ML20202B373

From kanterella
Revision as of 22:54, 18 November 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Withheld Rept of Inquiry Q4-84-016 Re Alleged Improper Const Practices
ML20202B373
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 04/16/1984
From: Frost W, Herr R
NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
To:
Shared Package
ML18052B537 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-59 Q4-84-016, Q4-84-16, NUDOCS 8607100287
Download: ML20202B373 (5)
v • d • e


Text

.

..s s ,.s..,

l$h

t. . .

1 .. . . . . . . - .

~

,$.?p'yYjf$*'N ***^Y $.,.j ?'

~

,>,..,.~p,.

  • N ~5-.w...,......~.,n..  ?. &s.f@==0Y
    • r,[ (*. i g /. 'f r it ) ((

".e.--

+

i m<.s licaa e n i r : - i

. %tvF:W d h .$." m avn : L A2 A entvt 5 on u- ~[

+ .-c

....- . c 2, ., . v . .

d.e.M .

r.m.3. y g;. p anouc.ios. n m a m .--

"9M$l@k.; 7',,'

. . ' ;TEFOR10F 1lCIFi

., . . , . w ^.. .... .. .

,.a . g a, a L. .. . . . . -

C0:.Ahs.t.L rE;.K STE/E ELECTRIC STAT 10b:

5dJECl:

ALLEGEL IF %CFEk CC1.STFPCTION PBACTICES REPORT NUMBER: y-64-0:6 ,

1. On February 28, 1984 4 t= hegion IV 01 Field Office received a telephone call frcmT E L Z d a former Brown & Root,.Inc., electrician at Cemanche Peak Stear. Electric Station (CPSES). 3 T1dlaimedhewasin possession of documents, photographs and tape recording's containing encugh information to close dcxn CPSES with regard to improper construction ,

practices. E tagreed to provide specific information durir.g perienal intervicy. mi acreed to raet with Regier. IV CI Field Office en February 29, 1934. P .c51ated that he worked

. -- for G_rewn --

a Rcot for aboutim.:__.1 _

_ 1 . ._ .n J. yQg.Q,.,_.

ar.d u&st w . - ._m . a.a.. ,

. . . - - r

. s.~. a r.

. m m, ; ,- 3.. , a. . . n ls',+ . yw c n( l'm -

.m.

. qc.  ?..

,'p ..

rjx

.<.c~

Y x -

.,.;~ ?n . r s

4' -

w, k n. .h; . . _ i A; * . %

-t

~ . a ..c g <

<; +

u, 1 '

_, =

i e o e.. .

w. , .

- - ::...m

[. %n ::J:.1% g d : t ;p'. %+ [;... ? h.:5,,p.:.~A.,

w. m1 ~ , ,-

-. AS . l :& ; . cy

. , .: n L.:)a .: 'l-f k ,-

v h, . .n[ GN~ ,iM L '.

_'h..

w, fikk

~:.ye ,-\/7 _Gu k

c

h. -h- k-.

ts of Ir.:ervicv _. witn

-[ S _ h. e

_ h h. , ' h., , #f[f.Iff.

- 2 . 7 c c ,. -

a 5p

-  % w n.

s

'wc ; r ( -

, , .. ,. ~

. i: _ ;_ L_

3. Cn Februar) IS, 1064,: ,[f'wis iru rvi n. n, .h. U r w .<ti c p ...e- ...~u-

~- ; e,-

.w r_ m. m..

s..

_t,4_c u_ _v _. rt,tv.m. .r ,. _n rc _ei ,e _ e

_n_n  ; u ,p t, r'7C7rL ci. wiUi1 escrrd

,a . ..

'fn inciuccu wi T GT T C G r 6r wouiry is Exhibit (2).

a. [ .'!provided the fcllctrisig itc cr:. ticr. ourir.g his interview:

(a) os'tainless hfirstmajorconcerb re'atec' tt tre pessible damage of steel rcci, approxirati.ly 15 feet in length and 2! inches in diameter, that are locatec in the upper internals behind a missel shield in thc core of the nuclear reactor ir. the. Reactor Suildinc.

P 9 claimed that tuc ci ihc itainless steel bars had bccr. bcrt erds during an accident cut cfeither with shape aapproxicately fork lif t or a1 cn.t. t cc .1rcry_L E._ ' hlleged that the bars had beer. pullec Laci it.tc ibyr t y placing a rore free ttc crrir. -:

that 11.0 car .gr tr( rever berr. ; nr:rly rcr om t er ct cu er.tec.

ctr ir." rived e"r!S h *le rt;<: it ; :c 6; * . +

g)[Q p c;N . ..

5 boi.tCA GT de Fri'.it' cC-If . .

C"' h a- e- n 8607100287 860630 PDR FOIA Ih /1 d ODl GARDE 85-59 PDR

) b

gps ~ ce

. q y.r . ,-

_:m- - .u: _. . ... . . .__.uir41155N -tik y_.

_ [^ - .w. drip 2

...~f._

d[ .

.s .

g .,

.s. . . .

/ x s- . , , , . . . . .

... i... .

,.
, .  :, , , . , .,. y

(,g h U.sctutta 54 *t, *- Ii./ rp

  • t t." vent 1 I'l r i e't l e ". . -

'.:t rt ,, ;n , ):

k~X:: .* z'y.r:i *;;.. t .;

. .e~ -

i* s..e L .; s- 1 tv. :.. ~.

7.y}.S. [Tf'.lv 4 9; 5 ' ' t't *.',t. 1. . .s..,- M 't- t -  ;. , 4

' /; r s t r j

.s .i t . lu . il i t. . l.; t t tl : . * , : '# 1.* iri' c rir.-

r, pr. r*,wel, ) . } ort.

  • 6 r ' l "i - . t , ' i. i. i i!!uc5 stcht i: . :c: S i t >~ .'r d

r.. 4t stis u.:i. . . c 1.. i.% .. .'. ..; ...'st:. t r .-i . y inferrec' t re O! T't ' u O . :se th61 prot,icr:s wit t. Il s ps ia c ru i ca.c' thc probicos witi c.tci.:ii . t!.r. cor. crate beit4. the rticic r scrsrl werc ole issues that the PJ.C hi:d addr(ssed previousir 1r. inspection reports.

Recion IV howevt cic recu6st ar. irrmediate inspectice, t f the pr5sibility of'having dancac stairiit ss steel bars locateo in the upper internals of the reactor vessei. Subsequently, an inspectior. wcs performed by Region IV personnel to determine if any da:r. age existed. A visual inspection resulted in no danage being observed, and informatior. received from the resident site inspectors indicated that this also had been an old issue that the f!RC had previously addressed. An incident involving dar. age to.the upper ir.tcrr.als had previously been reportec by the utility and properly repaired and cispcsitioned. Findings of the ir.spection conducted by Region IV peresrnel are located in the Monthly Regional Inspector's Report fcr the Lor.th ci harch 1964. Due to the. fact thtt the three technicz1 t! legations steaming from the[ ~ 9 interview have been properly addres. erd L. i.c s ier l\ , this intjuiry is CLCSEE..

. Ext.ibit (1) Results of Intervli. with/Wassel LEWIS, Ph.D., M.D. 2-25-64) l Extibit (2) Results of Intervis: uitht d - m wq, 2-29-84 T.I W TED BY: , _

ket.ce l i.. t rcs . , inves t .9: c r l[.M. .

01 Tield Of fic t Regior. IV U' *

  • i .* h bst, /L.

s 'ctr rc' u.. he r'r , N re to r Ci fieic 6tfice i Region IV l cc: E. C. Giltcrt V tic : ' :t . .;

J. T. Collins vie).t '. b i t i T. F. Westermar. w/o erhiLi s

- - - . , . - .--y . , , - - , . . - - . - - - . , , - . . - -

+ c --. -.

- '3

'  ; e %Vu

,anEc ' '.5.r :;c ;eip' w, s .2W1;,k-ngMStriw,A,y,M*m y fy^ & ' .L. ~-q>233.5M

' d'~ -

a.5: i

_ SdE>ys_}k

. _ . . . . _ g,+**.,.b,

.=_# .'5 -

~

F4 g e 4 +m] $ s% ? s ..

,- _ /;' *

. t ..?af ..;k,pe l .; @ A' g" . s '$ g

  • pf,' y w y y j

. e ,..+ . . .. g .

.'*?'L:'-f.$

~

  • gf?h~$k? _:--. : dL_

u- e,c r , .u.

1.. .! :. . .r. t r i r r r.7: ___r . r: c_?.T Nw

, -, ;. . . ;_: _:.. ., Qa, ,fhMft t ;. i- t

  • W 'M i?- 19J.,4 ~ '  ;; -

.. ..~. ,j

~:}~J ' - . ...,%. . u,r= rs. >.pn , n;

.i S

' 1 l

i l

(

I i

4 i

i 1

l l

i I

i ,

l i i l

i i l

I i

l 1

i EtQ Oc PESU T5 0F If;TE?.:L'. ;:TF e

5:G'J. TUP.E : ' E .M

i. ' y r., -

. . ., . ; p e. . .

l l . E.c.- ..

ERIBIT (1) i

.m.w.

,.. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ..- - e. .

w.5L:,w m %::c : : Y..R.:m .*==:'n:. 6W-c .t:;L&,.

2.g.2. .g&ss+.e s w yn* =.- ~. ,. ' n.=, . -

... :2., . m m .

..,~..  :- - . . . .

g _ .

.- .e,.,

- ~

m, , ._

.n

<w; y., - L. .t..os- .....,i . i . . . . . . . . g.

w. ..

. z ,, w. . ..i. , / Ii -

y o ..c,- ,u..m eu. :. t ti i .: .. ... u_.

i

. _t_._

. . . _t a. , S T . m.

6 :L.. i . - .,q .

.g gf T.4 ~

_ ..- i - --~~~1 -*

sett.r

~

f.l i. ? '. .t. : CF a. .rg i ! t. s . .i.s r , i cy( f 1.c . , 'e t Cou r .8

/tu Stet: it c : ' .c . u ' O. W ..s,,

.. . . o. c, r.si, .

....s. .

. ,,.  ; J fL Q f % % @ n ' + Q ;f y Q Q s g [ : f ) } t,,  :

, anw.stig t.

i.ich n , . I...: i-  ;- l c r c'e l , . F r. . . ..a..

< int:, :.

. ..tc tici :t slec. Leer. er;ic,c; a u- tie.ctricair. for Brner I Frt i t' Ci 2 5 't' c',,,st 4 yeu s anc was tea itu. .tv er Frtreary 20, 1984. W WM- relatec' Itat ha hace beccme s

afraid for his liie becausc he had refused to include er.plcyer. c' E,rotm & Rcot .

in a constructice project in which he was building log cabins for sale. ,

l B ~1 5frelateo that he had'@yAhd@;@ Mat the site in order to j protect hinsclf frem Brown & Root employees.

s

$2 ' ' %s especially afraid of Charlic BRIT', Superintendent, Brcwn & Rect. .

s -

ERITT had previously cut ic[ ' ~ J . 7]home selling life insurar.ce. { il

',elievec that if he cic' not buy life insurance frcr Ct c clie BMTT, that. he  ;

wculc' icse his ;ct- c ' CFSES. L;: s

' t f j was alsc. fet rft ' ei (ru ile EhlT1 Decause j

i< " -e3 had been invaived in the theft of electrical equiprent and tools frca j:

xBrcun & Rcot with BPI T's knowled;E.

U.,w

,m m .

_T _1.. related how4 i m%%_ m ,,_4.ym%._

$ ,tn.s.Ey.a s 2,,v

...M/ i ij

. h icf$ykj.f;Jj.N& t _

.,F. r .;

f< . dy!' ,7[ f y N.fc'Qf A. -

.l .

.. m - m .:mv~m -.dwJ'g & w.rg.!.(;i,*.xp:,Qt%

w.

%g; %y,;; e p_ daqbqh dce.:n

%n kwm,.gp.A '

j"q p =u g .w . n.~ ,.y.

h 3 h t"us.,w.,. w:. o, . ,,- y,, w.r.e.;w n. .,~ . -Q+g j;(, 6 Q.tq

.<3.;-jt .

f x- .T m.: . ., . s , ror _a a,. v. ' .~;g 4 , Jy.n,N. n  ?,

--m p s

, , , . . , ..' ' ~.y f- Q p Q * , ',p j

_ y raar tec!.:

ai ccr.cerr.s involvec. ths ici;ca..ri th cc treas:

(a)[ 5' d.nt r.cjor c:ncarr. relate;. It etrty tr -r fcot Icro.

Ei irch ri inless sic 0 t. tis locater, ir. tne u;;psr ir:ers;ei :r. de reactt,r u:;el locatcc u thc F.eectc>r Building. C -- ] u s conccrr.cc t'iet two of the stainless steci tars have been bent 1 fcc:

f rcr the tc; v.itt cither a fork lif t cr crane.$ ! + ] ccntended that i re; LAC t.ur. p'irrf cr the stainless stet I t t rs a: c pilec ::y crde r to strF ich r l'. _i e , . n. s;ec t*.3. nc Il e >

( ((( . '

k.d h kYbr csI g*li' 1 e' rE I I . C '. . Y h $hb h

  • I [

+ ,

J l

4

. r m. . .vii. ta t - ,'.'i.

u,

.m -:. . ,

, 3. 9).,.L .T.

~

' .5b

.4

..e -

'il'. a

, . ' "[%gt r 4. , ..

. , .e.My . .. the rer**t' st: a .

v

.,i i ,: i y.2: 4 O,~sa fM ;. c.T c.

-< . r ;...uta, L. ,)c u r,.

')

'. i... -:#w; f ,' 3 t u rc c: r.ec- :

^

ct- '

i '- '

<>&rc 1- "

-),

r.  :  ;

11,r raic ter ves s e ls. I J ys.. - -

. ti,e v.i c. .!

,..n:

t!.t n . . . u s . t '. c u n t u .: bir.yn1 i.t.

U ..

.- .t.

'rr:'rr <- n- n.c

- + '_:.,9rt ri n. i t '. t i, w'ere defective becic'.t:Le t festun.e ccbics it,ca tec u 11 < r( lio r c rane ti.c3 ccr.ta inec t rckco ir.it.n.L ' t.i e ir c.

Q ,Nbwas untble to furnish detailed inf ormaticr. involving name

= ._

places. W .2 % d.information was only of a general naturc Q U Q had previously indicated he had cbtained documents, photographs recordings and tape that could closc CPSE5 cown. Oj?~ '.,)however, refused rele .

. , ase any documents, photographs or tape recordings to investigators. N aC djcontended th t e was in possession ci such evider.ce; however, he refused to turn ar y esicence over to the Office ci Ir.ustig?tient or reveal the hidder leccti c r. c f the evidence.

EhE OF U 1L'-' n.

'T " 'EEVIEi.' WITH i j ~

ON FEBRJ'.: ;:. : W .

r r f

[ I b!S l'. f i. : a

__/ O c (- ]g*

. r -

r m o c.: c.

.. f'i ( s' (

5 ,

- ~h**"'*4, vn Tas svaras hv y '*

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5

  • orrict or invesvioavions pinto orrict. nacion av

% . . . . . ** * "ISwYo.Ta'xI'"$I'"s DATE: July 9,1984 REPORT OF INVESTIGATION TITLE: C0t:AtiCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION:

ALLEGED INTIMIDATI0tl 0F QC PERSONNEL SUPPLEMENTAL NO. Dil 50-445/50-446 CASE NUttBER: 4-84-008 CONTkCL GFFICE: 01 FIELD OFFICE: RECICt IV STATUS: CLOSED PERIOD OF INVESTIGATI0fi: September 15, 1983 - F(trui.ry 9,1984

'EPORTING INVESTIGATOF : b

h. Brooks ~ GrVf fin, Invegigator Office of InsestiertionFField Office, Regior. IV PARTICIPATING PERSONNEL: Donald D. Driskill, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Regier IV REVIEWED BY: / 4 R'icfiard 'K. Herr, Director Office of Investigations Field Office, Region IV Y}me/c lm Roger'Fortuna Deputy Director be Office of nve,stigations APPROVED BY: j [M M+) /

'Sevb.' Hayes, Dirergf f -f Office of Investicptionsl i

x men /msv roj A-gs-r

. N\

  • SU!HARY On September 15, 1983, a former Brown & Root, Inc. Quality Control (OC) inspector at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) was interviewed by a U. S.

Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) investigator during a related investigation.

The alleger stated she was subjected to a series of about eight meetings with QC superviscrs following her appearance before the CPSES Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), and that the meetings were intended to intimidate and discourage her in the performance of her work. She advised that during the meetings the Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) Site Quality Assurance (QA) Supervisor and an Ebasco Services Incorporated (Ebasco) QC Supervisor uestioned her about her continued ability to perform her inspection duties Inquiries revealed that on July 14, 1982, the TUGC0 and Ebasco supervisors along with the Brown & Root Project Manager, Personnel Services at CPS called the alleger to a meeting and explained her employment cptions to her.

On September 1,1982, the alleger testified as a witness before the CPSES ASLB and alleged various improper construction practices.

Investigation disclosed that soon after her appearance before the ASLB, the alleger's work area and inspection duties were changed from field inspections to inspections in the fabrication shop. Additionally,

.he alleger was allowed to park in a restricted area near the site entrance anc was providad transportation to and from her work area.

Inquiries determined that on October 14, 1982, the alleger attended a conference with the Brown & Root QA Administration Manager, during which she was provided an opportunity to ask questions and receive counseling regarding her employment "

entitlements and unemployment compensation when she left her job with Brown & Root The investigation surfaced no additional meetings subsequent to the a eger s appearance before the ASLB.

I l

. 2 -

  • =

l l

On December 15, 1982, the alleger ended her employment with Brown & Root in a l reduction of force held at her request as documented in her Brown & Root l

personnel records. A Brown & Root personnel officer noted the reduction of l force qualified the ulleger for unemployment compensation, a benefit not received if an empicyee requests a leave of absence The QC supervisors who allegedly conducted meetings for the purpose of intimidation, explained that the meeting with the alleger prior to her appearance before the CPSES ASLB, was held to discuss her problems as they related to the physical requirements of her QC inspection duties. The QC supervisors said the second meeting with the administration manager in attendance was held to inform the alleger of her I

employment options in consideratior The QC supervisors said the alleger's and her status as a witness before the ASLE all led to the concessions and the consideration extended to her beyond normal employment benefits. The QC supervisors and the two Brown & Root personrel officers denied the meetings with the alleger or the j changes in her inspection duties were intended to intimidate her or cause her to leave her employment at CPSES.

I I

I

)

l i

-- ,.w ..n

- C O

DETAILS l

T 9

~

  • r .

. m,i-TABLE OF CONTENTS i

Page Title Page No.

Purpose of Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Sackground ... . . . . .... .................. 2 Interview of_e . Pe . v;m, n,g;;s]. vs s . .................... 3 r

Interview of Ronald TOLSON . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Interview of Thomas BRANDT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Interview of Raymond YOCKEY ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

] Interview of D. K. EGBERT . . ................... 10 Status of Investigation . . . .. .................. 11 Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 t

l' l

-l l

4

?

1 1

a 9

I k

3 4

4 1

4 1

-. - -. . . _ _ . _ , _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ , . . . , , . _ _ . _ , . _ . . . . . . . ...__m..... , , . _ - . , _ . . . , , . ,,_. _ _, _ . . , _ . . . . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

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

a Purpose of Investigation The purpose of this investigation was to determine ifibD1V '"' Mjwas subjected to attempted intimidation or harassment during several meetings by QC supervisors following her testimony before the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB).

i O

d l

t t

i 1

1 i

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

l Backcround J .

On September 1,1982, F .N 61Cila Brown & Root, Inc. Quality Centrol (QC) inspector at the CPSES, testified before the CPSES ASLB concerning improper construction practices. During a related Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC)

, investigation (4-84-006) conducted in September 1983,\f' d'lwas interviewed regarding her knowledge of intimidation or harassment of employees at CPSES.

M "[] alleged she had been harassed by the Site Quality Assurance (CA)

I Supervisor, Ronald TOLSON, and the Non-ASME QC Supervisor, Thomas 3RACT, during a series of meetings conducted in TOLSON's office

and that these meetings occurred following her testimony before the CPSES ASLS.

4 l

i 4

e 4

E

)

l l

l

! 2 I  !

I l

~-:-.--- - - - -

. - , ~ ~ - = - - - - - - - - - - ~

_.- . _ -- . . -. - . _ _ _ - . - - - -=.____-_ _ - - ._.-= -

i 4

m m

1 Interview of6 .e j.7- o']

J

r On September 15, 1983,F a l a W Q, a former Brown & Root, Inc. QC inspector at the CPSES, was interviewed by flRC Investigator H. Brooks GRIFFIll in a f

related investigition. Ei 4) executed a signed, sworn statement which is

! included with this report as Exhibit (1). ,

4

~

F $ } . , , f , ?[h,% l"l 2 ff . sh [ Y+ % .

a --

g:AggglbgM : ' C. ~ ~ , ,. . Q , ,

_,Q,._j-sph.:d%,f;y'[

\ t -

4 y -

p.,, .

,_ 4, 2 w. W.'p'qQ@q e ww.< , e n xr  %, y.a n:vJ . . %,,

~aa A:f t. %y nu:JY2 :c v &uW>

y- Muw  ; w*2..i;m:pm >p%na%m.T.w 7%m  ::

, 1-u- Nu py y

g. csla$ny_H qt.x 3;z see&vt w,'m sp@g A;

, vyagsp 1-ns'e  : HW:gy  % j w p w

r gm

.cw yN.up % .

. wg w.%y gWpg vW mg > gg .

'e.m y eg .i sg;h;;;.e@w;kaM n p y:n Th-Y2 *4 42mh u t. m L';OrRgg#%;MW@M

t. ;

W y, w%ayrf

~

i.e m " ~ M an{mkMQQW:pw?;.n. i 2

4

[IstatedthatinSeptember1982,shetestifiedasawitnessbeforethe

~

l [

CPSES ASLB. ['~ 1lstated that soon after her appearance before the ASLB, she l was called to Rcnald TOLSON's office for a series of about eight sessions with Rcnald TOL50!i (Texas Utilities Generating Ccmpany Site QA Supervisor) .and l Theras BRANDT (Ebasco Services li srpcrated QC supervisor) in which TOLSON t '

! ouestioned her about her health U p + clalleged the purpose of I these sessions was to intimiaate and discourage her.

I

)

IiiVESTIGATOR'S iiOTE: Other instances of alleged harassmer.t i and/or irtimidation which are included inF lstatement '

i j (Exhibit [1]) were reported in Report of Investigation 4-84-00o.

j Further,allof{ ~ jailegations have been furnished to the ASLS.

I I

i J

f I

I i

I ,

, J i

- - _ - . - . - - - . - - - . - _ . ~ --. - - ___ - - _- . .-..

(

~

Interview of Ronald TOLSON I

a On December 2,1983, Ronald TOLSON, the Texas Utilities Generating Ccmpany fl (TUGCO) Site Quality Assurance Supervisor, was interviewed by NRC Investigators H. Brooks GRIFFIN and Donald D. DRISKILL at CPSES. TOLSON's testimony was l

i recorceo by an NRC contract court reporting service, and a copy of the j transcript is includec' with this report as Exhibit (2). TOLSON was representeo l by McNeill WATKINS of Debevoise and Lieberman, Attorneys at Law. .

t 1

TOLSON recalled he had held two meetings with f5%Q$@g(supra) ,

i TOLSON inoicated that since he had heard thatfy G /-]had a i j he was uncomfortable with the idea of a woman with a i conducting physical field inspections. TOLSON recalled r

{ that during his second conference with[G'13, he counseled her regarding her

rights to insurance coverage if she applied for a leave of absence. TOLSON

! stated he also cc=unicated tcb E Jher job cptions related to her j and cther medical benefits.

j TOLSON recalled that during his second conference with!l ? ilwhich followed i

j her testim ny before the CPSES ASLB, he had recomended that she consider takir,g a leave cf absence which would extend .,:r mecical benefits. TOLSON l stated thatEf W] appearance before the CPSES ASLB had influenced his decisien te grant special privileges toCsuch as moving her closer to her j work site, cffering her transportation to and free the frcnt gate, and giving her parking privileges naar the front gate. TOLSON said he ccr.sidered P " h

joc situacion, her testimony before the ASLS, l "like sitting on a keg of cynamite." TOLSON stated it was a ccmon cractice te assign employees lighter duty.

i TOLSON said he had not requested the meetings with:N t.o threaten, harass, intimidate, or attempt to make her leave her ceployment with Brown & Root.

l TOLSON indicatec7 d Jhad not been threatened or nistreated during the meetings, but was instead informed of her job options in light of her I

f

. I i

INVESTIGATOR'S fiOTE: TOLSON's testimony regarding his meetings l withe W 6 * ;'lis recorded on pages 13 through 17 of TOLSON's f i

f transcript (Exhibit [2]). l l  !

i f

6 6

5 I

t

Int ~erview of Thomas BRANDT On December 1,1983, lhoEas BRANDT, an Ebasco Services Incorporated Quality Control supervisor at the CPSES was interviewed by NRC Investigators H. Brooks GRIFFIN and Donald D. DRISKILL at CPSES. This interview was recorded by an NRC contract court reporter, and the transcript of BRANDT's testimony is included with this report as Exhibit (3). BRANDT was represented by McNeill WATKINS, attorney for Debevoise and Leiberman, Attorneys at Law.

BPROT saio he recalled a meeting with Ronald TOLSON, the Texas Utiliiies Generating Company Site Quality Assurance Supervisor,W W]Jf a Brown &

Root QC inspector, and himself in TOLSON's office to discuss @$.4k BRANDT said he did not know exactly when this meeting occurred, but said he believed it was before B M $d testimony before the CPSES ASLB.

BRANDT said!WUf f was ,

and he had heard she had BRANOT indicated this meeting was held to determine if[i . > (lwas physically capable of perfonning her duties.

BRANDT said he recalleo a second meeting withis < Ito make her aware of her cptions regarding a leave cf absence. BRANDT said he also recalled that Rayrerd YOCKEY, the Brown 5 Root Site' Personnel Manager, was present in the meeting to inform 9//%p of her employment options and to discuss her INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: This meeting occurred before E ' Tl testimony before the ASLE.

ERANDT said he also recalledD ~ 'Uwas counseled regarding her need to acquire c high schcoi graduate degree r a GED to ccmply with the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N452.6 for certification of inspection personnel. BRANDT stated he counseledE' elfregarding the need to acquireaGEDpriorto{,:Q d testimony before the CPSES ASLB.

ERANDT recalled that prior to Darlenei ,

J meeting with Y0CKEY, she had cace statements to her peers that she could no longer do her job because of her 6

F _

. - .-- ~. = --~

physical limitations BRANDT stated that in consideration of her , he and TOLSON (supra) had made the decisior) to transfer h i d to the Fabrication (Fab) Shop so she would not have to conduct the more' arduous field inspections. BRANDTsaidii ' % ) reassigned cffice was only about 10 yards away from the Fab Shop, and she was able to conduct her inspections more easily. BRANDT saidREstjcontinued to work as a QC inspector BRANDT said[ M 91 was even provided with transportation to and from her work area because she had  ;

compicined of threats against her by other employees. BRANDT indicated the transportation had been provided toFWni]after her testimony before the CPSES i ASLB. BRANDT recalled that % C3was also permitted to park in the Texas Utilities Service Company parking lot which was close to the entrance to the site in consideration of BRANDT said he did not recall exactly what advice or recommendations TOLSON made to EIG 1 regarding but said that TOLSON might have recommended a leave of absence to her. 1 l

ERANDT said the par' King privileges and the transportation to and frc= her work site were implemented following the intervenor's filing for a protective order for F - lwith the Chairman of the ASLB. BRANDT indicated he did not know of on site who were extended special treatment or

~

any other privi'eges.

EFRIDT was questioned as tc his knowledge of Brown & Root policy regarcing ERA *iDT said ne wa. ot aware of the policy, other than the chrase stating, "you m:0 only perform your jcb as long as you are physically capable l of performing your job." SRAIiDT,concluced that all the special consice ations and privileges provided toi 11were in consioeration of her health, her testimony before the ASLS, and her witness status with the intervenor, CASE.

SRANDT saici>- - Jwas not threatened, intimidated, or harassed during eitner meeting, and that the meetings had not been intended to intimidate or harass j INVEST: GATOR'S NDTE: BRANDT's testimony regarding the above described meetinas withi' ~ 7 is recorded on pages 45 through 53 of BRANDT's transcript, which is included in

  • his report as Exhibit (3).

7

_- -- -- _ . .-~ . - - _ _ _ . .- - -- - _ - - = -

1 .

! - I i

Interview of Raymond YOCKEY I

On January 24, 1984, Raymond Y0CKEY, the Brown & Root, Inc. Project Manager, Personnel Services at the CPSES, was interviewed by NRC Investigator H. Brooks YCCKEY provided the NRC with a signed, sworn statement which is j GRIFFIN.

included with this report as Exhibit (4). Y0CKEY said he was first employed at CPSES in September 1975, and was promoted to his present position in t

November 19'78.

Y0CKEY stated he attended a meeting on July 14, 1982, in Ronald TOLSON's office t

, with TOLSON, Thomas BRAND.T, and @ 9 F D l in attendance. YOCKEY said 1

TOLSON had requested his presence at the meeting to advisee % h N of her i

, employment options ir cor. sideration of YOCKEY said he believed j his participation in the meeting was more as a technical adviser regarding Brown & Root policy. r j.'"]discussedasa"personnelproblem,"

YOCKEYrecalledhehadhearc[ i but he said he cic not recall the nature of the problem or who had told him, i YOCKEY said he hcd also heard a rumor, prior to the meeting, thatil had

previously had difficulties l I

i . s j YOCKEi said E q q inquirec about the possibly of her being laid off so that '

she wculd be eligible for unemployment ecmpensation. Y0CKEY said he explained tcE ' ] nat brown d Rect did r.ct hold " reductions of force" (ROFs) for

) indivicual empicyees anc : hat applicants were presently being interviewed for I her positicn.

1 i

l Y0CKEY said the Brown & Rect policy for appilcation for " leave of absence" was l

! explainec toi, _I anc sne was told sne would continue to qualify for  !

insurance benefits. Y0CKEY explained that Brown & Root policy dictated that a l

who had worked for Brown & Rcot for at least 1 year could j apply for a 6 month leave of. absence if sne provided the personnel office with f a doctor's note listing an expected date of delivery and the employee paid 1 ,

} month's insurance in advance. YOCKEY said tne 6 month leave could be extendec  ;

! if requested, but the empicyee was not paid for any time curing a leave of I

S i

l 1

l_ .- , -

J 1

f absence. YOCKEY further explained that following a leave of absence, l an employee had to compete with all other applicants in consideration of l reempioyment. ,

I

) YOCKEY said thath 3 3]was told during the meeting that a reduction in force was not an option open to her. YOCKEY explained that it was not consistent j

with Brown & Root policy to ROF an employee just so the employee could cualify for unempleyment compensation. Y0CKEY said thath y s,t i personnel file

w. a M at her recuest.

YOCKEY said he did not believe 0F onhh% $ indicated was she properwas incluc g

because Brown & Rcot ultimately had to pay for the compensation and other [

inspectors were being hired at the time. YOCKEY stated he learned, during themeetingwith[ENthatherdutieshadbeenchanged YCCKEY said he was not aware of what those changes were.

t 1

l YOCKEY saidF JWas not intimidated or harassed by TOLSON, BRANDT, or j hirself during the meeting, nor did he believe the meeting was held for the purposeofharassingf 4 YOCKEY said his only participation in the-meeting wastoadviseE'L'if: of her employment rights. YOCKEY saidt M _ did not ap; ear distressec or ur.ccmfortable during the meeting.

4 J

YOCKEY provided the NRC with a copy of a memorandum he made of the July 14, 1

{ 1932,meetingwith!?-*-5](Exhibit 4-1),acopyoftheBrown& Root,Inc.

pclicy regarding Authcrized Leave of Absence (Exhibit 4-2), and a copy of an 1

j October 14, 1922, temorancum prepared by D. K. EG5ERT folicwing a conversation

~

with; J.j(Exhibit 4-3). YOCKEY indicated these copies were contained in l %ej . Brown & Root personnel file.

i I  :

i l  !

l 1

9 1

i i

i

Telechenic Interview of D. K. EGCERT On February 3,1984, D.K. EGBERT, the Brown & Root, Inc. Assistant Manager of Land Operations, Office Services in Houston, Texas, was telephonically interviewed by f!RC Investigator H. Brooks GRIFFIfi. EGBERT sti.ed he had been a Brown & Root empicyee since 1976, and had worked as the Ercwn & Root QA Adnini.stration Manager at the Comanche Peak Stecr Electric Station prior to his present position.

EGBERT stated that on Octcber 14, 1982, heheliaconferencewithIf j]

P Gat CPSES to inform [? f M of her .

EGBERT said he r

explained { c }.. cptiors regarding reduction of force or leave of absence.

ECEERT said he also answere W N 1 questions concerning medical benefits and

s. .-

vacetien entitlements. EGBERT saic that Brown & Root had, on occasion, held a reduction of force (ROF) for the benefit of individual employees. EGBERT recalled f " _ lseemec pleased Inat scmeone was willing to explair. the benefits cn!!able to her.

EGEERT saic he also contacted the Unemployment Claims Department in M) behalf, anc iater contacted and transmitted the results of his inquiries to her. EGBERT recallcd c discuss.an he had with W,? d concerning problems EGEERT sc.id in ! Y Hj was the first time he had been ir.vcived ir personnel decisiens involving a .

EG5ERT scitthesolepurposeofhismeetingwittb -If was to assist her in -akir; an er;leyrent decision EGBERT said he was ret aw're that.Q r.cd made aliecations of imprcper constructior practices at CPSES ac the tire of his meeting with her.

EGBERT confirTr.ed he had prepared tne " confidential interoffice memorancum" (Exhibit 4-3 pertains) documenting the details of his conversations with T] and that this memorandum was part ofi:= U Erown & Root personnel

[ -

file.

10

Status of Investigation The status of this investigation is CLOSED.

l 11

V i

I y e= * ~~

~'"

l t

- ~ -

i 6

f 9 8 4 #6' = G w $

I ,- ' ,

{.,.-..,. -

. . ., . . 7..,_,,

. ,r -. . .

Y 9 e sm 9e * . ~ .<

I

- a , .= . * , ,

  • .' b * * =* < + e w_.* ,i= 4 .v., ,w a ,{

.. ,,,) . , .

I j

'~me~.... ~. ; :.,. _ - .~.s

. ~ . --

.cr' e t

' '. T \ ,

l*,,,

c_,,.,. . . . .

, - . .. o , .- . ,

O.

- ~

  1. F * - . 7a q_ _ ,

r/r J. ( c. : .. - J ._ ... . - - _ -._ . ,; ,...1 O $ $

9 9" D M gai OO OP 4 t*A $  % eng o. p.

g4 ' g -s g vw.j .'e.. 4Mp',

S,, V1 + . ,

=, ww3 . ej v4 v i+< ~ i I,, st , j _, ,.- , .

~

(.q $

]..OP' ..M. . . . .'9. O 94

.Ss' O -

s 9, 4 ]g

.4 _ }*

_ . u} v.4 g, $9 c.

,% e e

. .: yiC. . )

i 9N O e-s }p,J.,,,,c.-

q p

\ L ;s%/ sa e $--'".. ^ 9*. 7 8 w .8 M, p 4i s, s. s. m L., 3; . -.

-'] 7 'Nw-q ,. h.5'.  ;,y ,, e c.>_ g.,,

e.., i.3. ,.4. J .p - , s , , v .3 , , u ,., w g A

g'.g4p a 4 l

4 *w . w r e. .d l N. j r

\

e p ,o, UNITED ST ATES

! ' O. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

  • .., . , O

{ '

j OFFICE OF INVESTIG ATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGION IV 411 RY AN PLAZA ORIVE. SUITE 1000

  • c[ ARLINGTON. TEXAS 70011 DATE: July 11, 1984 REPORT OF INVESTIGATION TITLE: COMANCHE PEAR STEAM ELECTRIC STATI0ti:

ALLEGED FALSIFICATION OF QUALITY C0f4 TROL RECORE.5 SUPPLEMENTAL NO. DN 50-445/50-446 CASE tLMEER: 4-83-006 CO:.TK' OFFICE:

. OI FIELD OFFICE: REGI0t; :i STATLd: Lt05ED PEFIOC 0F INVESTIGATION: March 6,19E 3 - May 10,1984

)

FEPCRT f.6 INVESTIGATOR: b_# ,

( l[, ..Ib.'

Ccr.aic L. E t i si1. i , Investig6 tor

~

Office of Investigations Fielc Cffice, Region IV REVIEWED BY: // p Richaro~ C.'hert, Lirecter Office of Investigations Field Office, Regier IV

/

% ?d RW er Ffrtuna, Deputy Directur Effice cf Investigations

/

APPROVED BY: k fpg Bf B. /fayes, Director Office of Investigations

- h'iO3lN 5 ? Shlh-Q$'$

Nfp-3>3) , tS

, e .

SUPNARY Investigation was initiated subsequent to the interview of a concerned indi-vidual (alleger) who related that a Brown & Root, Inc. (B&R) employee at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) made statements that he (the B&R employee) had forged the signature of a former quality control (QC) inspector on CPSES records. The alleger stated he was acquainted with the former QC inspector and is aware that he (the inspector) initiated (and presumably signed) one nonconformance report (NCR) which.was a controversial issue during past Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearings relative to CPSES. The alleger stated his concern was that the B&h employee, if truthful, may have been involved in an effort to alter records relating to the aforementioned NCR.

The NCR described by the alleger was obtained from NRC records. Exami ation of the NCR disclosed that the NCR was signed by a different QC inspector than indicated by the alleger.

An interview of the former QC inspector (identified by the alleger) who identified the nonconforming condition addressed by the NCR was conducted.

The former QC inspector reviewed the NCR and stated it was the same NCR he had caused to be submitted. This former QC inspector pointed out that he did not actually sign the NCR. He explained that although he and a co-worker identified the nonconforming condition, the co-worker actually signed the NCR.

The former QC inspector stated he is satisfied with the corrective action taken on the nonconforming condition reported on this NCR.

A review of the NCR package at CPSES disclosed the original NCR, signed by the co-worker, had been revised three times; however, the revisions did not involve changes of the description of the nonconforming condition, only changes relative to the corrective action taken.

An interview of the former CPSES Quality Assurance supervisor disclosed that

  • final corrective action to the NCR for the nonconforming condition was completed and approved in early 1979, and that no other revisions were made to

)

~. - .

the NCR after that time. He also stated the NCR in question was thoroughly

?

~

examined before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in e'arly 1961 and no

, problems were found.

s

~: _..

The investigation disclosed no evidence of forged signatures. .

4 ..

I s

a +

4 -

4 1

5 i

l 1  %.+--

s j

[

u J g ~6 <

s ,.

I, i

r 1

i f s i

e

i 4,

3 1

i DETAILS I

i l

l l

4 i

4 1

i l

f I

i 1,

b

,_, - ,- , , . ,- n,

- -----.-,- ., ,._-, ,- 7 g,,---. -, ._-- e ,,-,...r,a , -.-e,------n.-_, , - - . . . . _ -+ .n.,. -. ,, - - , e---mm. .-

-n ,

w'

~

t ,,

t l

Purpose of Investigation The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether documentation l relative to cracks discovered in the concrete base niat of Reactor Containment Building I at Cemanche Peak Steam Electric Station was altered, falsified, or contained forged signatures.

1 r

l N

Y f

i s s ,

w.

I I

l 1 -

1- l l l 1

I

BacLaround i

Or. March 8,1983, the NRC Region IV received a telephone call from an individual requesting anonymity, who claimed he had inforr.ation relating to possible falsified civil quality control records at CPSES. The individual provided a@ Texas, telephone nurr.ber where he could be contacted by at NRC investigator.

On March 16, 1983, telephonic contact was effected with the alleger and sub-sequert to his receipt of assurance that confidentiality would be afforded, the individual agreed to r.eet with reporting investigator or. March 17,19E.3, at the ETem!UW-r;er _vgg Texas.

2-l

Other Investigative Aspects During May 19E3, A. B. BEACH, Senior Reactor Engineer, Division of Quality Assurance, Safeguards and Inspection Programs, NRC, was interviewed concernir.

his knowledge of the cracks in the reactor base mat. Unit I, CPSES. BEACH stated that during his February-Morch 1983 Construction Appraisal Team Inspection at CPSES, he had obtained copies of the NCR's' relative to the cracks which he agreed to provide to reporting investigator. BEACH stated he had no knowledg'e concerning the cracks, other than the information contained in the NCR's.

During May 1953, Joe 1. TAPIA, Reactor Inspector, Reactor Frojects Engineeriri Program Section, Region IV, hRC, was interviewed concerning the cracks in the CPSES Unit I reactor base mat. TAPIA stated he has reviewed all CPSES docu-mentation and corrective action concerning this matter, and found its resolu-tion to be satisfactory. TAFIA agreed to assist in the interview of g

@, supra, relative to this matter.

INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: Information obtained from the alleger, NRC technical staff, publicity surrounding base mat cracks in Unit 1 CPSES, and interviews of other knowledgeable personnel indicates the NCR reviewed by reporting investigator is the one referred to by the alleger.

On June 9, 1983, telephonic contact with disclosed tha+ @

C _3 is en;1oyed by % working on a Td.hn t a a f d 3 1 M Iie15 W fd C RM'i; W w%M"T h N $

QTUAQ$d 19E3.

is scheduled to come to Te>as on Q -Q@J Review of NCR 6 Record Package On May 10,1984, the NCR W record package was reviewed by NRC Investigatt Donald D. DRl5 KILL at CPSES. Records disclosed that NCR g which was originally submitted on M 6 , was revised on three occasions.

Review of the revisions disclosed that changes made to the NCR, each time, related to " disposition" and not to the described " nonconforming condition."

The original NCR, a copy of which is Exhibit (5), and each of the revisions were found to contain the exact locatior, and description of the nonconfoming condition as well as the " pour" number, contrary to what was stated by M

( C , supra.

NCR CC., Revision No. 3 is appended herein as Exhibit (6).

As stated by C, NCR Q was writter, by another individual at his

[ "a direction. The review of this NCR package disclosed no evidence of forged signatures (as originally alleged) nor any changes to the descriptions of the nonconforr.ing condition. The only changes made to the NCR in the revisions were relative to the proposed corrective action.

Interview of Ronald TOLSON On May 10, 1984, Ronald G. TOLSON, an assistant to the Vice President and Project General Manager for TUGC0 at CPSES was interviewed by NRC Investigatt D. D. DRISKILL at CPSES.

TOLSON, when questioned concerning the brief revised copy of CPSES NCR M described by @ supra (page 5), stated he had no knowledge of any revisions to that NCR aside from those contained in the NCR file package.

TOLSON stated there were several revisions to NCR M which were made due i changes in the proposed corrective action for the noncor.fon.ing condition described on the NCR. TOLSON stated these revisions would not havc required any change in the description of the nonconforming condition or deletions of data contained in that description.

TOLSON, subsequent to reviewing the NCR E package, pointed out that revision 3 to NCR @(the final revision) was dated MM and that final verification of repair was dated @ 6 He stated there would have been no reason for any alteration or revision of NCRW subsequent to that date.

TOLSON also stated that NCR @ nas thoroughly exanined during testinony before the CPSES Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) in about M 1981.

TOLSON stated that all documentation relative to NCR @ and related to the corrective action taken were present as exhibits to that hearing. T0c50N stated that the resolution of NCR Sas approved by both the NRC and ASLE at that time.

INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: Due to 6 request for cer'identiality, T0L50' was not specifically questioned regarding the docunent M described as being given to him, by TOL50'., ir. eam 19El.

Insonach as T0;50N's statements regarding hCR M and its revisions are substantiated by the NCR C documentation p5cLage there appears to be no factual basis cn which to substardiate claim that another revision to hCR @ was made in Gl981 more than 6 af ter the corrective action was accomplished and months

after the issues were examined before the ASLB.

l i

STATUS OF INVESTIGATION This investigation is submitted as CLOSED since no evidence was developed to indicate any merit in the alleger's concerns, INVEST 1 GATOR'S NOTE: Due to (the alleger's) request for confidentialit and the persona nature of his 1983 conversat,on with , no interview of was conducted.

This decision is also supported by the fact that tated that the description of the nonconformin condition of NCR has not been ,

changed, and also the statement made regarding M credi_ '

bility ( page 6 and Es.hibit (4) pertain).

_c.

(1) Confid(ntiality Agreement of 6

(?) Statenent of (3) Confidentiality Agreement of N (4) Results of Inteniew of M (5) CPSES NCR @ Revision No. O g (6) CPSES NCR M , Revision No. 3 s

l l

l

I . I t

BROWN & ROOT, INC. Om 1

,Pg AND ASSOCIATED COMPANIES Dam July 7,1978 I b  % Suesect:

) AUTHORIZED LEAVE OF ASSENCE

" ~

PURPOSE To provide a method for employees to receive service credit and continue participation in certain employee benefit Group insurance plans when they must leave the Company due to unusual circumstances usually beyond their control.

l POLICY j The Company may, subject to conditions of Corporate Policy, grant an employee an Authorized Leave of Absence

]

wnen valid reasons exist. Such leave must be approved by tne concemed Manager anc accropriate Officer. 1

1. Leaves of absence ordinarily will not be granted for the employee to engage in otner or self-employment exceot where such leaves of absence are granted due to a redi.,ction of force, to return to school, or to be wim husband or wife in anctner locality.
2. Leaves of absence will be granted for a period of six montns or fess and generally will not be renewed except in unusual circumstances.
3. A leave of absence, or an extension thereof, proposed to be granted to any officer or employee who is a participant under the Career Exacutive incentive Stock Pian, the Halliburton Company Senior Executives' incentive Deferred

) Compensation Plan or the Brown & Root, Inc. and Associated Companies Officers' Suppiemental Retirement Plan must be approved by tne Executive Committee of the Company prior to.the granting of such feave of aosence or extension thereof. All other leaves of absenca must be approved by the chief executive officar of each rescective operating group or by such other person or committee whom he may designata for such purpose.

4. Executive Committee aooroval of a leave of absence in accordance with policy paragraph 3 will be immediately withdrawn at such time the employ'ee accepts other employment or becomes self-employed unless continuation of tne leave of absence is authorized by me Executive Committee.

PROCEDURE hrizeo_Lemes cI.shsence arejrtterideintrab- -, ~mrumm sennce creditina tenw.= J.-E@

in cekairi em,.ol5 tem __

~

-  : _ . , , p$ans and snou d.=not ordin$bly"be yrverrto tiosa ntNeD-.~an Cmontns?cf twefv7e__

E credited service. Leaves are given for a period of no more than six (6) montns.-Extensions for up to six (6) montns ,

eaca may be authorized witn executive management approval. Extensions are only given in unusual cases.

Recuests for the accroval of a leave of absence, or an extension tnereof, for an officer or employee who is a participant under the Career Executive incentive Stock Plan, tne Halliburton Company Senior Executives' incentive Ceferrec Compensation Plan or tne Brown & Root, Inc. and Associatec Companies Of'icers' Supolemental Retirement

~

70/ A 15-51 bD [R. exsisiT g-L l .

4

{ ..

} - .

2 -

POLICY 01 03 g .My 7,1978 Page 2 Plan will be submitted for approval in writing at least 45 days prior to the proposed effe:tive date through acorocriate organizational channels to the Office of the President of Brown & Root, Inc. Form " Request for Executive Committee Approval of Leave of Absence" will men be prepared and submittaf to the Executive Committee of Halliburton Company. Notification of approval or rejection of mach request will be given in writing on behalf of the Executive Committee and transmitted buk through the organization channels to the concerned officer or employee.

Valid reasons for Authorized Leaves of Absence are:

Reduction of Force Employees who are terminated because of reduction of force ind a reassignment will not 1:kely occur within 60 days of termination may aopfy for an Authorized Leave of Absence if they have twelve (12) or more montns of credited service and they wish to maintain their group innarance benefits by making regular monthly premium payments. Employees terminated because of reduction of force who do .not receive an Authorized leave of Absence may extend their group insarance benefits for one additio'nal month by payment of one month's premium following sucn termination.

An employee who participates in the Employee's Retirement and Savings Plan may apply for one (1) six (6) month extension to an Authorized Leave of Absence. However, extensions are approved for reasons of reduction of force only in very unusual circumstances.

Personal litness or Inczoacity Employees who exhaust their sickness or accident benefits due to a continued illness or disability may apply for an Authorized leave of Absence provided they have twelve (12) or more months 4f credited service. They may be eligible for one (1) extension of six (6) months.

Assignment to soecial duty outside Company at the Comeany's reouest Employees will be pnter' an Authorized Leave of Absence when they are loaned or assigned by the Company to other companies' activities, governmental agencies or institutions. In such cases the leave may be continued and extended as often as necessary at the Company's discretion with prope approval.

Came urcent and necessary personal reasons .

Employees who have twelve or more months of credited service and art returning to school to continue an approv'ed full time educational program, or are leaving the area to be with husband or wife in another locality, or to attend to matters beyond the employee's control, will be considered for an Authorized Leave of Absence.

However, each such leave or extension thereof will be carefully evaluated by the employees concerned Manage-

'and Officer. '

J .

i k s l

i l

POLICY 01 03 July 7,1978 Page 3 Military Absence Employees wno enlist or are called for active military service are covered by special policy, " Absence due la Military Service," rather than by an Authorized Leave of Absence.

Termination Authorized Love of Absence will be cancelled immediately under the following circumstances:

1 The employee returns to work.

2. The period of the Authorized Leave of Absence excites.

3 3. The reason for granting the Authorized Leavs of absence no longer exists; such as, completion of urgent k personal business or recovery from illness or incapacity. -

t 1

a ta

4. Refussi of an offer of reemployment in the some job or one of similar pay ar'd status made to an empioyee 1 on Authorized Laeve of Absenca because of reduction of force. -

I h NOTE: Administrative Procedures Section il A. Personnel,

Subject:

Form H 66, Termination intem ew Sueciement "A" Application for Extension of Benefits and/or Leave of Absence.

e r

B -

Approved: Operating Committee April 4,1978

- _ _ . _ - O

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20202B373&oldid=2996239"