ML20136F221

Requests That NRC Issue Civil Penalty in Amount of $250,000 Against Util for Deliberate & Persistent Harassment of QC Inspectors at Facility from Approx 1978 - 1984

ML20136F221
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	09/27/1984
From:	Garde B GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
To:	Axelrad J, Deyoung R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
Shared Package
ML20136F117	List: ML20136F112 ML20136F146 ML20136F179 ML20136F199 ML20136F221 ML20136F365 ML20136F378
References
FOIA-85-584 NUDOCS 8511220067
Download: ML20136F221 (9)

Text

.

(f 2-))dhk iAft/n $

3 '

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT V I u( h4&

1555 Connecticut Amnue, N.W., Suite 202 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)232-8550 September 27, 1984 Mr. Richard C. DeYoung Director -f Office of Inspection and Enforcement ,/[l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Jane Axelrod Director Office of Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Enforcement Action Request, Duke Power Company

Dear Mr. DeYoung and Ms. Axelrod:

The Government Accountability Project (GAP) requests the issuance of a

$250,000 civil penalty against Duke Power Company (Duke) for its deliberate and persistent harassment of quality control (QC) inspectors at its Catawba nuclear power plant from approximately 1978 through 1984. Harassment and intim-idation of nuclear workers who engage in protected activities is prohibited by criminal law, 42 U.S.C. 55851, and administrative law, 10 C.F.R. $50.7. The employees' right to engage in protected activities is also protected by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended.

The harassment and intimidation which necessitates the issuance of a civil penalty is substantiated and documented in the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's (ASLB) Partial Initial Decision (PID) regarding Catawba, issued June 22, 1984, which states:

...the Board finds that some welding inspectors were sub-jected to harassment by craft workers and craft foremen for doing their job. This varied from insult and shunning to threat of injury. The existence of these incidents in-dicates that other similar incidents probably occurred in areas other than welding, as well as in the Office of Investigation (01) report.

8511220067 851104 ,

RB B4 PDR ' '

• m __ .

t Mr. Richard C. DeYoung Ms. Jane Axelrod Septe'mber 27, 1984 Page Two As you know, the allegations of harassment and intimidation were raised in the licensing proceedings by the citizen intervenor organization, Palmetto Alliance (Palmetto), and to 01 by GAP. (See Fxhibit 1 of OI report).

We recognize that requests for enforcement action matters such as these normally are received from the Regional Director. However, for the reasons stated below, we believe that all harassment and intimidation enforce-ment actions should be issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) headqua'rters.

I. Current corporate policies toward harassment and intimidation,

" blackballing" within the nuclear industry requires strong enforcement action.

As nuclear power plants under construction across the coun3ry near comple-tion, a growing number of construction project employees are bringing their concerns to GAP, to the media, to the citizen int'ervenors, and, occasionally, to the NRC.

The effect of these "come :lately" allegations of quality assurance (QA) breakdowns, construction inadequacies, and harassment and intimidation is devastating for the Commission's resource management, can cause significant delays in the construction project, and produce catastrophic financial burdens on the licensee.

By and large, these allegations are known to the sources (current and former quality control .(QC) inspectors, engineers, crafts persons, etc.) for a comparatively long period of time. The reason cited by these individuals consis-tently for their failure to bring the concerns forward prior to the near-completion of the project is their fear of reprisal. overt harassment and intimidation, or fear of the direct loss of their job.

The fear of these actions has a great potential for reducing the mo,tivation of QA/QC inspectors and thereby affecting the overall QA/QC program, and, ultimately, the quality of the construction. Faulty construction ultimately t

threatens public health and safety. These workers are the front-line people l responsible for the safe construction of the plant. They must be free to voice f their concerns about construction problems or deficiencies that they believe exist within the plant's construction.

. ~ a . .x...~; ... ~ ..~a .m w.n.- ~ ~ .-

Q Mr. Richard C. DeYoung Ms. Jane Axelrod September 27, 1984 Page Three ,

We believe that the allegation " crisis" is a direct result of your offies' failure to send any message to utility companies that the harassment, intimida-tion, blacklisting behavior towards its workforces will not be tolerated.

Any findings of harassment and intimidation by either the Department of Labor (DOL) or your agency itself should result in automatic penalty substantial enough to be an incentive for licensees to stop engaging in the well-established industfy practices of expelling those members who dare to raise concerns about a power plant. Such a penalty is justified because of the impact that harassment can have on the overall integrity of the nuclear industry and the safety of the particular plant in question.

Therefore, there must be a penalty issued in this case, and it must be a severe one to insure that there can be no recurrence of this type of harassment.

II. Harassment and intimidation at the Catawba nuclear power plant violates 10 C.F.R. 50.7 and 5210 of the Employee Protection Act.

The evidence is clear that Duke, in fact, did violate the above-named rules and regulations. Further, that the violations began in the mid-1970's and continued up to and including the time period of the ASLB hearings. This harassment included a range of actions taken by management to negatively influence the reporting of Nonconforming Item Reports (NCI) by QC inspectors. Some of these actions are listed below.

1. Workers being told or ordered to slack off on their inspec-tions or there would be retaliation;

2. Filing of bad performance ratings and reports against in--

spectors who found problems with procedures and hardware;

3. An inspector who was threatened with a rifle for rejecting work as unsafe;

4. Threats to " knock an inspector's eyes out;"

5. An inspector being threatened with his job if he continued ,

Mr. Richard C. DeYoung Ms. Jane Axelrod September 27, 1984 Page Four to follow NRC procedures in his inspections;

6. Anoder inspector was threatened that he would have "his teeth knocked out" if he did not atop writing NCI's;

7. Some employees and welding inspectors were harassed for taking their concerns to the NRC; The employees have also expressed the feeling of intimidation about their freedom to bring their concern to the NRC under threat of some type of retaliation from the company:

8. A number of workers felt that they were reprimanded by i management for bringing their concerns to the NRC; 1

,1 9. A meeting at which QC inspectors were warned by top-

! level executives not to,,take their concerns to the NRC at a n}eeting between the Executive Vice President and weldin'g QC inspectors;

10. Some inspectors were threatened, being told that if they did not " ease off" in their inspections, they would not advance in employment;

11. One inspector who was going to testify at a hearing was intimidated by a corporate official concerning his testimony at that hearing or future hearings;

12. An employee threatened to push a welding inspector off a scaffold for doing an inspection of his work;

13. Other examples of inspectors were threatened with -

transfer if they continued to conduct proper inspections;

14. Inspectors were repeatedly harassed by other erployees i after they brought their concerns to s ome of their i supervisors;

15. Inspectors were repeatedly warned by management that they were over-inspecting;

Mr. Richard C. DeYoung Ms. Jane Axelrod September 27, 1984 Page Five -

16. A number of inspectors were threatened with their jobs for conducting proper inspections; and

17. Inspectors were repeatedly harassed and hassled for doing their jobs.

Company management generally took no adequate response to these prohibited actions, instead characterizing the well-founded complaints of QC inspectors as complaints about pay cuts.

The foregoing facts clearly lay out a pattern of harassment, intimidation and discrimination, which fall within the definitionb of the type of harassment which is prohibited. Further, the evidence of harassment in this case is much more severe and widespread than was found in two recent cases where civil psnal-ties were imposed by the NRC against Texas Utilities Generating Cgmpany (TUGCO).

In both cases at Comanche Peak, there was verbal harassment, inti'midation and terminations of single QC employees for doing their jobs, and threats of removal of QC certifications. Fo,r these violations, TUGC0 was assessed by your office two civil penalties totaling $80,000. As you know, TUGC0 has continued to resist the penalties. The incidents at Catawba go far beyond those which occurred at Comanche Peak and deserve a much more severe penalty than that imposed on TUGCO.

At Comanche Peak, Charles Atchison, a QC inspector, was terminated when he alone voiced objections to a single safety violation within the plant that had not been remedied. Yet at Catawba, the harassment was not an isolated event, it was of an entire crew. At Catawba, the harassment was condoned throughout the highest level of Duke management. It was promulgated by the Quality Assurance Manager and was the generic modus operandi of this supervisor toward a specific crew and their identification of nonconforming conditions for at least fiv.e years.

The magnitude of the harassment at Catawba exceeds that of anyotherconstruction project.

E A good working definition of what constitutes harassment is contained in the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision. " ..any action taken by another employee or superior intended to modify the behavior of an in-spector so as to impede the proper performance of the assigned task. Harassment may involve use or threat of physical or violence or more subtle action or speech intended to intimidate, embarrass, or ridicule." (PID, In Re Duke Power Company, ASLBP No. 81-463-06 OL p. 36). ~~

~

Mr. Richard C. DeYoung Ms. Jane Axelrod September 27, 1984 Page Six III. 10'C.F.R. 50.7 requires the Commission to take i

enforcement action Federal Regulation 10 C.F.R. 50.7 states:

(

' (c) A violation of paragraph ~ (a) of this section by a Com-mission licensee, permittee, an applicant for a Com-mission license or permit, or a contractor or subcon-tractor of a Commission licensee, permittee, or applicant may be grounds for:

(1) Denial, revocation, or suspension of the license.

(2) Imposition of a civil penalty on the licensee or applicant.

(3) Other enforcement action.

In the Catawba case, the ASLB failed to find a pervasive QA breakdown on the site resulting from the harassment and intimidation of G. E. ,Ross and the welding inspectors on his crew. (PID, pp. 179-180). We disagree with that conclusion, and draw your attention to what Mr. Ross stated in his interview with 01: S I personally do not feel this lack of support, intimidation and harassment or the willful violation of procedures is limited to welding inspections. I have had other inspectors from other disciplines express similar comments about their experiences with QA management. It seems that most of the complaints came from civil. inspectors. I am not sure why this has not been followed up more during these inquiries.

Probably because people in other disciplines do not want to go through the same thing that the welding inspectors have had to endure. There were two civil inspectors, Jim Norris and Wrenn Wasse, who said they had similar problems. I do not know whether they would want to take to the NRC or not.

They might fear for their jobs if they talk.

The failure of the ASLB at Catawba to find a pervasive QA breakdowrf suf-ficient enough to remove reasonable assurance that the plant has not been built to operate without endangering public health and safety does not remove your office's responsibility to enforce the Commission's regulations regarding harassment and intimidation of a QC supervisor and a crew of QC inspectors.

Federal regulations clearly speak to the need to punish employers for any employee intimidation which affects nuclear safety and, consequently.

A

Mr. Richard C. , DeYoung Ms. Jane Axelrod .

September 27, 1984 Page Seven public safety. " Employ'ees are an important source of safety information and should be encouraged to come forth with any items of potential significance to safety without fear of retribution from their employers." 47 C.F.R. 30, 453 (1982). Yet at Catawba, QA supervisors threatened their employees and warned them not to document blatant deviations from welding QC procedures.

The Secretary of Labor recognized the inherent danger in management's attempts to short circuit the identification of nonconforming items.

The Administrative Law Judge found that Atchison was fired for submitting NCR's. The NCR procedure whereby employees report problems to their employers is precisely the type of activity Congress intended to protect when it passed the Act.

Should the Secretary of Labor not recognize the intent of Congress to protect the activity Atchison engaged in, there is no doubt that employees could be deterred from reporting '

safety problems resulting in the existence of defective nuclear plants. Defects in nuclear plants may well endanger the welf Seing.of millions of Americans in the future.

(Comp'ji' ant's Response before D0L, Case No. 82-ERA-9, p.

12).

Moreover, as a result of the harassment in the Atchison case, the NRC Office of I&E issued a proposed imposition of a $40,000 civil penalty. (December 16,1983,EN83-82). Thus, the OIE was stating, in a case similar to the one before you now in Catawba, that in order for the legislative purpose to be ful-filled, strict sanctions must be imposed.

GAP is certain that any hesitancy on the part of the NRC to issue a civil penalty in this case would be contrary to Congressional intent and have a

" chilling effect" on employee complaints about nuclear quality control, particu-larly at Duke. Conversly, the agency's failure to issue a civil penalty will have the effect of encouraging utilities to continue engaging in harassment and intimidation of its workforce.

~u -.

i

i. * .

Mr. Richard C. DeYoung Ms. Jane Axelrod September 27, 1984 Page Eight IV. New Evidence of An Atmosphere of Harassment and Intimidation Yesterday an internal Duke investigation and its Region II counterpart was released to Intervenor Palmetto Alliance and GAP. Although the information is under partial seal ordered by Judge James Kelly we believe that your office has both a duty and a right to review it. The information contained in the Duke investigation comes from several hundred statements taken by Duke management officials of construction workers at the site. Although Duke's public explanation of this material is their standard "only a paper-work problem" we believe that it is a devestating indictment of what the NRC has failed to find. Workers complain of such things as being threatened to "have their brains blown out" for refusing to violate procedures, and fear of losing their job if it is ever discovered that they have talked to Duke management about their concerns. There is a consistent complaint of wor,kers about ,

certain foreman being on drugs, of pushing to meet construction schedules regardless of quality, of looking tiie other way when pipes are pulled into place by com-a-longs, and dild interpass temperature is violated. There is evidence

, that guards were posted to keep a "look out" for QC inspectors, and that there were so few QC inspectors on the night shift that it was impossible to inspect all fo the work. In all over two hundred workers gave statements. It is obvious by the language in the statements that many of the workers just nodded their heads to Dukes' shrewdly worded questions, one entire group of workers had exactly the same answer identically to each question.

In spite of the gloss and weaknesses of this internal investigation, there are still many workers who apparently tried to tell. their management the truth.

Any inquiring investigator could have found the problems that these workers are now reporting years ago. But, instead of looking for the true condition of the Catawba plant the Region II investigators continue to be Duke's corpoiate "cheerleading squad." The Region II investigative file on this matter is a disgrace - once again Mr. O'Reilly has sat down with the utility company he is supposed to be regulating and instructed them on how to " beat the system" he is supposed to be implementing. He has disclosed the names of the accused and the accusors, given tips on how to defend themselves on these allegations, and failed to even notify your office of the allegations of deliberate violations of NRC l regulations.  !

l I

. )

9 .. ,

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

t

• Mr Richard C. DeYoung

'Ms. Jane ~Axelrod September 27, 1984 Page tiine CONCLUSION We strongly urge you to take the first solid step toward breaking the industry's hold on the nuclear workforce. Your failure to do so will promulgate the allegation problem which has stymied your agency and is plaguing construction projects across the nation.

Upon my return from the harassment and intimidation hearings in Ft. Worth about similar abuses at the Comanche Peak site, I will contact Ms. Axelrod to set up a meeting regarding this matter.

Sincerely, l

E Billie Pirner Garde ,

Citizens Clinic Director l

• BPG:me ,

cc: William Dircks, EDO ' '

l Ben Hayes, 01 l Harold Denton, NRR l

l I

I a

- _ _ - *