposes and is being withheld for the ressorws) e,dicated. (EXEMPTION 7)

Declosure would interfere with an enforcement proceeding because it cou6d reveal the scope. direction. and focus of enforcement efforts and thus could posably allow them to take acton to sheid potential wrongdoeng or a violation of NRC roouirements from investigators. (EXEMPTION LAH Declosure would constnuts an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (EXEMPTION 7(CD g The informaton consists of names of andeviduals and other informm.m the disclosure of which would reveal identities of confidential sources. (EXEMPTION 7(DH PART ll C-DENYING OFFICIALS Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.9 and/or 9.15 of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commason regulatons. it has been determined that the information withheld s exery from production or declosure, and that its producten or disclosure e ccmtrary to the public interest The persons responsible for the denial are those officals identified below as denying officials and the Deres.or.

Divoon of Rules and Records. Office of Adminstration, for any dentais that rosy be appealed to the Executive Director for OperationsIEDol.

DENYING OFHCIAL TITLE / OFFICE RECORDS DENIED APPELLATE OFFICIAL SEcortARY EDO Ben 8. Hayes Director. 01 K-1 through K-3 n 1

1 1

l l

l PART 11 D- APPEAL RIGHTS The denial by each denying official identified in Part 11.C may be appealed to the Appellate Official identified in that section. Any such appeal must be in ,

writing and must be made within 30 days of receipt of this response. Appeals must be addressed as appropriate to the Executrve Drector for Operations or to {

the Secre:ary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an initial FOIA Decision." ,

esac Fom 4e4 (Port 21 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION em FOlA RESPONSE CONTINUATION '

l

Re: FOI A- 86-42 APPENDIX J RECORDS MAINTAINED AMONG PDR FILES-NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION

1. Undated Excerpt entitled " Inspection of Pellman Power Products, Williamsport, Pa." (2 pages)
2. 8/17/82 . Interoffice Correspondence to Distribution from J. P. Runyan,.

re: Uriter's Memo to T. H. Griffin 8-16-82 (1 page)

3. 5/17/83 Facsimile Request to Bob Burch from'D. Evans, without attachment (1 page)
4. 5/23/03 Memorandum for Gregory Todd from James Y. Vorse, re: Alleged Intimidation / Harassment'of a QC Inspector and Falsification of Inspection Records at Pullman Power Piping with attached Report of Inquiry (2 pages)

.5-. 11/14/83 Letter to Larry Thompson, U.S. Attorney, from Ben B. Hayes, re: Transmitting report of investigation of allegations of intimidation and harassment of QC inspectors by Pullman Power Products, without attachment (1 page)

6. 4/24/84 Memorandum for File from Robert H. Burch, re: 01 Review of Region II Memorandum dated April 4,1984, without attachment (1 page)
7. 5/17/84 Memorandum for Bruno Uryc from James Y. Vorse, re: D0J's Prosecutive Review Of Pullman Power Products Investigation (2-83-005) (1 page)
8. 5/17/84 Memorandum for Bruno Uryc from James Y. Vorse, re: D0J's Prosecutive Review of Pullman Power Products Investigation (2-83-005) (1 page)
9. 5/25/84 Memorandum for James P. O'Reilly, Region II, from William J.

Dircks, re: Release of Internal tiemorandum to Licensee (1 page)

Re: F0I A- 86-42 APPENDIX K RECORDS PARTIALLY WITHHELD NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION & EXEMPTION

1. 8/16/82 Interoffice Correspondence to T. H. Griggin from J. P. Runyan, re: Altercation between a Q.C. Inspector and Superintendent

'(1 page) Exemptions 6 and 7C

'2. 4/29/83 Memorandum for Gregory Todd from James Y. Vorse, re:

Alleged Intimidatica of QC Inspectors (1 page),'with attached Report of Inquiry (2 pages) Exemptions 6 and 7C'

3. 5/16/83 Memorandum for Gregory ~ odd from James Y. Vorse, re:

Alleged Intimidation /He.rassment of a QC Inspector and Falsification of Inspection Racords at Pullman Power Piping (1 page) with attached Report of Inquiry (2 pages)

Exemptions 6, 7C, and 7D i

~ ^

gd cicg UNITED S?Aff s 0'o j

[8\,! .[' '$j' MUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION il 101 MARIETTA STRE E T. N W.

ATL ANTA, GEORGI A 30323

  • %g.,..'Y}e w . 1sa5 Georgia Power Company ATTN: Mr. R. J. Kelly Executive Vice President P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

PLACEMENT OF DOCUMENT IN PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM Enclosed is a summary of an investigation conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations, Region II field office. The subject of the investigation is "Vogtle Nuclear Plant Alleged Intimidation /Harrassment of QC Welding Inspectors and Possible Falsification of QC Inspection Records by Pullman Power Products, Inc." This Document has beeri placed in the Public Document Room and may be of use to you in preparing for tre conference on September 25, 1985.

Sincerely,

, 0 2

O lJ.NelsonGrace Regional Administrator

.[

Enclosure:

l Cover page and summary, dated 10/26/83, l

7 pages l

l cc w/ encl:

l R. E. Conway, Senior Vice President l Nuclear Power D. O. Foster, Vice President

.and General Manager Vogtle Project H. H. Gregory, III, General Manager, Vogtle Nuclear Construction G. Bockhold, Jr., Yogtle Plant Manager L. T. Gucwa, Chief i

Nuclear Engineer Ruble A. Thomas, ,

vice President-Licensing Vogtlk Project l cc w/ encl: (Cont'donpage2)

MUlo454 '

MP

Georgia Power Company 2 SEP 12 DN

, cc w/ enc 1: (Cont'd)

Ed Groover, Quality Assurance. Site Manager C. W. Hayes, QA Manager J. T. Beckham, Vice President

& General Manager - Operations J. A. Bailey, Project Licensing Manager .

George F. Trowbridge, Esq.

l . Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Bruce W. Churchill, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Ernest L.- Blake, Jr. , Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge James E. Joiner, Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman and Ashmore James G. 'Ledbetter, Connissioner Department of Human Resources Charles H. Badger, Office of Planning and Budget, Management Review Division Deppish Kirkland, III, Counsel Office of.the Consumer's Utility Council Douglas C. Teper, Georgians Against Nuclear Energy Laurie Fowler, Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation Tim Johnson, Executive Director Educational Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia Morton B. Margulies, Esq., Chainnan Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Dr. Oscar H. Paris, Administrative Judga Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr., Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel l

L____ __

UNiitD STOtts LNLLosi g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j OFFICE OF INtfEST6 CATIONS FitLD OFF6CE.CECloN 11 f 101 M ARIETTA STREI"T. SUf7E 3100 ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303 1

- l Date: October 26, 1983 /

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION ,

j TITLE: V0GTLE NUCLEAR PLANT ALLEGED INTIMIDATION / HARASSMENT OF 00 WELDING INSPECTORS AND POSSIBLE FAL5IFICATION OF QC INSPECTION RECORDS BY PULLMAN POWER PRODUCTS, INC.

SUU LEMENT: 50-424 CASE NUMBER: 2-83-005 C0KTROL OFFICE: 01: Region 11 STATUS: CLOSED REDORTIN3 0FFICE: OI: Region II FERIOD OF INVESTIGATION: May 19 - July 9,1983 ,

REPORTING INVESTIGATOR: I 441 '

' R(De$ H. Buk Investigator j 7,

Office of Investig tions Field Office, Regier. 11 i REVIEWED BY: ,

a v h/ - v -

E. L. Wilitams[.., Acting Director y l Of fice of Investiq ions Field Of .ce, Region 11

(

//?AA'!b!A/ns1

% tj 'V v William J. Varc( Director Division of Field Operaticas I

Office of Investigations

%*r5 W ny j

\

\ 2 l

h~ .

Roger tunte b '

g of IUV' ggi

,#e Sx. - n vt,8. -s a on

,,,sc, o4 inan'g,,sJ, -

i e

\

I l

P"'

l l

l SUh"ARY

  • e ai i

1

~*

  • 1 l

WM

  • l L l r l l

< This investigation was initiated to identify and document. alleged intimidation and harassment of Pullman Power Products, Inc. (PPP) Quality Control (QC) welding inspectors by the company's construction management personnel. PPP, head-quartered in Williamsport, PA, is under contract to install all piping and piping supports associated with the construction of the Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant (VNP), in Wdynesboro, GA, a licensed facility" of the Georgia Power Company.

Additionally, it was reported to the NRC that the intimidation and harassment experienced by the QC welding inspectors may have resulted in possible improprieties regarding inspection records prepared and maintained by these individuals.

The allegation pertaining to intimidation and harassment of OC welding inspectors by the Project Manager at the VNP was first reported to the Senior Resident 2nspector (SRI), NRC at the facility. This initial allegation was substantiated by the SRI'during the subsequent interviews of four additional QC welding inspectors empicyed by PPP. Additionally, a Confidential Source alleged vast PPP material storage problems, records improprieties and incidents of intimidation by the Project Manager and his construction superintendents. The SRI obtained information that QC inspectors were being manipulated by the Project Manager l through threats relating to adverse personnel actions affecting employment and l

salary matters. Additionally, the Project Manager allegedly interfered with the utilization of OC welding inspectors and attempted to influence the reassignments of inspectors wt.cse work histories did not f avor producticn and scheduling. An onsite incident of assault in August 1982 upon a Q weiding inspector by a

' construction superintendent, both employees of PPP, was also reported tc the SRI.

A review of pertinent regulatory documents, stancards, procecures anc contract requirements was conducted pursuant to the investigation. It was disclosed that PPF committed to cooperate with the licensee to ensure 0: standards for the VNP are enforced at all times. Further, this review disclosec that the line of autherity regarding administrative matters for the QA/QC marager at the fielo office site of PPP is through thp Project Manager. It was cetermined that PPP or

2 i

a subsidiary company was the subject of previous inquiries regarding intimidation and harassment of QC inspectors at the Seabrook Nuclear Plant, Seabrook, New Hampshire and at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, Avila Beach, California. A licensee initiated self evaluation in late 1982, utilizing Institute of Nuclear power Operations (INPO) criteria, identified that the QA/0C administrative reporting to the Project Manager is an area of weakness in the PPP field organi-zation. .

During the investigation, nineteen field level QC welding inspectors in PPP's field office at the VNP were interviewed regarding intimidation and harassment, interference by the Project Manager and inspection records improprieties. Five of these individuals confirmed vast material storage deficiencies which are I compounded by the overt refusals on the part of construction management to divert craft efforts to correct the problems. These inspectors viewed the construction supe-intendent's negative attitude toward Sterage Inspection Report deficiencies as a form of intimidation. Some of these inspectors also related instances of  ;

i nter f e rent ' and intervention into QC inspector assignment matters by construc-tion management to favor scheduling and the production effort. All except one of the OC inspectors interviewed reported variously that the Project Manager has I attempted to influence the utilization of, and decisions rendered by, inspe: tors; that the salary administration and other benefits for QA/QC personnel controlled j by the project Manager is unfair and inequitable; that he arbitrarily adjusts recommended salary increases based upon subjective criteria; that he is frequently publicly non-supportive and negative towards the QC function; that he anc construction superintendents publicly chastise and embarass inspe: tors and that he employs remarks which threaten job security as a means of intimidation I

'$nd harassment. The lone dissenting 0; inspe::cr was ceter-ined to be a personal I

friend of the Project Manager and had been the recipient cf preferential' treat- I ment reSarding a job assignment on site. Those inspectors with knowledge of an  !

onsite altercation, in August 1982, between a former PPP Construction Super-intendent and a QC Welding Inspector inci(m'.ec that the superintendent disagreed with the inspector's perception of the non-conforming iter being discussed. One inspector reported an offsite altercation in December 1952 between a Construction Superintendent and a OC Inspector supervisor durine which the superintendent held ar. open knife on the 0: supervisor.

1

7 3

Y Two curront and one former OL supervisory personnel were interviewed l

substantiated the claims and perceptions of field inspectors regarding in{

and acts of QC negativism by construction managers, intimidation, harassme f adverse interference, verbal threats, embarrassment and chas'tisement of th individuals by the Project Manager and his subordinates.

All of these individuals indicated that production and scheduling appear to etake precede

\

over the quality functions, an attitude nurtured by the Project Manager and hij construction) s ta f f. ~

Authorized Nuclear Inspectors at the VNP also confirmed intimidation and harassment of OC welding in ment. spectors by PPP construction manage-Inquiries were also conducted among the OC inspection personnel w engaged in visual inspection practices which were net in accerdance with existing procedures or wno signed inspection reports without assu*ing corrective a ti had been completed. c ons One OC welding inspector admitte:

that he occasionally failed to conduct visual inspections within the distance requirements as i specified in PPP and ANSI /ASME procedures.

Except for this one procedural violation, all inspection personnel who were interviewed regarding record preparation and maintenance improprieties advised forthrightly that they had never signed or initialed an inspection document without first performing the actions in the manner prescribed by the applicable procedures. l Ten welders or pipefitters employed by PPP were interviewed ano, except for at a one reportin!

0; inspector had occasionally failed to visually inspect within the distance requirement set forth in the PPP and ASME procedures, none were aware t improprieties by QC welding inspectors. of record  !

'he Prcject Manager and two construction superintendentsnwe-e all interviewe '

categorically elding denied any form of intentional intimidation anc harassment of 0; inspectors.

The Project Manager and one Superintercent admitted actions hich could be interpre .d as interference into matters which are unctions.

purel y QA/00 ation of QA/0 The Project Manager denied any improprieties regarding the adminis-personnel matters.

All claimed to be supportive of the 0A/0C mction but acknowledged that they had failed to cc 50 nner. openly in a public emeo===

4 Eight licensee management officials and QC inspection personnel at the VNP were interviewed regarding their knowledge of intimidation and harassment of QC welding snspectors employed by PPP. No disclosures pertinent to the investi- i gation were revealed during these interviews. Observations of PPP material storage areas tended to support remarks reported by QC inspectors regarding the general disarray of materials and common utilization of these areas by several cajor contractors onsite. A review of QC welding inspector salary data disclosed I that there does not appear to be a specific correlation between the amounts of recent weekly increases received and longevity, related experience and education levels of these individuals. l l

4 1

t g

to/o//G

~

Inspection of Pullman Power Products, Williamsport, Pa.

During this reporting period, on July 26 - 28,'1983, the Inspector joined personnelfrom the Region IV Vendor Branch in an inspection at Pullman Power Piping in Williamsport, Pa. The purpose of the inspection was to evaluate the corporate Quality Assurance and management support for field operations. This was accomplished by an initial review of the Internal Audit Procedure XVIII 3-1-79 v'ich describes the lead Auditor Qualification Audit objective, Audit Schedule, implementation, QA checklist and audit follow-up. In addition, all of the audit reports from Jeauary,1982, to the present were reviewed to the requirements of.the above procedure. These audit re-ports appeared to be descrihive, showing well-defined and sufficient scope and depi however, it appeared that some of the auc(it findings that require follow-up actions of various kinds were not alwah,s clear in showing that the follow-up actions were taken 1 and completed. These opinions were expressed and discussed with the Director of Quality Assurance for Field Operations.

The second~part of the audit was performed by reviewing field reports and correspondence from the Field Q. A. Manager to the Director of Quality Assurance relative to corporate Q. A. support of Field Quality Assurance effort. This was also based on field reports and records from January,1982 to present date. The review led to a conclusion that the Site Q. A./Q.C. seemed to be isolated from the corporate organization in the sense that the corporate Q.A. support received, must be requested, even though the monthly re-port may have described problems,which could be indicative of items that needed cor- j i

porate Q. A. support. Corporate Q. A. involvement and support for field operations and

{

the above evaluations were revieweb n.;i discussed with the Director of Q.A. for Field operations, who acknowledged the comments and indicated that increased field support would be accomplished. .

i, l

,&Q - }\

l

.) o .. ..

2 The last part of thisinspection was planned for a review of audit reports relative to the required independent management audit o' the field opera ions, which is a require-ment of the corporate Q. A. Manual. It was noted that this type of audit had not been performed on 3 out of I. plants. This item is considered an item of noncompliance by the N.R.C. Vendor Branch who willinclude this in their report.

1

,. .s hm 6 e

e t

6 s

b e *

,l4T. - r.f-l', J.W14 % . *

. : . k.!'L. . -) * .MI . ' .: dp. ,

9 i

INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE!

DATE August 17, 1982 70 Distribution

" FROM J.P. Runyan suancT I Resoletion of Altercation between a Q.C. Inspector and Superintendent l REFERENCE Writer's Memo to T.H. Griffin 8-16-82 $

After considet action was takenre.able discussion and evaluation, the following lative to the above subject. 4' Mr. Griffin called for the resignation of the Superintendent.

The Supertatendant complied. .

Mr. Griffin Inspector te givencalled a week foroffand writer without pay.concurred that the Q.C.

because of the inflammatory nature of his comments. This action was taken.

The incident was discussed with all other Q.C. Inspec. tors.

They were instructed that should any similar future conflicts occur they are to withhold abusive comment and immediately report the problem to writer for resolution.

No further action is anticipated. I 3

. 1' J.P. Runyan Q QA/QC Manager Distribution: J. Bowes M. Evans E.F. Gerwin A.A. Eck T.H. Griffin W.R. Evans (GPC)

O. Laakso (ANI)

W.. Sanders (NRC Site Rep.) )

File JPR/dww Attachment

._ ci s

N e' s FACSIMILE E'EQUEST er/py /gg

' ' ' 23 Dnt 3 /

EME TD:, bub __ (1.1 t..

TELECOPY NUMBER: _ h NUMBER OF PAGES: , <d DCLUDING THIS EQUEST FCIM MESSAGE FROM:

f dQJ_ $ _

U.S.N.R C. REGION I KING OF PRUSSIA, FEMEA.

TRANSMITTED BY:

DATE & TIME:

VER.1E.Lsp BY: '

\N D.

3 2 REGONAL AC: i4:BIRAICC

- Mj0 I DEPUT'l AOi.iit!!d 7MOR

).' ASTT TO ADMiraSTFAT'.?

b3

  • DIRECTOR. PRP DIRECTOR. E0P k ' DIRECTOR, EPMC?

' DIRECTOR, Rid!- 3

)

g b h a rc.h - 6 f i'A d

/ s i

I REG I Fom 124 l Feb 77 1 ll,.IbA"U 3 ~$ l l