ML20133C500

From kanterella
Revision as of 18:53, 4 July 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Testimony of Lh Harris Re Welding Inspector Concerns.Related Documentation Encl
ML20133C500
Person / Time
Site: Catawba, 05000000
Issue date: 09/20/1983
From: Harris L
DUKE POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20132B649 List:
References
FOIA-84-722 NUDOCS 8507200512
Download: ML20133C500 (12)
v • d • e


Text

E NITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD L

In the Matter of )

}

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. -) Docket Nos. 50-413

-- ) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, ).

Units 1 and 2) )

TESTIMONY OF LINDSAY H. HARRIS, JR.

1 Q. STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR WORK ADDRESS.

2 A. Lindsay Harvey Harris, Jr., Catawba Nuclear Station, P.O. Box 3 223, Clover, SC, 29710.

4 Q. WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT JOB WITH DUKE POWER COMPANY?

5 A. I am a QA Welding Inspector in the Unit 1 Reactor Building.

6 Q. SUMMARIZE YOUR EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS, INCLUDING

. 7 OTHER NON-DUKE JOBS, EDUCATION, CERTIFICATIONS, AND 8 COMPANY SPONSORED COURSES AND TRAINING.

9 A. I worked for Daniels Construction as a Boilermaker. I was a 10 Certified Tub Welder and Heavy Wall Hot Welder.

11 I have attended Heliarc Welding School, Welding Inspection School, 12 NDE School, and a Health Physics Training Program while employed 13 by Duke. I graduated from Rock Hill High School and attended 14 Gaston College and Spartanburg Jr. College.

15 Q. WHAT OTHER JOB POSITIONS HAVE YOU HELD WITH DUKE POWER 16 COMPANY?

17 A. I was a welder before becoming an inspector.

8507200512 850524 PDR FOIA BELLB4-722 PDR 7,

r

..~ .

h w 1 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH WHAT IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS 2 THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS WHICH WERE EXPRESSED IN 3 LATE 1981/EARLY 1982?

L 4 A. Yes.

f 5 Q. WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THESE CONCERNS

6 WERE?

7 A. My understanding is that many inspectors were dissatisfied with the 8 answers they received to questions they asked about NCI's.

9 Q. DID YOU EXPRESS ANY CONCERNS AS A WELDING INSPECTOR TO 10 ANY OF THE TASK FORCES OR TO DUKE POWER MANAGEMENT?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. TO WHOM DID YOU EXPRESS YOUR CONCERNS?

13 A. I remember talking to Larry Coggins and Gail Addis. I do not l 14 remember who else I talked to, t

15 Q. WERE YOUR CONCERNS WRITTEN?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. DESCRIBE EACH DOCUMENT WHICH CONTAINS YOUR EXPRESSION 18 OF CONCERNS, AND INDICATE WHO IT WAS SUBMITTED TO.

19 A. A written statement of my concerns was turned in to my supervisor 20 and then given to the Task Force. I have attached a copy of this 21 statement to my testimony as Attachment A.

22 Q. DID YOU FEEL FREE TO EXPRESS ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. DID YOU EXPRESS ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS?

25 A. Yes.

l

[

.s

7 ~

6 ' ..

  • 1 Q. DOES THE DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO YOUR TESTIMONY AS 2 ATTACHMENT A REFLECT ALL OF YOUR WRITTEN CONCERNS?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. ARE ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS ~ INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE AND EXPLAIN WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO 7 COMMUNICATE BY YOUR CONCERNS.

8 A. My concerns were brought to the attention of Duke supervision to 9 try to get more support in making our jobs as Welding Inspectors 10 more efficient, precise, and thorough.

11 Q. WERE YOUR CONCERNS INVESTIGATED BY THE TASK FORCES?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. DID YOU ATTEND ANY MEETINGS WITH TASK FORCE AND/OR QA 14 MANAGEMENT MEMBERS WHERE THE TASK FORCE FINDINGS ,

15 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WERE DISCUSSED?

IS A. Yes, I think that the concerns were thoroughly investigated and '

17 were properly handled and taken care of.

18 Q. WERE THERE ANY CHANGES MADE IN THE QA PROGRAM AFTER 19~ THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS AND THE TASK FORCE 20 INVESTIGATION OF THESE CONCERNS?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. DESCRIBE THE CHANGES OF WHICH YOU ARE AWARE IN THE QA 23 PROGRAM.

24 A. The major change I am aware of is the Employee Recourse Program. I 1

. 3-E

7_

1 Q. THE WELDING INSPECTOR CONCERNS HAVE BEEN 2 CHARACTERIZED AS CONCERNS ABOUT THE QUALITY AND 3 SAFETY OF CONSTRUCTION AT CATAWBA. DO YOU AGREE OR 4 DISAGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION?

5 A. I disagree. I think the quality and safety of the plant at Catawba 6 is sound.

7 Q. DID THE EXPRESSION OF YOUR CONCERNS INDICATE YOUR 8 BELIEF THAT THERE WAS A BREAKDOWN IN THE QA PROGRAM 9 OR INDICATE THAT THE QA PROGRAM WAS NO LONGER 10 WORKING 7 11 A. No. A' breakdown in the QA Program never existed at Catawba.

12 My concerns were brought to the company's attention to help the 13 QA Program be more efficient and thorough.

14 Q. DID YOUR CONCERNS REFLECT A BELIEF ON YOUR PART THAT 15 THE CATAWBA PROJECT 'IS NOT BEING CONSTRUCTED SAFELY?

16 A. No.

17 Q. IN YOUR VIEW, HAS THE QA PROGRAM BEEN EFFECTIVE WHILE 18 YOU HAVE WORKED AS AN INSPECTOR AT CATAWBA?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY DEFICIENCIES IN CONSTRUCTION OR IN 21 THE QA PROGRAM WHICH WOULD CAUSE YOU TO QUESTION 22 WHETHER CATAWBA IS SAFELY BUILT?

23 A. No.

24 Q. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO YOUR 25 TESTIMONY?

s

! . ,1 'Al Yes. I would like to say .that the QA program has always been s.

l}

!.- 2 effective at Catawba Nuclear and this plant is one of the safest [

r 3 being built by Duke Power Company.

/ 4 Duke Power Company has some of. the. best craftsmen I have I have been working constructiori since 1971 5 ever worked with.

6' and have worked around a lot of professional craftsmen in all-fields 7 land crafts. To the. best of my knowledge, the plant at Catawba 8 has been built by the guidelines required by the Duke Power QA 9 department and quality has been in every job completed.

10 11 12 s t

13 I hereby certify that I have read and understand this document, and

  • \

14 believe it to be my true, accurate and complete testimony.

15 -

18 bd tw Lindsay H.~ Harris, Jr.

h. _-

19 20 21 Sworn to and subscribed before me -

22 this / f 4 day of September,1983.

23 26 I/

% vNotaryh hPublic/>n)7tA/

-27 28 Commission Expires 8s(/I [/NT t

i l

l

. s,

~?

f. .

's f .%%

6' O J'

, d A  ?

(

nart f k Rmb ow. 62R c W a m m u opp mawfas,%H

% xue a~0 M nm k Ld_t .fle n M@1~~ Ac @ at m a

f. 1 qu%a Aga a l

ryd ,_ict'it & % J i d9 e4 m

~

ht vacA co't cua. SuteII mA. M

% m wy xAu sw.&A pese Cc M &ppv& imJ '

6 ovd

.c f ,

e

~ cwtJ.vgO,kamc~g w - u& s eTks~p.

a c its m a k A Lwt d k n &h m ek .Au) 2 e ta k . B a n k m a h . d a L=o 4 s p . % , Eg a 2 Lt 1kdx c%ut ccm h y h P % c fs y .

L s

\. .

s

% f*

. l- ao-BR t

w. Q

.~ ~ . aan i os n-

.. .. VERIFICATION-INDIVIDUAL CONCERN FILE NO. 8-/

,p s

. C074C4(l' (Nlfb fke CdhctktSi0/13 7719je be D. E. W Ai/gflet- 7%e A//aoiny 4 l$o~hiohe j90 /h . S k p cc / / /f e J+t Y e

/ Tl1W8 /AMS $//17eftreft"h &S l0 cabe7%.c+

h'e niektol beiq t(Sed />cf "b'+ Well0 **

wn ac/6#y 'geschim. The use

.Cl hfced air' f.5 g(fricb/tyl'a+1d,

'I%sre16re, de nold'w t<xtS l

: V(dlakesh c f b d fID CFSS Sdec/ficbe-kQ$ $e NJT7 6 be C,cS6/ k,ne tu shl 2- hfkW Sa e / S [I1Cf fjg/cb iiy cf

$ Sci n/O.S 9 S d'**l welln?anb is o /

e c c f xd'le iSfw(Mod h /$ti kcl ?[d fl1($ 171e/bsd I.s -freyue us d 4 cIvi y a h hqhtfe ef rdSidacl Sh'eDS*S rn f//e wellS.

/n hed sin e we /s%y, 7% rat p ,s ;s nnacle a t</ then de jipe 75 $/le/wj/1t jv&laY p f G ld fl a f M7 N I3 fj?rafGl ch he roof f0 Skbfgyenf we/dy ir, saw /c o aurity $ s .rhas, Asm hs[/e k coyr%a essNe os No reef /O,"b d Slit?tilvh3 We Jtr13rllblv rf si'rs; corestei, croclric,

' e' SIGN-OFF vtRIFl_ CATION PERFORMED BY: /L//[#/ b h /

DATE:

I"/f-8 M O

f ^

, , , , , __ , - \/ , f o Ms933

.. , y - ,

IE PRE:!ATICN TO ACES CN MARCH L, 1953

,~ ' %

y j ,v ~

I AM JACK BRYANT, SDi10R RESIDDIT DiSPECTOR AT THE OCONEE SITE. PRIOR TO MY CURRDIT ASSIGNMDiT I WAS A SECTION CHIEF IN THE REION II 0FFICE FROM NCVEMBER 1972 TO JANUARY 1983 FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS OF THAT -

FEBIOD I SUPEBVISED RBqIOR II CONSTRUCTION SPECIALIST INSPECTORS. THE REMAINING EIGHT YEARS I WAS CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SECTION CHIEF: THUS, .,

INSPECTION OF CONSTNUCTION AT CATAWBA FOR NRC HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO ME IN ONE OF THOSE CAPACITIE.SINCE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT.

REION II PERSONNEL HAVE PERFORMED 166 INSPECTIONS OF CATAWBA, AND A CONSTRUCTION DISPECTOR HAS BEDI IN RESIDDiCE SINCE FEBRUARY OF 1980.

, EIGHTY-EIGHT VIOLATIONS WERE IDDITIFIED DURDiG THOSE INSPECTIONS, 37 OF THEM WERE OF THE LOWEST SEVERITY LEVEL. THE INSPECTIONS WERE OF QUALITY ASSURANCE AND OF THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF CONSTRUCTION WORK.

l TWO SPECIAL TEAM DiSPECTIONS WERE CONDUCTED AT CATAWBA, ONE IN NOVEMBER 1979 AND ONE IN JANUARY 1981. DURING THE 1979 INSPECTION, PRIVATE DiTERVIEWS WERE HELD WITH 57 INDIVIDUALS, PRIMARILY CRAFTSMDi, QC DISPECTORS, AND CRAFT FOREMDi. THEY WERE ASKED AT THE D1TERVIEWS IF THEY }BD ANY OUTSTANDING CONCERNS ABOUT THE QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION: IF THEY WERE AWARE OF ANY INSTANCB WHERE CONSTRUCTION DID NOT MEET PRESCRIBED

~

SPECIFICATIONS, CODES, STANDARDS OR OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND WHERE CORRECTIVE ACTION WAS NOT TAKDI: AND IF THEY WERE AWARE OF ANY DAY TO DAY PROBLD'S OR IRRECULARITIES AFFECTING QUALITY OF WHICH THEY BELIEVED NRC SHOULD BE INFORMED.

9 2

SEVGAL OF THOSE INTERVIE'4ED MENTIONED OCCASIONS WHERE EXTRA WORK WAS REQUIRED TO REPAIR POOR WORK CAUSED BY HASTE OR IMPROPER PLANNING. NONE PROFESSED KNOWLEDGE OF ANY POOR WORK WHICH HAD NOT BEEN FOUND BY QC AND

. SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED.

ee l A TRIAL CONSTRUCTION TEAM INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED AT CATAWBA ON JANUARY 26-FEBRUARY 6,~1981. ONE GOAL OF THAT INSPECTION WAS TO DETERMINE MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT IN SITE PROBLEMS. ALSO, AN INTERAL PART OF THAT INSPECTION WAS TO DETERMINE BY OBSERVATION AND CONVERSATION THE QUALIFICATIONS OF CRAFTSMEN AND QC PERSONNEL AND TO QUETION THESE FEOPLE CC::CE:IMING THE AVAIIABILITY OF ASSISTANCE WHEN NEEDED, RELATIONSHIP BETWE5 WORK CROUFS, o ANY INDICATION OF ; HARASSMENT OF INSPECTORS OR WORKERS, AND WORKER RECOURSE IF THEY WERE HARASSED OR SAW POOR WORKMANSHIP.

l THE INSPECTORS CONCLUDED FROM INTERVIEWS, OBSERVATION, AND REVIEW OF SITE AND COMPANY POLICIES, THAT MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION WERE AVAILABLE TO I EMPLOYEES AT A VERY LOW THRESHOLD. NO ONE QUESTIONED ACKNOWLEDGED HAPtRASSMENT OF ANYONE. THE INSPECTORS DECIDED IT UNLIKELY THAT . HARASSMENT DETRIMENTAL TO QUALITY WORK COULD DEVELOP UNDER THE CONDITIONS OBSERVED.

THE TEAM INSPECTION RESULTED IN SEVERAL VIOLATIONS. ONE OF THESE CONCERNED INADEQUATE DESCRIPTIONS OF CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCIES (CDR'S) FOUND BY THE LICENSEE AND OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN. THOSE CDR'S INSPECTED IN DETAIL REVEALED IN EVERY CASE THAT APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION HAD BEEN TAKEN ON THE HARDWARE PROBLEM, BUT THAT COULD NOT BE DETERMINED FROM THE RECORD.

f ,

Y

_3 AS A RESULT OF THAT FINDING, TE LICENSEE RL'IEk"ED THE'11,000 CDR'S WRITTDi UP TO THAT TIME TO VERIFY THAT EACH HAD BEEN PROPEP.LY HANDLED. QA AND QC PROCEDURES WERE' REWRITTDi TO BEITER CONTROL THE HANDLING OF CDR'S.

, CORRECTIVE ACTIONS WERE TAKE AND WERE CLOSELY FOLLOWED BY THE SMIOR INSPECTOR UNTIL HE WAS ASSURED THAT CORRECTIVE ACTIONS WERE EFFECTIVE.

'THE TEAM INSPECTION REVEALED OTHER APPARENT WEAKNESSES IN COMMUNICATION .

~

WITHIN!.THE' LICENSEE ORGANIZATION. IN THE LAITER PART OF 1981 AND IN 1982 DUKE CORPORATE MANAGEMD{T APPEARED TO HAVE CONSIDERABLY MORE INVOLVEMENT IN SITE ACTIVITIES. THIS PROBABLY HAD CONCIDERABLE I!!?LUD:CE ON THE REDUCTION OF VIDIATIONS PER INSPECTION FROM AN AVE?. AGE OF ONE PER L. INSPECTION IN 1980 AND 1981 TO ABOUT ONE PER THREE INSPECTIONS IN 1982.

b I~

ALLEGATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE CONCERNING CATAWBA ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. IN.

1978 ALLEGATIONS WERE MADE CONCERNING PIPING DESIGN. THESE ALLIGATIONS WERE INVESTIGATED AND GAFETY IMPLICATIONS WERE NCI SUBSTANTIATED.

IN OCTOBER 1979 A FORMER EMPLOYEE MADE ALLEGATIONS TO THE LOCAL MEDIA CONCERNING IMPROPER CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES AT CATAWBA. THIS ALLEGER HAS REFUSED TO DISCUSS HIS ALLEGATIONS WITH NRC. REGION II HAS CONDUCTED INSPECTIONS IN THE AREAS OF HIS ALLEGATIONS AND HAS NO OUTSTANDING PROBLEMS.

IN 1980 A SITE EMPLOYEE MADE ALLEGATIONS TO THE SENIOR REEIDENT INSPECTOR CONCERNING IMPROPER CONSTRUCTION. HIS ALLEGATIONS WERE INVESTIGATED AND 3 NO SAFEIY. CONCERNS WERE IDDITIFIED. THE EMPLOYEE SUBSEQUDITLY MADE HIS ALLEGATIONS TO THE MEDIA.

i -: '

IN 1951 ALLCATIONS WERE RECEIVED CONCEhNING SEISMIC RESTRAINT DESIGN.

THESE ALLEATIONS ARE BEING PURSUED BY REION II.

IN JANUARY OF 1982, DUKE POWER COMPANY INFORMED REION II THAT IT HAD l

RECEIVED A NUMBER OF ALLEATIONT FROM QC PERSONNEL. DUKE WAS ORGANIZING A TEAM OF OFF SITE PERSONNEL, INCLUDING A CONSULTANT, TO INVESTIGATE THE

' ALLEGATIONS, AND SKED REION II TO PERMIT DUKE TO MAKE ITS OWN INVETI-CATION PRIOR TO NRC INVOLVEMENT. IN MAY 1982 DUKE MADE A PRESENTATION AT REION II 0F ITS PROGRESS. REGION II AGREED TO DUKE'S PROPOSAL WITH AGREEMENT FR6M DUKE THAT THE SENIOR RESIDENT INSFE" TOR FOULD EE KEPT FULLY INFORMED AND WOULD HAVE ACCES TO THE TEAM'S FINDINGS AT ANY TIME.

p MEANWHILE, SOME OF THE ALLEGERS AISO PRESENTED THEIR ALLEGATIONS TO THE SENIOR RESIDENT INSPECTOR. THE SRI VERIFIED THAT DUKE HAD AISO RECEIVEDg; THEE COMPIAINTS, WHICH INCLUDED MOST OF THE TOTAL OF 129 ALLEGATIONS OF POOR WORKMANSHIP, HARASSMENT, SUPPRESSION, AND FAISIFICATION OF RECORDS y RECEIVED BY DUKE. THE SRI KEPT ABREAST OF DUKE FINDINGS, DISCUSSED WITH THE ALLEGERS THEIR MCEPTION OF THE DUKE INVESTIGATION, AND EXAMINED MUCH OF TE HARDWARE ALLEGED TO BE IMPROPERLY CONSTRUCTED.

THE SRI HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE LICENSEE TASK FORCE REVIEW WAS COMPLETED, APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS WERE TAKEN, APPROPRIATE RECORDS WERE KEPT, AND DUKE ATTEMPIED TO REACH AN UNDERSTANDING WITH EACH ALLEGER. A NUP2ER OF PROCEDURE VIOLATIONS WERE IDENTIFIED BY DUKE BUT NO SERIOUS HARDWARE DEFICIENCIES WERE FOUND AND NO FALSIFICATION WAS IDENTIFIED.

IN 1982 THE LICENSEE CONDUCTED AN AUDIT OF CATAWEA AND McGUIRE DESIGN,

. PARTICULARLY C7 DESIGN INTERFACES. THOUGH WEAKNESSES WERE FOUND WHICH' Y*

a

-5 2

CAUSED DUKE TO MAKE SEVERAL CHANGH3 IN PROCEDURES, THEY FOUND NOTHING WHICH NECESSITATED A HARDWARE CHANGE. ALSO IN 1982, DUKE PEPIORMED A ,

SEIF INITIATE AUDIT, B CONJUNCTION WITH TVA, OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. ,

" ~

FINDINGS ARE CURRENTLY BEING REVIEWED BY REGION II.

-IT IS THE REGION II OPINION THAT DUKE POWER COMPANY HAS A WELL DEFINED AND IMPLEME TED QA PROGRAM. ITS CORPORATE MANAGEMENT HAS A GREAT DEAL OF PARTICIPATION IN SITE ACTIVITIES AND FROBLD'.S. DUKE IS A LARGE ORGANIZATION WITH CONSIDERABLE DEPTH AND IS ITS OWN ARCHITECT /

ENGINEER AND CONSTRUCTOR. AS STATED IN THE 1982 SALP REFORT, DUKE'S MAJOR STRENGTH APPEARS TO BE A CONSIDERABLE DEDICATION, AT ALL LEVEIS, TOWARD PRODUCING QUALITY WORK. WE BELIEVE THAT CATAWBA IS A WELL CON-STRUCTED SITE. ,

em O

5.-

s.

t ; .. ,. -. ,

/: .

0 ,

GOYERNMENT ACCOUNTABid1Y PROJECT T inetute foe Policy Studies 1901 Ose Sucet. N.W., WasNngton D.C.10009 (202)234 9362

'N.

April 21, 1983 Mr. Benjamin Hayes Di cctor Of fice of Investigations U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

Wdshington, D. C. 20555 . .

~g Mr. James O'Reilly Regional Administ rator, Region II U.S. Nuclear hegulatory Commission 101 Marietta street, N. W., Suite 3100 Atlapta, Geor gi a 30303 Gentleman:

~ The Governcent Accountability Project (GAP) of the Institute for -

Policy studies has recently received a request from a citizens group in South Carolina to ansist them with an' investigation that they are conducting into the quality assurance and quality control procedures that have boon employed in the construction of the Catawba Nuclear Power Station being built by the Duke Power Co z p oz e t. l on .

The material tnat we have reviewed in connection with the request has raised narious quoutions about thc Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission's (N HC) o v e r s ig ht, of problems that have been brought to the attention of both t.be resident and reg $onal inspectors and investigators.

Of particular concern t. o us are the allegations that were brought to the attention of the NMC t egional o f fice in January 1982 by a number of QC welding inspection personnel, and more specifically the dir ect. uz derr s by Duke construction m4:349 einent to falsify in-upceti on documen ts. Thnne circumstances raise critical questions ,

about the condi tions at the Catawba facilit.y under .which con-scient.ious nuclede employees -- from welders to'enginners - are allowed to do' their j ob. (see att achinent 1.)

The con.: rents o riginally prevented by Mr. P. K. Van noorn, the Senior Residt nt Innpuctor, have appazently been fully investigated and dismissed through a utilit.y t ask force (attachnent 2): however, we have requested through the Freedom of Information Act a l l N RC docusaentation that should clarify the results of any inspections j nr investigat i ons t.h a t were conducted by.,the HRC as a rnsult of

~

the originnt allegations. -

h b. ,

. m

, .s- ,

) * .

Mr. Ben Mayes Mr. James 0854411y -2 - April 21, 1933 i in > -

j f i*

We resguest that the Office of Inventigationa conduct a comp 3ete

seview of (1) the original allegations and (2) any investigations j of those allegatsons. We think that such a review by OI is par-i ticularly appropriate due to Mr. VanDoorn's and Mr. W. J. Tobin's initial zeports include Aerious evidence of harassment, intimidation and deliberate undermining of the welding QC program.

As you.ve aware, the concezos of worker harassment and intimidation and similar allegations of violations of the At orni c En e rgy Reorgtni-ration Act alleged by the unnamed sources referred to in the attached documents ni tror the findings that GAP discovered at the Zimmer Nucinar Power Station in Ohio, the Midland Nuclear Power Pldnt in Mi chi g an , and, most recently, t. he Three Mile Island cicanup opera-tions in Pennuylvania.

We look forward to your respimse to this request in the near future. - .

Very truly yours,

- a hhV RT 7.T.T E FINNER CARDE Direct or, Citizens Clinic for Accountable Government SG/say -

4 Att n chmenta s

W e g

e

[.2 '

e li

._ .. __ .__ - ..

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20133C500&oldid=2882486"