ML20205S835
| ML20205S835 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/02/1985 |
| From: | Gagliardo J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204J043 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-153, FOIA-86-A-17 NUDOCS 8606120945 | |
| Download: ML20205S835 (14) | |
Text
'
'% UNITED STATES
[ , , ,
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$\ ' <
f RE GION IV s g,,. $11 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 1000
,,,,, ARLINGTON TEXAS N411 JAN 2 NE3 MEMORANDUM FOR: Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel FROM: J. E. Gagliardo, Chairperson
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF PANEL MEETING ON DECEMBER 21 The CPSES Intimidation Panel met on the morning of December 21, 1984, at the Phillips Building. The following members were present:
Jane Axelrad James Lieberman Jim Gagliardo The following advisors / guests were present:
VincentNoonan, Advisor (parttime)
Stewart Treby Edward Christenbury The following summarizes the actions and activities of the panel:
- 1. Panel members raised a question regarding the procedures to be usec by the Panel to review all of the applicable material. Mr. Christenbury proposed three options. The Panel decided to use a combination of two options. It was decided to have each member review part of the large volume of material related to intimidation and to have a consultart group review all of the material. The Panel member so assigned and the l consultant group will brief the Panel on the material reviewed.
- 2. The consultant group will prepare a matrix to be used to analyze the material reviewed.
- 3. The consultant group will prepare or obtain applicant organizatfor.
l charts for the time periods during which the alleged intimidatior.
i occurred.
- 4. S. Treby expressed concern with the definition of intimidation used by the Panel. He agreed to provide the Panel with transcripts of the prehearing conference of June 1984 which includes the definitions of intimidation proposed by the applicant, the intervenor group, anc by the staff.
8606120945 860602 QYDES -17 PDR Q/h ~h5=$5b Al9
Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel JAN 2N .
- 5. Mr. Treby agreed to try and provide the Panel with the material (transcripts, depositions, etc.) applicable to the approximately 20 allegations of intimidation being reviewed by the hearing board.
- 6. The Panel made assignment for the OI investigation reports and inquiry reports as shown in the Attachment.
- 7. The Panel will meet again at 8:45 a.m., on January 4,1985.
The meeting adjourned at about 10:30 a.m.
g h\s
.J. E. gliardo Chairperson
Attachment:
As stated cc:
D. G. Eisenhut, NRR Panel Advisors E. Christenbury, ELD
a ATTACHMENT 01 ASSIGNMENTS TO THE PANEL OI Document Panel Member Assigned Q4-83-021 Axelrad Q4-83-023 Lieberman Q4-8;-025 Gagliardo Q4-83-026 Axelrad Q4-84-011 Hunter Q4-84-037 Lieberman Q4-84-046 Lieberman 4-83-001 Gagliardo 4-83-013 Gagliardo 4-83-016 Hunter 4-84-006 Gagliardo 4-84-008 Lieberman 4-84-012 Hunter 4-84-13 Axelrad 4-84-025 Lieberman 050 ')V4f/Er /f3W4 Hunter i
j I
c .
b, /-lx 5x) f$-
t COMANCHE PEAK INTIMIDATION PANEL Meeting 1/4/85 9:00 am Attendees J. Zudans D. Hunter S. Treby J. Lieberman B. Kaplan C. Poslusny '
L,. Chandler Highlights
- 1. EG&G role in review was defined - Kaplan to report on subcontractors schedule.
- 2. S. Treby provided list of seven allegations (hearing identified)referencedtranscriptrecords(attached) which were assigned for review to group members.
- 3. 01 report reading to be completed by 1/11/85.
- 4. Transcript of feedback interviews and list of allegers will be provided by J. Zudans to the panel.
- 5. RecordReviewTeam(EG&G)documentationofintimidation incidents and transcript references will be provided to the panel when available.
- 6. Panel definition of intimidation will be provided to Record Review Group.
- 7. Next meeting - 9:00 am on 1/11/85 to discuss OI reports and develop assignments.
(ip /A-25-/53 A/M . .-
9 l
t I. NRC Intimidation in an Interview of an A11eger Dennis Culton, a fonner electrical helper and draftperson at CPSES, alleged that NRC Region IV inspectors intimidated him in an interview.
The evidence consists only of:
Mr. Culton's July 25, 1984 deposition;(Tr. 58,500-591) tape recording of the alleged intimidating interview written transcript of that interview.
i e
- O O
e e
O e
.- - - - - - - - - - . _ , - , _ - . - - - _ . - . . - . . . _ _ ~ , - . - - - - , __ . . _ , ,
- 3-III. Intimidation of QC Inspector in Auxiliary Building Mr. Robert Messerley alleged he observed Mike Robinson, a' ~ general foreman for cable tray supports, yelling and shouting obscenities at a QC inspector for " red-tagging" too many cable tray supports.
The evidence on this incident consists only of Mr. Messerley's testimony on this matter. Deposition of Robert Messerley (July 12, 1984). (Tr.50,000-087) e
.I 4
S 8
i 5
- , - . - - . . - , - - - , - - - , . - - - - - - - , . , --n,. ,. ,-
. - - - - - - - - - - , . . - , . - - = - - - - - - - - - - - . _ _ _ -
IV. Intimidation of Welding QC Inspector in North Valve Room
- Mr. Stanley Miles, a former iron worker at CPSES, alleged that he saw QC inspector identify improper welding in the North Yalve Room. According to Mr. Miles, the QC inspector left, saying he was going to stop it, but later returned and did not stop the improper welding.
The evidence on this issue consists solely of Mr. Miles' testimony. Deposition of Stanley G. Miles (July 12,1984)
(Tr. 50,600-628) ,
i .
P a
e b
I 5
9 9
6 e
t 9
9
i e I e
Voiding of NCR on Polar Crane )
V. e
~
Mrs. Darlene Stiner alleged that an NCR which she wrote regarding a hole in the polar crane rail was improperly voided and the hold tag ,
improperly removed.
Mrs. Stiner's testimony on this concern is located in her eviden- ,
tiary deposition (July 13, 1984); Tr. 52,005-010; 52,079-084; 52,182-190, and in CASE Exhibit 667, pp. 54-55. l Applicants' testimony Brandt. Deposition of C.onThomas this concern Brandtwas (Julysubmitted 11,1984 ; by)Mr. C. Thtmas Tr. 45,273-76. ,
t 0
P e
I e a
f
=
l r
b a
I e
e h
D b
., . - . - . , . . , , - . . . - ,- -, , , - - -n, -, - . ----, .- - ,---, . , -. - - . - - - - s.. ---
VI. Stanford incident -
Alleged intimidation regarding voided NCR written by Sue Ann Neumeyer.
Neumeyer wrote NCR on QC inspector Stanford indicating he had falsified dates, thus er:abling craft to bypass QC hold points. NCR was voided. Applicants assert that dates were changed only to correct error.
The witnesses and their testimony which deal with the alleged
- incident are as follows:
Deposition of See Ann Neuneyer; August 1, 1984 (Tr. 59,540-598) and August 2, 1984 (Tr. 59,754-825)
Deposition of Linda Barnes; July 28, 1984 ('Tr. 59,006-117, 129-149)
Deposition of Dwight M. Woodyard; July 24, 1984 (Tr.56,505-572)
Deposition of Jack Ray Stanford; July 25, 1984 (Tr. 57,500-587)
Deposition of John T. Blixt, Jr.; July 25, 1934 (Tr. 57,048-076}
Deposition of Robert Siever; July 25, 1984 (Tr. 58,067-080)
Deposition of Gorden Raymond Purdy; July 10, 1984 (Tr. 41,156-188)
Testimony of Robert Marshall Cuncan; Tr. 17,420-521 (9/19/84);
Tr. 18,091-152 (9/20/84)
Prefiled Testimony of Richard W. Simpson; August 15, 1984 (pp. 1-38)
Prefiled Testimony of Danny Ray Wri9ht; Augusdt 16, 1984
-(pp.1-9)
Preffled Testimony of Ronald D. McBee; August 16, 1984 (pp.1-24)
Prefiled Testfrony of Alan Dale Justice; August 16, 1984 (pp.1-20)
/
Prefiled Testimony of Janes Edward Zwahr and Daniel Thanas Wilterdir.g; Augsut 1R, 1984 (pp. 1-21)
Prefiled Testimony of Jarres E. Brown August 15,1984(pp1-21)
- 7-VII. Dunham's Termination .
Allegation that QC inspector was terminated because of his complaints concerning DC.
Dunham's termination paper states he was terminated for insubordination. Dunham filed a complaint with the Department of Labor claiming he was fired for criticizing the QC program, and one Harry Williams in particular.
The parties have stipulated that Dunham's testimony is' contained in the record of the DOL / hearing, Dunham v. Brown & Root Inc.,
84-EPA-1 (February 13 and 14,1984).
During the evidentiary depositions in this proceeding, Applicants presented further testimony on circumstance surrounding Mr.
Dunham's termination:'
DepositionofGordonhaymondPurdy; July 10,1984 (Tr.41,247-259)
Deposition of C. Thomas Brandt; July 11,1984(Tr.45,196-198)
Deposition of Myron G. " Curly" Krisher (Tr. 37,011-C64; July 9
. 1984 Testimony was also given by Applicants during the hearing sessions of September 11 and 18, 1984:
Testimony of B. R. Clements; Tr. 15.460-63(9/11/84)
Testimony of Thomas Brandt; Tr. 16,777-794 (9/18/84) i By Order dated November 30, 1984, the ALJ in the 00t proceeding i dismissed Dunhay's complaint (Dunham v. Brown & Root, Inc.,
84-EPA-1, " Recommended Decision and Order").
t 4
, .- , . .n, . , . --. - ,n_ . , ,,_,._ - ,--- - - - - - - - L-., , . - -. . . .
. 1 j
l VIII. T-Shirt Incident ..
Intervenor alleged that electrical QC inspectors wearing T-Shirts were intimidated by management.
Certain electrical QC inspectors were wearing T-shirts referring to
" nitpickers." They were subsequently sequestered by manageme.nt and their desks searched. (Thereisaquestionoftheirpriorinvolve-mentwith"destructivetesting"priortotheincident.) Some those involved were later transferred or terminated. Applic assert spanagement might have overreacted, but the actions ta en were not intimidation.
Evidentiary depositions:
Depositi.on of Mark Welch; July 16, 1984; (Tr. 53,000-264)
Deposition of Kenneth Phitehead; July 17, 1984; (Tr.55,000-164)
Deposition of Jack Pitts; July 31,1984;(Tr.73,500-553)
Deposition of Ronald Tolson; July 10,1984(Tr.40-546-562)
Deposition of B. R. Clements; July '10,1984; (Tr. 40,096-105)
Deposition of Thomas Brandt; July 11,1984; (Tr. 45,128-149)
Deposition of Boyce Grier; July 11,1984;(Tr.45,591-599)
Deposition of Gordon Purdy; July 10,1984(Tr.41,198-199)
Deposition of James Cummins; July 17,1984(Tr.54,008-055)
Hearing Testimony:
Testimony of Michael Spence. Tr. 14,924-930(9/10/84) l l
- Testimony of Antonio Vega Tr. 15,055-060; 15,191-193; 15,197-251;15,278-416(9/10/84) l Testimony of B. R. Clements Tr. 15,418-428; 15,470-503; 15,514-521(9/11/84) i Testimony of Thomas Brandt, Tr. 16,107-133; 16,175-201 (9/13/84)
Testimony of Gordon Purdy; Tr. 16.358-373(9/13/84)
Testimony of Ronald Tolson Tr. 16,399-575(9/14/84);
Tr.16,652-658(9/18/84)
. . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ - _ , . _ _ .___-_-m , _. _ _ . _ _ . _ . - , . , - .
- 9-Testimony of Gregory 9ennetzen, Tr. 17.745-934; 17,954-968 (9/20/84)
' Testimony of David Chapman Tr. 17,969-18.031 (9/20/84)
Testimony of Doyle Hunnicutt, Tr. 18,515-669 (9/20/84) 6 8 e 4
S
s % O
/ %, UNITED STATES 8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
- ) wAssiNcTON,0. C. 20555
.s J COMANCHE PEAK INTIMIDATION PANEL MEETING ,
il ThemeetingwasheldonJanuary%,1985,from10:00a.m.to11:00a.m.
Attendees were:
Members Mvisors Invited Guests J. Axelrad B. Kaplan L. Chandler, ELD J. Gagliardc J. Scinto S. Treby, ELD D. Hunter J. Lieberman Topics Discussed:
e
- 1. S. Treby provided the panel with a detailed listing of intimidation incidents that had been addressed by the hearing board. The listing
( includes references to applicable hearing transcripts, depositions, OI reports, prefiled testimony, and affidavits.
- 2. The parel reviewed the listing and made the following assignrrents to panel members:
Ir:r nidation ineident n Assigned Panel Member D. Carlton Not to be reviewed i
R. Nesserly Gagliardo S. Miles Hunter M S. Neumeyer (Stanford Incident) Liebennan W. Dunham (H. Williams) Gagliardo l W. Dunham (Temination) Gagliardo T-Shirt Axelrad e S.Neumeyer(linerplate) Lieberman LinerPlate(QCbreakdown) Liebeman D. Stiner polarcrane) Llebeman D. Stiner weave welding) Lieberran D. Stiner DGskids) Lieberman D. Stiner Weld sign tools on doors) Liebeman D. Stiner Relocationofoffice) Liebennan D. Stiner Telegram) Lieberman I
po/4-85-lf3
. .. _ - - . --h)I\
66 Intimidation Incident Assigned Panel Member l I
D. Stiner (Incident to force Lieberman her to leave)
C. Allen Gagliardo Lipinsky trip report Axelrad H. Stiner Axelrad L. Barnes (valve disk) Hunter M. Gregory (pressure on Hunter reviewers)
M. Gregory (QESreviewsheet) Hunter M. Gregory (ROF issue) Hunter Witness "F" Hunter
- 3. The panel discussed the review format to be used and the documentation of the review.
- 4. The panel discussed the use of the consultants for independent review and for preparation of a review matrix.
Next Meeting
( The next meeting of the panel is scheduled for 8:30 a.m., Friday, January 25,
( _.
1985, in the Phillips Building.
A conference call meeting will be held on Friday, January 18, to discuss the review progress of the panel. .
NOT,E Th( r ,$rs of the panel plus the additional individuals listed below reviewed the cap o' th? potential material false statement, regarding U-bolt torque valves, prior to convening the panel meeting. It was decided that Dave Tereo and Paul Chen will develop a list of cases for which incomplete information was cubmitted and Jane Axelrad will use this information to request a special investigation by 01.
l Additional Attendees G. Bagchi, TRT W. Chen, ETEC C.Haughney,COMEX(TRT)
G. Holler IE J. Scinto. ELD J. Sinclair, O!
D. Terao, NRR/TRT
,- ,,.....~ _ - _ . . ~ . . .- _ ._. _ - _ _ . . _ -_
/-
hh
%, UNITED STATES
[ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I s wasmworon,o.c. noses
,,, . g a s 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Those on Attached List FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
PANEL TO PREPARE NRC STAFF POSITION ON COMANCHE PEAK HEARING CONTENTION NO. 5 On December 24, 1984 I established the subject panel and provided initial guidance regarding its charter. Since that time, the charter and the panel composition have been clarified to reflect a broader range of expertise and l to accomodate agency priorities. This memorandum reflects the panel's charter and changes.
To properly assist the Director. Comanche Peak Project in evaluating Contention 5 and to assist him in the preparation of a comprehensive staff position on Contention 5. a panel composed of senior managers has been formed. The panel is composed of the following individuals:
EriwardJordan.IE(Chairperson)
Richard Vollmer. IE Alan Herdt. R-II Robert Warnick, R-III i James Sniezek. DEDR0GR l Ashok Thadant. NRR This contention concerns the applicant's adherence to QA/QC requirements and I is provided as Enclosure 1. The issue of construction QA/QC at Comanche Peak is multifaceted and is addressed in part, by many records, documents and in testimony from various sources including the staff, applicant, intervenor, and allegers. The background of this contention and associated records span several years. Various NRC offices have been involved, including Region IV.
OI. NRR OELD and IE. Because of their involvement with Comanche Peak regu-latory activities. I am appointing the following personnel as resource support to the panel in their areas of expertise:
Joe Scinto. 0 ELD ,
Vince Noonan. NRR ,
Thomas Ippolito. AE00 James Gagliardo. IE Brooks Griffin OI Dorwin Hunter. R-IV Chet Poslusny. NRR*
Ted Sullivan NRR*
' Administrative and technical support as requested by Panel Chairman gA ggg '
-8573ESS54p gpp, ,
ff
4 These individuals may be asked to assist in this effort when issues involving their specific area of expertise are being considered, and I request your support in making them available on an "as-needed" basis.
The product of this effort will be the assistance to the Director, Comanche Peak Project, in preparing a position that integrates the staff findings and
- conclusions regarding this Contention. In addition this effort may require panel members, or the panel as a whole, to be prepared to testify concerning panel recommendations in support of the staff position on Contention 5 as identified by the Director, Comanche Peak Project. Enclosure 2 provides the charter for the panel.
I The work schedule of the panel as developed by the Director, Comanche Peak Project, is to be consistent with the hearing schedule and shall be closely i coordinated with ELD.
The panel will work under the direction of Vincent S. Noonan Director, ,
Comanche Peak Project, and should provide periodic status briefings to the :
Deputy Director NRR. :
i (BigseeMilasl.Birsh4 1
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
As stated cc: Panel Members Panel Resource Personnel T. Murley J. Martin I Distribution l
WJDircks EJordan DEisenhut EDO Readinti File Central F1'e .
CPTRTReadingFile(Annette) ,
l t
! IFC :IE :GPP/DIR :NRR :NRR/DIR :EDO , i L/ # :
'l :
. . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . .W. J. . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . .
! IAME :EJordan :V$Noonan :DGEisenhut :HDenton :WJDircks : :
r......:............:...........
l 1. .ATE . .. :: 2. .42. ./85 .. . ... :. 2. :#.2/85 . . . . . . :. 2/.. ..2f85
- . . . . . :2 . . h5
. . ./85. . : . . :c5//
. . . . . . . . . . :: 3 3,// 8 5 :
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
d ADDRESSEES FOR MEMORANDUM DATED ns 2 s 25 Victor Stello, Jr. DEDROGR Harold R. Denton, NRR James Taylor, IE Guy H. Cunningham, III. ELD Clemens J. Heltemes, AEOD Nelson Grace, RII James Keppler, RIII Robert Martin, RIV Ben Hayes O!
0 8
i 4
ENCLOSURE 1 COMiNCHE PEAK CONTENTION 5*
Contention 5. TheApplicants'jailuretoadheretothequalityassurance/
quality control provisions required by the construction permits for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and the requirements of Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50, and the construction practices employed, specifically in regard to concrete work, mortar blocks, str;el, fracture toughness testing, expansion joints, placement of the reacter vessel fcr Unit 2, welding, inspection and testing, materials used, craft labor qualifications and working conditions (as they may ' affect QA/QC) and training and organization of QA/QC personnel, have raised substantial questions as to the adequacy of the construction of the facility. As a result, .
the Commission cannot make the findings required by 10 CFR 50.57(a) necessary ,
for issuance of an operating license for Comanche Peak. e.
(CFUR 4A-ACORN 14-CASE 19 JOINT Contention)
I
- Reproduced from Board Order Subsequent to the Prehearing Conference of April 30, 1980 (dated June 16,1980) s
.- l l
ENCLOSURE 2 COMANCHE PEAK CONTENTION 5 PANEL CHARTER I. PURPOSE The purpose of this panel is to assist the Director, Comanche Peak Project, to evaluate in an integrated manner the information developed by the staff which bears upon QA/QC and overall plant quality. The objectives are:
A. To assist the Director, Comanche Peak Project to make the staff determination regarding the findings required by 10 CFR 50.57(a) as related to Contention 5.
B. To provide an integrated review and feedback to the Director, Comanche Peak Project, on information bearing on Contention 5 along with the identification of problem areas and appropriate recomendations for NRC actions or proposed solutions.
C. To be prepared to testify as needed individually or as a panel, concerning panel recommendations in support of the staff position
, on Contention 5 as identified by the Director.
l II. MEMBERSHIP Edward Jordan IE (Chairperson)
Richard Vollmer. IE Alan Herdt, R-II Robert Warnick, R-III James Sniezek DEDROGR Ashok Thadani, NRR 117 PANEL SCOPE
!Jnde' Hee jul Neet v :.he Oireci.or, domoochi: Peak Project the panel ; hail inue ' ua : ;a, .si th .t.. a n . L. i .eC.'eigs of past and current NRC staff activities and applicant actions in response to NRC findings as they relate to the matters addressed in /
l Contention 5. Specifically, the panel shall consider the results of:
l
- 1) Region IV inspections
- 2) CAT inspections .
1 l
1 l
l 3 OI investigations 4 Technical Review Team inspections 5 Enforcement actions 1 6 Special Review Team inspection i 7 SALP reports 8 Staff analysis of CYGNA Report i 9 Staff sumary of the Hearing Record j Additionally, the panel may examine the result of other staff activities which may bear on their findings related to Contention 5 ;
if directed to do so. <
B. The Director, Comanche Peak Project will arrange for staff members to brief the panel on findings related to Contention 5. The Director will also set up meetings with the intervenor and the applicant to discuss matters which they respectively believe are ,
most significant as related to Contention 5. Any such meetings ;
will be open to the public. The panel should properly characterize the collective concerns raised by the staff, intervenor and l applicant and review /coment on the applicants plan to address these concerns. The panel should then advise the Director, Comanche Peak Project on its recommendations.
C. During conduct of panel activities, the panel should advise the Director, Comanche Peak Project of areas where it appears additional NRC activity may be warranted in order to address the issues raised in Contention 5.
~
IV. PANEL OPERATING PROCEDURES A. Panel meetings will be held as established by the Chairperson. The i
Director, Comanche Peak Project will arrange all meetings with the applicant, intervenor or allegers. Meetings with NRC staff and staff consultants shall be considered predecisional.
B. A quorum for conduct of panel business will consist of four members.
In the temporary absence of the Chairperson, the Chairperson may designate an acting Chairperson.
C. Briefings by the principal NRC reviewers in each of the areas identi-fied in Sction I!!.A will be obtained. Reviewers will sumarize the scope of their reviews, deficiencies noted, root causes of such deficiencies and applicant corrective actions. Likewise, the reviewe.rs are to discuss those areas where no deficiencies were found.
D. The panel should analyze the information presented by NRC reviewers contained in source documents which the panel reviews, obtained by discussions with the applicant, intervenor and staff and observed during site reviews in arriving at its recommendations regarding Contention 5 and should continually provide feedback to the Director, Comanche Peak Project.
J .
E. The panel should keep apprised of the ongoing agency activities related to Contention 5 and promptly identify conflicts or problems '
to the Director, Comanche Peak Project. l V. RECORD AND REPORTING A. The panel will work under the direction of Vincent S. Noonan, Director of the Comanche Peak Project, and should provide periodic status briefings to the Deputy Director, NRR.
- 9. The panel shall keep such records of activities to assist it in arriving at recommendations regarding Contention 5, as requested by the Director. Such records shall be considered predecisional until staff testimony regarding Contention 5 is provided to the Hearing Board.
o O
O
,,