ML20154A985

From kanterella
Revision as of 13:53, 10 December 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Third Partial Response to FOIA Request for All Records Re & Underlying Enforcement Action EA-84-93 Re Facility.Forwards Documents on App I & K.App H Documents in Pdr.App J & Some App K Documents Withheld (FOIA Exemptions 5 & 7)
ML20154A985
Person / Time
Site: Catawba  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 12/26/1985
From: Grimsley D
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To: Carr A
DUKE POWER CO.
Shared Package
ML20154A989 List:
References
FOIA-85-584 EA-84-093, EA-84-93, NUDOCS 8603040195
Download: ML20154A985 (9)
v • d • e


Text

'% '

~

fh0[(9 o UNITED STATES .

,8 ~ ,7.

NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION

. O p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\...+/

+

DEC26 Y Docket No. 50-413/50-414 Mr. Albert V. Carr, Jr.

Duke Power Company Legal Department P.O. Box 33189 IN RESPONSE REFER Charlotte, NC 28242 TO F01A-85-584

Dear Mr. Carr:

  • This is the third partial response to your letter dated August 19, 1985, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (F0IA), copies of all records related to and underlying Enforcement Action No. EA-84-93 regarding the Catawba Nuclear Station.

The documents identified on the enclosed Appendix H are already available for public inspection and copying in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). The PDR accession number is noted next to the description of'each document. Additional records related to your request have been identified in NRC's response to a previous FOIA request. This response is maintainPd in the PDR in folder F01A-84-722 under the name of Bell. You may obtain copies of those records by referring to the above F0IA folder. -

The four documents identified on the enclosed Appendix ! and certain documents identified on the enclosed Appendix K are being~ placed in the PDR in Washington, DC, and at the NRC Logal Public Docupent %om in South Carolina.

The documents identified on the enclosed Appendices J,h M, and certain documents on Appendix K, are being withheld. The applicable FOIA exemptions are noted on the Appendices.

The information withheld pursuant to Exemption (5) consists of advice, opinions and recommendations of the s&aff. Disclosure would inhibit the frank and candid exchange of communications in future deliberations and thus would not be in the public interest. This predecisional information is being withheld pursuant to Exemption (5) of the F0IA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5))

and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(5) of the Commission's regulations. There are no reasonably segregable factual portions.

Information withheld pursuant to Exemption (7)'(A) consists of an investigatory record compiled for law enforcement purposes which is being withheld from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (7)(A) of the F0IA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(A)public ) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(7)(1) of the Commission's regulations because disclosure of the information would interfere with an enforcement procdeding.

s B603040195 851226 PDR FOIA CARR85-504 PDR ,

( .

- 4 Mr'. Albert V Carr, Jr. .

Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.9 of the NRC's regulations, it has been determined that the information withheld is exempt from production or disclosure, and that its production or disclosure is contrary to the public interest. The persons responsible for the denial of all of the documents identified on Appendices J L and M and certain documents identified on Appendix K are the undersigned and Mr. James M. Taylor, Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement. The persons responsible for denial of documents identified on Appendix K are the undersigned and Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administator, Region II, as noted on Appendix K.

This denial may be appealed to the NRC's Executive Director for Operations within 30 days from the receipt of this letter. As provided in 10 CFR 9.11, any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulat)ry Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an Initial F0IA Decision."

We will communicate with you further regarding additional records related to your F0IA request.

Sincerely, n

._ b i

Donnie H. Grimsley, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration

Enclosures:

As stated

- Re: F01A-85-584 (Third Response)

APPENDIX H RECORDS ALREADY AVAILABLE IN PDR

1. 04/29/83 Memorandum for James J. Cumings from Ben B. Hayes, (1 page)

PDR # 8410190382

2. 09/14/83 Government Accountability Project Petition to Comission with attachments including Du'e Power Company's Construction Project Evaluation for Catawba nuclear Station Units 1/2, September 27-October 14, 1982. (523 pages) PDR # 8309190025
3. 09/14/83 Ltr to the Comission from Garde (50 pages) PDR # 8410190388

~4. 09/16/83 Memorandum for Sandra Showman from Edwin G. Triner, w/ miscellaneous documents. (7 pages) PDR # 8504150615

5. 10/14/83 Ltr to Garde from DeYoung, w/ enclosure (3 pages)

PDR # 8310240245

6. 10/21/83 Memo for the Comission from Messenger (23 p' ages)

PDR # 8508120315

7. 11/01/83 Ltr to Palladino from Udall (2 pages) PDR # 8401100133
8. 11/01/83 Ltr to Garde from DeYoung (3 pages) POR # 8311100365
9. 05/22/84 Memo from Messenger to Palladino and Comissioners, subject:

Catawba Nuclear Power Station--Review of NRC Handling of Allegations (3 pages) PDR # 8410190376

10. 05/22/84 Report of Investigation, title: " Catawba Nuclear Power Station--

Review of NRC Handling of Allegations" (14 pages)

PDR # 8410190379

11. 06/22/84 Partial Initial Decision, ASLBP-81-463-06 OL (284 pages)

PDR # 8407030223

12. 06/27/84 Ltr from Guild to DeYoung (3 pages) w/ attached Partial Initial Decision (3 pages) PDR #8407170537
13. 07/20/84 Ltr from DeYoung to Guild (2 pages) w/ enclosure: Receipt of
Request for Action Under 10 CFR 2.206 (2 pages) PDR #8407270055
14. 10/10/84 Memo and Order, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board i regarding in-camera testing on Foreman Override (3 pages)

PDR # 8410110161 i

d

Re: F0lA-85-584 (Third Response)

AFPENDIX H (Continued)

15. 10/26/84 (Proposed) Supplemental Partial Initial Decision by Duke Power Company (36 pages) PDR # 8410300319
16. '12/06/84 Memo to Files--Patricia Davis (2 pages) PDR # 8412070341 17, 12/20/84 Order re DD-84-16 PDR #8412240132
18. 12/27/84 Ltr requesting staying PID imediate effectiveness, Guild to Comission (3 pages) PDR # 8502150664
19. 12/28/84 Ltr on Imediate Effectiveness, Duke Power Company Attorneys to Comission. (42 pages) PDR # 8502150681
20. 01/10/85 Ltr from Duke Power Company Attorneys to Comission regarding Intervenor Requests to make presentation at Comission meeting on licensing of r tawba a (5 pages) PDR # 8501110489
21. 01/28/85 Memo from Chilk to Dircks - Staff Requirements re Catawba 1, PDR #8502050237
22. 03/01/85 Memo, Chilk to Board and Parties regarding Comission declination of review of ALAB-794 (1 page) PDR # 8503050469
23. 04/22/85 Duke Power Company's Response to GAP's September 27, 1984 Enforcement Action Request (26 pages) and Note from Shapar to Commissioners, subject: SECY-78-308 - Protection of Informants - Response to Comission Questions Regarding Section 7 of S. 2584 (7 pages) and Attachment B (3 pages)

PDR #8504250162 i 24. 06/04/85 Ltr from Taylor to Guild w/ attached: Director's Decision Under i 10 CFR 2.206 (28 pages) PDR #8506130458 l 25. 08/13/85 Ltr from Taylor to Duke Power Company, subject: Notice of

~

Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (6 pages)

PDR #8508160156 i 26. Undated Occurrence (PNO-II-83-74). (2 pages) PDR # 8309160241 '

l l-I l

k

Re: F01A-85-584 (Third Response)

APPENDIX I RECORDS BEING PLACED IN PDR AND LPDR

1. 09/27/84 Ltr from Garde to DeYoung and Axelrod, re: Enforcement Action Request, Duke Power Company (9 pages)
2. 12/19/84 Routing and Transmittal slip from Holler to Puckett, with attached copyrighted decision, Brown Root, Inc. v. Donovan, Civil No. 83-4486 (5th Cir. 1984). (10 pages)
3. 01/03/85 Notation Vote Response Sheet from Comm. Asselstine (1 page)
4. 01/09/85 Memo from Chilk to Plaine, subject: SECY-84-467 - Director's Denial of 2.206 Petition (In the Matter of Duke Power Company)

(1 page)

4 Re: FOIA-85-584 (Third Response)

APPENDIX J RECORDS WITHHELD IN ENTIRETY

EXEMPTION (5)
1. Undated Draft Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 (21 pages)
2. Undated Draft Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 (26 pages)
3. Undated. Draft Ltr from O'Reilly to Tucker (3 pages)
4. Undated Draft Ltr from Taylor to Owen (3 pages)
5. Undated Draft Ltr from Taylor to Guild (3 pages)

, 6. Undated Draft Ltr from Taylor to Garde (3 oages) l

7. Undated Draft Ltr from Taylor to Garde (4 pages)

~

i

8. Undated Draft Ltr from Taylor to Garde (3 pages)
9. Undated Draft Ltr from Taylor to Garde (3 pages)
10. Undated Draft Ltr from Taylor to Garde (2 pages)

, 11. 11/26/84 Facsimile Transmittal Sheet from Axelrad to 0'Reilly with Notation Vote Response Sheet (3 pages)

12. 05/23/85 Memo from Taylor to Grace. subject: Proposed Enforcement Action and 2.206 Decision on Discrimination at Catawba (2 pages)
13. 06/04/85 Draft Ltr from Taylor to Guild (7 pages)
14. 08/07/85 Routing and Transmittal Slip from Taylor to Grace (3 pages) t

Re: F01A-85-584 (Third Response)

APPENDIX K

1. 07/16/85 Facsimile transmittal sheet from Holler to Jenkins (1 page) Released-Attachments:
a. Draft Letter from Taylor to Garde (1 page) withheld-Ex.5 (Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE))
b. 6/28/85 Ltr from Garde (unsigned) to Taylor-Released w/ handwritten notations (2 pages) - Annotations withheld-Ex.5 (Region II)
2. Undated Draft Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206 (21 pages) with handwritten notations - Exemption (5) (IE and RII)
3. Undated Draft Letter from O'Reilly to Tucker w/ handwritten notations (3 pages) with attachment:
a. Undated Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (3 pages) - Exemption (5) (IE and RII) 4 06/28/85 Ltr from Garde unsigned to Taylor (2 pages) - Released in Document #1.b. above. Annotations withheld - Exemption (5) -

(IE)

J

Re: F0IA-85-584 (Third Response)

APPENDIX L RFCORDS WITHHELD IN ENTIRETY EXEMPTION (5) AND (7)(A))

1. 07/11/84 Memo from Burns to DeYoung, subject: Section 2.206 Request on Catawba Filed by Robert Guild (2 pages)
2. 11/28/84 Memo from Burns to Axelrad, subject: Effect of Licensing Board's Decision in the Catawba Proceeding on Staff Enforcement Action (5 pages) w/ attachment:

A. Parties Positions and Boards Remarks on Discrimination and Harrassment Incidents (6 pages)

  • 3. 03/19/85 Note to Jane Axelrad, IE, from Burns, ELD re: Draft Catawba 2.206 Decision (2 pages)
4. Undated Letter from DeYoung to Guild (2 pages) w/ attachment:

A. Receipt of Request for Action under 10 CFR 2.206 (2 pages)

. . ~.' .

Re: F0lA-85-584 (Third Partial)

APPENDIX M RECORDS DENIED IN ENTIRETY - EXEMPTION (5)

1. Undated Three draft responses to B. Garde, GAP, 9/27/84 Letter.

.(10 pages) l

2. Undated Draft enforcement package for EA 84-93 labeled "Rev. 3". '

(8 pages)

3. Undated Draft enforcement package for EA 84-93 labeled "Rev 8" (7 pages)

,4. Undated Draft Catawba 2.206 decision dated 4/1/85. (23 pages)

5. Undata" Draft Catawba 2.206 decision. (23 pages)
6. Undated Draft Catawba 2.206 decision w/ notations. . (29 pages)
7. Undated Draft Catawba 2.206 decision dated 5/7/85. (26 pages)
8. Undated Draft Catawba 2.206' decision dated 5/8/85. (26 pages)
9. Undated Draf t Catawba 2.206 decision dated 5/13/85. (39 pages)
10. Undated Draft Catawba 2.206 decision dated 5/14/85. (38 pages)
11. 05/14/85 Draft letter from James Taylor, IE, to Robert Guild, forwarding Catawba 2.206 decision. (6 pages)
12. 05/23/85 Memorandum from Taylor, IE, to Grace, RII, subiect: Proposed Enforcement Action and 2.206 Decisinn on Discrimination at Catawba. (2 pages)

~

}

GOVEANMENT ACCOUNTADIUTY PROJECT '

1555 Connecicur Awive. N.W., Suite 202 VcmNngton D.C. 20036 (202)232 4550 September 27, 1984 Mr. Richard C. DeYoung Director '

' Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Jane Axelrod

  • Director Office of Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Enforcement Action Request Duke Power Company

Dear Mr,

DeYoung and Ms. Axelrod:

The Govern. ment Accountabilf ty Project (GAP) requests the issuance of a

$250,000 civil penalty against Duke Power Company (Duke) for its deliberate ai.d persistent harassmenE of quality control (QC) inspectors at its Catawba nuclear power plant from approximately 1978 through 1984 Harassment and intim-idation of r.uclear workers who engage in protected activities is prohibited by criminal law, 42 U.S.C. {5851, and administrative law,10 C.F.R. 550.7 The employees' right to engage in protected activities is also protected by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended.

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

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

s

(

y) '

re, n .s N

. s

~

Mr. Richard C. DeYoung Ms. Jane Axelrod September 27, 1984 Page Two As you know, the allegations of harassment and intimidation were raised in the Ifeensing proceedings by the citizen intervenor organization, Palmetto Alliance (Palmetto), and to 01 by GAP. (See Exhibit 1 of 0! report).

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

I.

Current corporate policies toward harassment and intimidation,

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

As nuclear power plants under construction across the coun,try near comple-tion, a growing number of construction p,roject employees are bringing their concerns to CAP, to the media, to t,he citizen int'ervenors, and, occasionally, to the NRC.

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

By and large, these allegations are known to the sources (current and forrer quality control (QC) inspectors, engineers, crafts persons, etc.) for a l

ccmparatively long period of time. The reason cited by these individuals consis-tently for their failure to bring the concerns forward prior to the near-

completion of the project is their fear of reprisal. overt harassment and j intimidation, or fear of the direct loss of their job.

i The fear of these actions has a great potential for reducing the motivation of QA/QC inspectors and thereby affecting the overall QA/QC program, and, ultimately, the quality of the construction. Faulty construction ultimately thr:stens public health and safety. These workers are the front-line people responsible for the safe construction of the plant. They must be free to voice their concerns about construction proble:ns or deficiencf os that they believe exist within the plant's construction.

~

i

Mr. Richard C. DeYoung E . Jane Axelrod September 27, 1984 Page Three We believe that the allegation " crisis" is a direct result of your offies' failure to send any message to utility companies that the harassment, intimida-tion, blacklisting behavior towards its workforces will not be tolerated.

h findings of harassment and intimidation by either the Department of Labor (00L) or your agency itself should result in automatic penalty substantial enough to be an incentive for licensees to stop engaging in the well-established industry practices of expelling those members who dare to raise concerns about a power plant. . Such a penalty is justified because of the impact that harassment can have on the overall integrity of the nuclear industry and the safety of the particular plant in question.

Therefore, there must be a penalty issued in this Case. and it must be a severe che to insure that there can be no recurrence of this type of harassr.ent.

II. Harassment and intimidation at the Cattwba nuclear power plant violates 10 C.F.R. 50.7 and $210 of the Employee Protection Ac t.

The evidence is clear that Duke. In fact, did violate the above-named rules and regulations. Further, that the violations began in the mid-1970's l

and continued up to and including the time period of the ASLB hearings. This harassment included a range of actions taken by management to negatively influence the reporting of Nonconforming Item Reports (NC!) by OC inspectors. Some of these actions are listed below.

1. Workers being told or ordered to slack of f on their inspec.

l tions or there would be retaliation;

2. Filing of bad performance ratings and reports against in-l Spectors who found problems with procedures and hardware;
3. An inspector who was threatened with a rifle for rejecting work as unsafe;
4. Threats to " knock an inspector's eyes out;"

l l

S. An inspector being threatened with his job if he continued l

L

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

6. Another inspector was threatened that he would have "his teeth knocked out" if he did not stop writing NCI's; 7 Some employ e ~ es and welding inspectors were harassed for taking their concerns to the NRC; The employees have also expressed the feeling of intimidation.about their freedom '

to bring their concerns to the NRC under threat of some type of ,retallation from the company:

8. A number of workers felt that they were repr'imanded by management for bringing their concerns to the NRC; *
9. A meeting at which QC inspectors were warned by Lep- -

level executives not to,,take their concerns to the NRC at a getting between the Executive Vice President and weldthg QC inspectors;

10. some inspectors were threatened, being told that if they did not " ease off" in their inspections , they would not advance in employment;
11. One inspector who was going to testify at a hearing was intimidated by a corporate official concerning his testimony at that hearing or future hearings;
12. An employee threatened to push a welding inspector of f a scaffold for doing an inspection of his work;

. 13. Other examples of inspectors were threatened with l

transfer if they continued to conduct proper inspections; j 14. Inspectors were repeatedly harassed by other employees I

after they brought their concerns to s one of their Supervisors;

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

i, '

~

Mr. Richard C. DeYoung Ms. Jane'Axelrod September 27, 1984 '

Page Five -

l

16. A number of inspectors were threatened with their jobs for conducting proper inspections; and
17. Inspectors were repeatedly harassed and hassled for doing their jobs.

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

The foregoing facts clearly lay out a pattern of harassment, intimidation ,

and discrimination, which fall within the definitionb of the type of harassment which is prohibited. Further, the evidence of harassment in this Case is much more severe and widespread than was found in two recent cases where civil penal-ties were imposed by the NRC against Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO).

In both cases at Comanche Peak, there was verbal harassment, intimidation and terminations of single QC employees for doing their jobs, and threats of removal of OC certifications. For these violations. TUGC0 was assessed by your office

, two civil penalties totaling $80,000. As you know TUGC0 has continued to resist the penalties. The incidents at Catawba go far beyond those which occurred at Comanche Peak and deserve a much more severe penalty than,that imposed on TUGCO.

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

crew and their identification of nonconforming conditions for at least five years.

The magnitude of the harassment at Catawba exceeds that of any other construction project.

M A good working definttfon of what constitutes harassment is contained in the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision. " ...any action taken by another employee or superior intended to modtfy the behavior of an in-spector so as to impede the proper performance of the assigned task. Harassment may involve use or threat of physical or violence or more subtle action or speech intended to intimidate, embarrass, or ridicult." (PID, In Re Duke Power Company.

ASLBP No.81-463 06 OL p. 36). ~~

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

!!!. 10 C.F.R. 50.7 requires the Comiss ton to take enforcement action Federal Regulation 10 C.F.R. 50.7 states :

(c) A violation of paragraph (a) of this section by a Com-mission licensee, permittee, an appitcant for a Com-mission license or permit, or a contractor or subcon-tractor of a Comission licensee. Pennf ttee, or

. applicant may be grounds for:

(1) Cenial, revocation, or suspension of the Itcense.

(2) Imposition of a civil penalty on the Ilconsee or appl ica nt .

(3) Other enforcement action.

In the Catawba case, the ASLB failed to find a pervasive QA breakdown on the site resulting from the harassment and intimidation.of G. E. Joss and the welding inspectors on his crew. (PIO pp. 179-180). We disagree with that conclusion, and draw your attention to w" hat Mr. Ross stated in his interview cith 01:

1 personally do not feel this lack of support, intimidation ar.d harassment or the willful violation of procedures is limited to welding inspections. I have had other inspectors from other discipitnes express similar co.wnents about their experiences with QA management, it seems that most of the complaints came from civil inspectors. I am not sure why this has not been followed up acre during these inquiries.

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

They might fear for their jobs if they talk.

The failure of the ASLB at Catawba to find a pervasive QA breekdown suf-ficient enough to remove reasonable assurance that tr.e plant has not been built to operate without endangering public health and safety does not remove your office's responsibility to enforce the Comission's regulations regarding harassment and intimidation of a QC supervisor and a crew of QC inspectors, federal regulations clearly speak to the need to punish employers for any employee intimidation which affects nuclear safety and, consequently, L

'n n.

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

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

The Aeinistrative Law Judge found that Atchison was fired ,

for submitting NCR's. The NCR procedure whereby employees report problems to their employers is precisely the type of activity Congress intended to protect when it passed the Act. *

. Should the Secretary of Labor not recognize the intent of Congress to protect the activity Atchison engaged in, there i ,

is no doubt that employees could be deterred from reporting safety problems resulting in the existence of defective nuclear plants. Defects in nuclear plants may well endanger the well being.of millions of Americans in the future.

(Complainant's Response before DOL, Case No. 82-ERA-9, p.

12).

Moreover, as a result of the harassment in the Atchison case, the NRC Office of !&E issued a proposed imposition of a $40,000 civil penalty. (December 16,1983 EN83-82). Thus, the 0!E was stating, in a case sirillar to the one before you now in Catawba, that in order for the legislative purpose to be ful-

. filled, strict sanctions must be imposed.

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

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

intimidation of its workforce.

g Mr. Richard C. DeYoung Ms. Jane Axelred September 27, 1984 Page Eight IV. New Evidence of An Atmosphere of Harassment and Intimidation Yesterday an internal Duke investigation and its Argion !! counterpart was released to Intervenor Palmetto Alliance and gap. Although the infonnet{on is under partial seal ordered by Judge James Kelly we believe that your office has both a duty and a right to review it. The infonnation contained in the Duke investigation comes from several hundred statements taken by Duke management officials of construction workers at the site. Al though Duke's public explanation of this material is their standard "only a paper-work problem" we believe that it is a devestating indictment of what the htC has .

failed to find. Workers complain of such things as being threatened to *have their brains blown out" for refusing to violate procedures, and fear of losing their job if it is ever discovered that they have talked to Duke management abottt their concerns. There is a consistent complaint of wor,kers about

certain foreman being on drugs, of pushing to meet construction schedules

! regardless of quality, of looking the other way when pipes are pulled into place by com.a-longs, and Nld interpass temperature is violated. There is evidence that guards were posted to keer a "look out" for OC inspectors and that there were so few QC inspectors on the night shift that it was impossible to inspect I

all fo the work, in all over two hundred workers gave sta tenents. It is obvious by the language in the statements that many of the workers just nodded their heads to Dukes' shrewdly worded questions, one entire group of workers had enactly the same answer identically to each question.

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

Any inquiring investigator could have found the problems that these workers are l

now reporting years ago. But, instead of looking for the true condition of the '

, Catawba plant the Region II investigators continue to be Duke's corporate "cheerleading squad." The Region !! investigative file on this matter is a disgrace - once again Mr. O'Reilly has sat down with the utility company he is supposed to be regulating and instructed them on how to " beat the system" he is supposed to be trplementing. He has disclosed the names of the accused and the accusors, given tips on how to defend themselves on these allegations, and failed to even notify your office of the allegations of deliberate violations of MRC regulations,

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

, y- -

Mr. Richard C. DeYoung Ms. Jane Ameirod

, Septeder 27, 1984 Page kine CONCtUSION We strongly urge you to take the first solid step toward breaking the industry's hold on the nuclear workforce. Your failure to do so will promulgate the allegation problem which has stpled your agency and is plaguing construction projects across the nation.

Upon rny return from the harassment and intf afdation hearings in Ft. Worth about sfaflar abuses at the Comanche. Peal site. I will contact Ms. Axelrod set 6p a meeting regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

\

E -

81111e Pirner Garde e C.f tizens Cilnic Of rector SPG:me ,-

cc: Willfam Dircks. C00 Ben Hayes. 01 Harold Denton, NRR s

e e

i

r y F,

i . ./

a -

?

,. e .

u .

I c,oyauGAENT ACCOUNTADIUTY PROJEd j t 333 connecncu ^*" w. w 202 \ (20z 23265Sc wesh ngen. D.C. 2GC06 June 26, 1965 f lff }gy , Q&

aje y,r . James 4 Taylor Director Office of Inspection and Enforcocent c.S. r;uclea r Requiatc ry Commission Washington, D.C. 20558 Re: Director's Occis2cn under 10 C.F.R. 2.206 re: Cat 3wc3 Dear Mr. Taylorr Your June 4, 1985 decision to prepose a 564,000 civil penalty against Duke Power Compar.y for violation of 10 C.F.B.

SC.7 was a 1cng awaited welcome. Your decision was laudatory and we hope that the NRC will not waiver from the well doce=ented decision.

The decision to scicy base the civil penalty on the findings of the Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board panel was, l

however, unfortunate. The harassment and intimidation of l Quality nan just control inspectorsofat catawba was much more widesprean the treatren .M r . ' Dean' Ross.

The authority of the Director of Inspection and En f o rce. mon t is not of enforcement, as ycu constrained well know. by ASLB preceedings in matters The weakness of the agency's deciston to recognize only

nethe to iccident of the harassment real danger to the plant'sofQuality Mr. Ross instead of icokina Assurance ~

as a re.*su;: ^' prograr

al *.y Cc the corpcrate attitude tcward
s c:nse;ent. ..

rc' bspoc:c:s sad managers is ;naccep:2cl...

!ctw: '1 standing ne debate en the prcpened nenalty,

- must the Dukeres:Ond Catawba to your lette r about Begten ::'s ntndling c' case.

And as Your sunnlitter a'as was o'ovicusly written by Regica ;: perncnne' unabsshedly self-serving. I understand that ,

a matter cf practice the Ctrector refers corpta;nts such as /<-

those . naue ;r ry Septe~eer 27, 1984 letter to the recica f: gk jn order to getthat r.isappointrd "the ciner side of t he s t o r y . " tiewe ve r ," I am your response contained no analvsis of the charges that i raised. : torce that the a llega:1cns made 4931nSt acetens =fRO?icn n.qicn II were serious, and I centinua to reoard ths ~

! ir 29ency snculd be ashamed.:s ra :er as cenute: which your cf. .ct 42fand.

' t .". 3 om ility to recognize the aer:cus natureInoffact, the your personal, misconduct.. ~ ,

regional personnel as very disconcerting. .', * *'

t r.

~

f

.e

    • f Q E Nql20 ~ / php . _

1

{

. .. ., .~.

~

i . '~ ..' -

  • + ,

s

~

1:; 2.* :* .

y,7 , "1 *:

Faue Ne

  • 12Ee H , l'?"

Perhapa .y letter wasn't clear enoungh. I woule like to be able to present GAP's view on this to your staff, or to the office of Inspec:cr or Auditor (CIA) af you feel it' appropriate.

I icok forward to your response, which shouldn't be delayed by eithor DOL or Duke interferences.

Sincerely, Billte P. Garde O

e r

~

l' fa j,

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20154A985&oldid=3352912"