ML20214K211

Partial Response to FOIA Request.Nonexempt Portions of Records Listed on App I Available in Lpdr in Waynesboro,Ga. Portions of App I Documents Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 5)

ML20214K211
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	11/20/1986
From:	Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Fowler L FOWLER, L.
Shared Package
ML20214K213	List: ML20214K211 ML20214K233
References
FOIA-86-42 NUDOCS 8612020224
Download: ML20214K211 (3)

Text

U.S. NUCLEAR REIULATORY COMMISSi!N NRc FOiA REoWST NUMeEJS) 86-42

f. a "*+\ & sESPONSE TYPE 5 RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF l a^t I X I = ^'

^"

\,.e.e/ e

- INFORMATION ACT (FOlA) REQUEST NOV 2 01986 DOCKET feUMBERtS) t# appassamp 50-424/425 Laurie Fowler, Esquire PART l.-RECORDS RELEASED OR NOT LOCATED ISee checked boxes)

No agency records subject to the esquest have been located.

No addnional agency records subject to the request have been located.

Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Appendix are already eveilable for public irupaction and copy 6ng in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC.

Agency records subject to the request that are iderMied in Appendix are being made available for public inspecten,and copying in the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC, in a folder under the FOIA number and requester name.

The nonpropnetary version of the proposaus) that you agreed to accept in a telephone conversation with a member of my staff is now being made evalable for public inspection and coying at the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N W., Washington, DC, in a folder under this FOlA number and requester name.

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

• Agency records subsect to the request are enclosed. Any applicable charge for copies of the records provided and payment procedures are noted in the comments section.

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

In view of NRC's response to this request, no further acten is being taken on appeal letter dated PART II.A-INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Certain information in the requested recoIds is being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to the FOIA exemptions described in and for the reasons stated in Part II, sec-tions B, C, and D. Any released portions of the documents for which only part of the record is being withheld are being made available for public inspection and copying in N the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC, in a folder under this FOlA number and requester name.

Comments The nonexempt portions of the records listed on the enclosed Appendix I are also available in the Vogtle Local Public Document Room (LPDR) located at the Burke County Library, 412 4th Street, Waynesboro, Georgia 30830.

8612O20224 861120 PDR FOIA PDR FOWLER 86-42 A

SIGNA a DIRECTOR. DIVISIO O RULES AC . CORDS LA_

W ,

W l

l

! NIC FZM 464 4 Pan D to esi

e FREEDOM OF*lNFORMATION ACT CESPONSE FOIA NUMBER (S): 86-42 .

DATE. NOV 201986 PART li.5-APPLICABLE FOIA EXEMPTIONS Records subiedt to the request that are described in the enclosed Appendices I are being withheld in their entirety 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 withhold information is property dessified pursuant to Enocutwe Order 12356 (EXEMPTION 1)

2. The withheld information relates solely to the intomal personnel rules and procedures of NRC. (EXEMPTION 2)

3. The withheld information is specifically exempted from pubhc disclosure by statute indicated: IEXEMPTION 3)

Section 141-145 of the Atomic Energy Act which prohbits the dsclosure of Restncted Data'or Formerly Restricted Data (42 U.S.C. 2161-2165).

Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act which prohibits the dsclosure of Unclassifed Safeguards information (42 U.S.C. 2167).

4. The withheld information is a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is being withheld for the reason (s) indicated; IEXEMPTION di The information is considered to be confidential business (proprietaryl information.

The information is considered to be proprietary information pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(d)(1).

The information was submitted and recewed in confidence from a fore gn source pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(d)(2).

5. The withheld information consists of interagency or intraagency records that are not available through discovery during htigation. Daciosure of predeceional information X would tend to inhabit the open and frank exchange of ideas essential to the deliberative process. Where records are withheld in their entirety, the facts are inextncably intertwmed wnh the predecisional information. There also are no reasonably segregable factual portions because the release of the facts would permit an bdirect mquiry into the predecisional process of the agency. (EXEMPTION 5)

6. The withheld information is exempted from public declosure because its dsclosure would result in e clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. (EXEMPTION 61

7. The withheld information consists of investigatory records compted for law enforcement purposes and is being withheld for the reason (s) indicated. (EXEMPTION 7)

Deciosure would interfere with en enforcement proceeding because it could reveal ths scope, direction, and focus of enforcement efforts. and thus could possibly allovr them to take action to shie4d potential wrongdomg or a violation of NRC reouirements from investigators. (EXEMPTION 7(A))

Cesclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (EXEMPTION 7(C))

The information consists of names of indwiduals and other information the disclosure of which would revealidentities of confidental sources. (EXEMPTION 7(01)

PART ll.C-DENYING OFFICIALS Pursuant to 10 CFR 9 9 and/or 9.15 of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commasion regulatons. it has been determined that the information withheld a exempt from production or disclosure, and that its production or disclosure is contrary to the public interest. The persons responsible for the derwal are those officials identifed below as denying offcals and the Director, Dwision of Rules and Records. Office of Administration, for any denials that may be appealed to the Executive Director for Operations IEDot DENylNG OFFICIAL TITLE / OFFICE RECORDS DENIED APPELLATE OFFICIAL SECRETARY Eno James M. Taylor Director. IE I-l e2=Pa rt. e 3= Total X PART 11 D- APPEAL RIGHTS The denial by each denying official identified in Part II.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 Executive Director for Operations or to the Secretary 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 en initial FOIA Decision."

9eRC FORM as4 (Pen 2 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c-asi FOlA RESPONSE CONTINUATION

RE: F0IA-86-42 APPENDIX I Withheld in part or entirely under Exemption 5

1. 11/4/85 Transmittal sheet for Leo Modenos, Region II, from Gene Holler, IE, with attached annotated Notice of Violation and annotated draft letter to Georgia Power Co. (4 pages)

Transmittal sheet released; remainder of record withheld in entirety

2. 11/8/85 Transmittal sheet to Leo Modenos, Region II, from Gene Holler IE, with attached annotated Notice of Violation and annotated draft letter to Georgia Power Co. (4 pages)

Transmittal sheet released; remainder of record withheld in entirety

3. 5/2/85 Memorandum for J. Nelson Grace from James M. Taylor, re:

Enforcement Action Resulting from OI Investigations (1 page)

Withhold in entirety l

y - . - - - -,

4 D *

.t' *.

. Law Offices of BRIAN SPEARS SUITE 220-GRANT BLDG.

1

• ATTORNEY AT LAW 44 BROAD STREET. N.W.

BRIAN SPEARS ATLANTA.CEORGIA 30303 LAURIE FOWLER (404)522 4694 January 15, 1986 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Office of Freedom of Information Act Requests ACT REQUEST Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

hM-$g Washington, D.C. 20555 hM/g Re: Freedom of Information Act Request NRC Investigation of Intimidation and Harrassment by Pullman Power Products, Inc.

Dear FOIA Officer:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C.

552 a; amended), the Georgia office of the American Civil Libertles Union (ACLU) requests: copies of any and all NRC records and information, including, but not limited to: notes, letters, memoranda, drafts, minutes, diaries, logs, calendars, tapes, transcripts, summaries, interview reports, procedures, instructions, engineering analyses,. drawings, files, graphs, charts, maps, photographs, agreements, handwritten notes, studies, data sheets, notebooks, books, telephone messages, computations, interim and/or final reports, status reports, and any and all other records relevant to and/or generated in connection with the NRC's investigation (initiated on May 19, 1983) regarding allegations, findings and orders that Pullman Power Products employees intimidated and harrassed quality control inspectors at nuclear facilities. (See attached Atlanta Constitution article for reference.) This request includes, but is not limited to, investigations of intimidation and harrassment by Pullman employees at Plant Vogtle. Thic request also includes, but is not limited to, the NRC Conference of September 25, 1989, on the investigations. (See attached NRC memo for l reference.)

1 Because the ACLU is a non-profit organization established to protect the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, we believe it is appropriate for you to waive copying and search charges, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 522(a)(4)(a).

, In this case, " furnishing the information can be considered as l primarily benefitting the general public."

For any documents or portions that you deny due to a specific FOIA exemption, please provide an index itemizing and describing the documents or portions of documents withheld. The index should provide a detailed justification of your grounds for

! claiming each exemption, explaining why each exemption is 3 ),.[O

's relevant to the dccument or portion of the document withheld.

Rosen (I), 484 F.2d 820 This index is required under Vaughn v.

(D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974).

I look forward to hearing from you within 10 days as the law stipulates.

Sincerely,

'Laurie Fowler Cooperating Attorney, Georgia ACLU LF:jy cc: NRC, Region II e

o 2

Group snys%gtle

~

inspe'ctors harassed

,.andintimidatdd that I have, 'the 'd better come Mob h forward with it," e added. .

3"ll " '*" Grace became regional admin-The head of the Nuclear Regu- Istrator last spring, replacing ,

latory Commission's Atlanta office James P. O'Reilly, who joined said Wedacsday that he was em. Georgia Power as its senior vice t,arrassed at the length *of time it president in charge of nuclear op-ras takmg his office to reach an erations.

enforcement decision concerning Grace and members of his Z the intimidation and harassment of staff met Wednesday with officials C quality control inspectors at the from the Georgta Power Co. con-

. s'"* Vogtle nuclear power plant. cerntog an NRC inves'lgation into

D Nelson Grace, administrator of allegations that construction su-b $ the Atlanta Regional Office of the pervisors harassed and intimidated E-- i2 NRC, said that the problems at quality control inspectors at Vog-p i,g Vogtle had been corrected, howev- tie, in an attempt to manipulate er, and vehemently derded charges them.

d ew that his staff is allowing nuclear ne invest]gation was begun in U .:

p power plants to be ballt in the 1983 and completed during the H<

Z p Southeast intsafety. without proper regard

,'.suntner t!gators of the reaching 1984, with NRQ conclus! e tavys-j a hfcanwhile, (. Warblegios

. . that employees of Pullman Pow)er p

j- t,ased public laterest organization Products Inc., which is Wahg

.c charged Wednesday that inspectors pipes at Vogtle, were intimidating w at Vogtle are continuing to be ha- and harassing some of their own

rassed and latimidated, The group, employees, who were responsib.le H, the Government Accoun.tability Project,!!as opencdea Aag':sta at theof . .for quality r.nd safety inspections plant. 8' '-

, fice to investigate hRegat!ons that Pullman transferred its project subcontractors are punishing work- manager to a new auignment, and l

ers who report construction or in ' the NRC investigation Indicated l spection practices that could be that the action was sufficient to compromising Vogtle's safety. ' correct the problem, Grace said.

The nuclear plant ts being But the NRC has yet to decide I.allt near Augusta. It's current whether to take enforcement ac-projected cost is $4.4 billion. tion against Gecrgia Power as a Since last November, the Gov- result of the situation.

ernment Accountability Project "The problem's been fixed,"

has interviewed more than 80 Grace sali

• Tor some reason, en-workers at Plant Vogt!e who have forcement action was delayed un.

charged that goality control in- til this spring. We could have fol-spectors who cite safety concerns lowed up sooner," he said. "The l

at the plant often end np being timeliness of our enforcement ac-fired, demoted or transferred, ac- tion is embarrassing."

cording to Billie Garde, citizen's Georgia Power officials have clinic director for the Project. denled that harassment ever took Instead of responding to the place at Vogtle, a contention com-complaints, the NRC has ignored pany officials repeated Wednesday them, she said. his. Garde charged before the NRC.

that the NRC's Atlanta office has his. Garde said the Govern-responded to worker complaints ment Accountability Project, about nuclear power plant con- which is to years old, has re-struction practices by contacting viewed the way in which each of i the utilitJes building the plants, in- the NRC's Ove regional offices re-l stead of initiating NRC lavestigs- spends to workers' concerns about i tions that in!ght result th itive nuclear power plant construction. I measures being taken the De respocse from Regico II's of.

utilities., . , , , . ,

' flee, the Atlanta office that admla-

"We do not call the utility," isters NRC functions in the South. 1 said Grace. "I have never done east, has been " absolutely l that, sad if t!cy can find evidence terr ble," she said.

• W

'r,s af og UNITED ST ATES

. f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7

o REGION ll 10l MARIETTA STREET.N W.

Is if ATLANTA. CEORGI A 30323 p 8 0L. . ':,1585 k .' .v ...

Georgia Power Company ATTN: Mr. R. J. Kelly

_ Executive Vice President P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Gentlemen:

SUBJE'CT: PLACEMENT OF DOCUMENT IN PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM Enclosed is a sumary 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 Ifispectors and Possible Falsification of QC Inspection Records by Pullman Power Products, Inc." This Document has been placed in the Public Document Room and may be of use to you in preparing for the conference on September 25, 1985.

Sincerely, 1) 4 -f; __

G J. Nelson Grace Regional Administrator f

i

Enclosure:

Cover page and sumary, dated 10/26/83, 7 pages cc w/ encl:

R. E. Conway, Senior Vice President Nuclear Power D.,O. Foster, Vice President and General Manager Vogtle Project H. H. Gregory, III, General l Manager, Vogtle Nuclear Construction G. Bockhold, Jr. , Vogtle '

Plant Manager L. T. Gucwa, Chief Nuclear Engineer Ruble A. Thomas. .

Vice President-Licensing Vogtl6 Project cc w/ encl: (Cont'd on page ?) ,

M F110Md

o' / .

~

Y Georgia Power Company 2 ggy 12 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. ,

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

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

Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1

James E. Joiner, Troutman, Sanders, -

e bickerman and Ashmore hees G. Ledbetter, Comissioner UdNrbnent of Human Resources Charl g & Badger, Office of Plac.nitig and Budget, Management Review 0 vision Deppish Kirkland, III, Counsel Office of the Consumer's Utility Council Douglas C. Teper, Georg'ians Against Nuclear Energy Laurie Fowler, Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation

' Tim Johnson, Executive Director Educational Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia Morton B. Margulies, Esq., Chairman Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Dr. Oscar H. Paris, Administrativa Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr., Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel r

w m , n

Uhffic ST Af ts tNet 0:st13 NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION J- cerect cr NvtsT 2ATeoNS FitL3 CFract.CtctoN st

• E EA.$'to'nSi[SEE "

Date: October 26, 1983 i

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION ~

~

TITLE: V0GTLE NUCLEAR PLAtfi ALLEGED INTIMIDATION / HARASSMENT OF OC WELDING INSPECTORS AND POSSIBLE FALSIFICATION OE, QC INSPECTION RECORDS BY PULLMAN POWER PR0buCTS, INC.

Su n dMENT: 50-424 Cash NUPSER: 2-83-005 01: Region II STATUS: CLOSED CON 7ROL OFFICE:

REDORTING OFFICE: 01: Region 11 FERIOD OF INVESTIGATION: May 19 - July 9,1983 l REPORTING INVESTIGATOR: .

444 '

R[ ben H. BuYck Investiga:or Office of Investig tions Field Office, Regior. 11 REVIEWED BY: .

E.'L5Williamsd,AcIingDirector g

OfficeofInvestiqtionsFieldOf.ce,RegionII l/?An d bl/n s1.

V

% i 'V Williar. J. Ward l,/D irector i

Division of Field Operations Office of Investigations l 9ff

2 ,

f _ M i xu(4 -

Roger ftuna,'DeputyD e tor Of of Inve ati APPROVED BY: & -

In B. Hayes, h tor Office of Investi ati s o

t s

9

• M P_M ,; e*

W. ~;

s i

e O

d

SUMMARY

e O'

O e

e4 l

W-_ - - - . _ , __

~

. , -t ur, ,

e l * *~ C

, . Ihfs 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 Vdynesboro, 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.

e The allegation pertaining to intimidation and harassment of QC weldin'g inspectors by the Project Manager at the VNP was first reported to the Senior Resident Inspector (SRI), NRC at the facility. This initial allegation was substantiated by the SRI 'during the subsequent interviews of four additional QC welding inspectors employed 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 through threats relating to adverse personnel actions affecting employment and salary matters. Additionally, the Project Manager allegedly interfered with the utilization of QC welding inspectors and attempted to influence the reassignments of inspectors whose work histories did not f avor production and scheduling. An onsite incident of assault in August 1982 upon a QC welding inspector by a tenstruction superintendent, both empoyees of PPP, was also reported te the SRI.

A review of pertinent regulatory documents, standards, proceoures anc contract requirements was conducted pursuant to the investigation. It was disclosed that PPP committed to cooperate with the licensee to ensure QC standards for the VNP are enforced at all times. Further, this review disclosed that the line of authority regarding administrative matters for the QA/QC manager at the field office site of PPP is through thp Project Manager. 'It was oetermined that PPP or m e-

. 2 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 l Pcwer Operations (INPO) criteria, identified that the QA/QC 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 improprietics. rive of these individuals confirmed vast material storage deficiencies which are ccepounded by the overt refusals on the part of construction managemerlt to divert craf t efforts to correct the problems. These inspectors viewed the construction supe-intendent's negative attitude toward Storage Inspection Report ct ficiencies as a foru of intimidation. Some of these inspectors also related instances of interference and intervention into QC inspector assignment matters by construc-tion management to favor scheduling and the production ef fort. All except one of the QC inspectors interviewed reported variously that the Project Manager has attempted to influence the utilizction of, and decisions rendered by, inspectors; that the salary administration and other benefits for QA/QC personnel controlled by the Project Manager is unfair and inequitable; that he arbitrarily adjusts recon = ended 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 inspectors and that he employs remarks which threaten job security as a means of intimidation "and harassment. The lone dissenting QC inspecter was ceterrined to be a personal friend of the Project Manager and had been the recipient of preferential treat-ment regarding a job assignment on site. Those inspectors with knowledge of an ensite altercation, in August 1982, between a former PPP Construction Super-intendent and a QC Welding Inspector iridicatec that the superintendent disagreed with the inspector's perception of the non-conforming item being discussed. One

~

inspector reported.an offsite altercation in December 1982 between a Construction Superintendent and a QC Inspector' Supervisor during which the surcrintendent held an oper. knife on the QC supervisor.

i

3 g

Two c'urrcnt and one former QC supervisory personnel were interviewed and ea substantiated the claims and perceptions of field inspectors regarding incident

• and acts of QC negativism by construction managers, intimidation, harassment ,

adverse interference, verbal threats, embarassment and chas'tisement of these individuals by the Project Manager and his subordinates.

All of these individuals indicated that production and scheduling appear to take precedence cvar the quality functions, an attitude nurtured by the Project Manager and his construction staff.

Authorized Nuclear Inspe'ctors at the VNP also confirmed ~

intimidation and harassment of QC welding inspectors by PPP construction ment. nage-ma Inquiries were also conducted among the OC inspection personnel who alle engaged in visual inspection practices which were not in accordance with e proceduresorwhosignedinspectionreportswithoutassu-ingco~rrectiveIctions had been completed. One 0 welding inspector admitted that he occasionally failed to conduct visual inspections within the distance requirements as sptcified 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.

Ten welders or pipefitters employed by PPP were interviewed ano, except for one reporting that a 0; inspector had occasionally failed to visually inspect within the distance

(

requirement set forth in the PPP and ASME procedures, none were aware of record l imoroprieties by QC welding inspectors.  ;

i I

• he Prcject Manager and two construction superintendents we e inte viewed and a ategorically denied any form of intentional intirridation and harassment of Q: l elding inspectors. j The Project Manager and one Superintencent admitted actions k

hich could be interpreted as interference into matters which are purely QA/Q unctions.

n y

The Project Manager denied any -improprieties regarding the adminis-ation of QA/Q: personnel matters.

All claimed to be s'upportive of the QA/QC j

snction but acknowledged that they had failed to do so openly in a public nner. ,! !,

I)l i d.i k  ;

t l

= . ,WI

4 s Eight. licensee management officials and QC ~1nspection personnel at the VNP were interviewed regarding their knowledge of intimidation and harassment of QC welding inspectors employed by PPP. No disclosures pertinent to the investi-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 that there does not appear to be a specific correlation between the amounts of recent weekly increases received and longevit'y, related experience and education '

levels of these individuals.

.f b

• Q l

l l