IR 05000382/1979014
| ML19257A089 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1979 |
| From: | Crossman W, Randy Hall, Herr R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257A085 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-382-79-14, NUDOCS 8001020080 | |
| Download: ML19257A089 (8) | |
Text
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No.
50-382/79-14 Docket No.
50-382 Category A2 Licensee:
Louisiana Power and Light Company 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 Facility Name:
Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit No. 3 Investigation At:
Waterford Site, Taf t, Louisiana Investigation Conducted:
September 24-25, 1979 Investigator:
)
t/
//-6,7-77 II. 'X. Iferr, Investigation Specialist Date i
'
'
'
y
[
Inspectors:
,_
A,,,
R.' C. Stewa'rtWd'a'ctor Insp'ector, Projects
/Datd Section 42 O ll-1 -D J. I. Ta i, Rhactor I(thpector, Engineering Date Suppor ection V
///6/79 Rcviewed:
W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date ll f
R. E. Hall, Chief, Engineering Support Section pate 1665 172 8001020
.. O & o
Investigation Summary:
Investigation on September 24-25, 1979 (Report No. 50-382/79-14)
Areas Investigated:
Special investigation of alleged improper welding rod issuing procedures, improper wire brushing of weld pass and intimidation of Quality Control welding inspectors.
The investigation involved thirty-one investigator / inspector-hours by three NRC investigator / inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
The allegations were not substantiated.
An additional allegation received during the inspection regarding Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI) inspection record falsification was substantiated.
1665 173
.
,
INTRODUCTION The Waterford Plant Unit ?!o. 3 is under construction near the town of Taf t, Louisiana.
Louisiana Power and Light Company is the Construction Permit holder.
Ebasco Services, Incorporated is both Architect / Engineer and Construction Manager for the plant.
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION The Region IV Projects Section, Reactor Construction Branch, received a telephone call on September 20, 1979 from an individual in regard to welding qualification control improprieties by his former employer, Tompkins-Beckwith, Inc., (T-B)
a subcontractor for Ebasco Services, Inc. An additional allegation was received during the investigation.
SUMMARY OF FACTS On September 20, 1979, the Region IV Projects Section, Reactor Construction Branch, received a telephone call in regard to the Waterford, Unit No. 3 pro-ject. The alleger expressed the following specific allegations relating to the Waterford, Unit No. 3 welding operations and the Quality Control program.
1.
Improper issuing of welding rods on Septemoer 19, 1979.
2.
Failure to remove scale between welding beads on September 19, 1979.
3.
That Quality Control welding supervisors intimidate Quality Control welding inspectors.
During the course of this investigation, another allegation surfaced wherein an individual alleged:
4.
That an Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI) falsified an inspection report by signing the inspection report without having observed the hold point in question.
CONCLUSIONS 1.
The alleged practice of issuing of welding rods to helpers by T-B is within the established control procedure guideline. This allegation could not be substantiated.
1665 174
2.
The allegation concerning the scale on welding beads resulted in the confirmation that appropriate corrective action had been taken by T-B on September 20, 1979 (within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />). The allegation could not be substantiated.
3.
The allegation of intimidation by the Quality Control welding supervisor could not be substantiated. However, incidents of alleged intimidation, threats and harassment were identified by some of the QC personnel as coming from construction supervisors and welders.
All Quality Control welding inspectors on the site emphasized that they have maintained their independence and integrity and have not succumbed to altering their cited discrepancies. A review of discrepancy records maintained by T-B substantiated the Quality Control welding inspectors * claim.
4.
The allegation of a falsified inspection report by an ANI was substan-tiated by two witnesses who executed signed typewritten statements wherein they stated that an ANI did not inspect a designated weld fit-up hold point in the Containment Spray System. A review of inspection records substantiates the witnesses' statements.
1665 175
%
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- J. Woods, Quality Assurance Engineer
- B. Toups, Quality Assurance Engineer
- B. Brown, Quality Assurance Engineer Former Tompkins-Beckwith, Inc., Employee Individual A Present Tompkins-Beckwith, Inc., Employees
- L. N. Richardson, Quality Assurance Supervisor T. Stuckey, Quality Control Engineer Individuals B through H
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Investigation September 24-25, 1979 a.
Allegation No. 1 Individual A alleged that the Tompkins-Beckwith, Inc. (T-B) welding rod issue room had issued welding electredes to a welding helper, which was in conflict with T-B-3, Section 6.5.4 instructions and that Deficiency Notices (DN) W-602, W-603, and W-605 were issued as a result.
Investigation Findings On September 24, 1979, an attempted interview of Individual A was unsuccessful in that Individual A had submitted his resignation to T-B on September 19, 1979, and terminated on September 20, 1979.
Further investigative effort disclosed that Individual A had accepted a position with another company and was presently working with that company in Ohio.
An interview with the T-B Quality Control supervisor disclosed that Individual A submitted his resignation (two-week notice) on September 19, 1979. The supervisor explained that on September 20, 1979, he and Individual A disagreed with the interpretation of a T-B instruction and subsequently Individual A and T-B mutually agreed that his termination would be effective immediately.
A review of T-B-3, Section 6.5.4, reflects that this instruction deals with the control, use, and monitoring of welding materials.
A review of the welding rod issue room records (Form 8009) against
?
1665 176
.
Deficiency Notices W-602, W-603, and W-605, reflects that all Forms 8009 were properly filled out, signed by the authorizing foreman, along with the issuing room attendant, and dated in accordance with established T-B guidelines and procedures. The review of the issue room records covered the dates before Deficiency Notices W-602, W-603, and W-605 were issued as well as subsequent to their issuance. The allegation could not be substantiated.
b.
Allegation No. 2 Individual A alleged that T-B welders failed to remove " scale between weld beads."
Individual A stated T-B was not taking proper action.
Investigation Findings On September 24, 1979, a review of Deficiency Notice W-604, dated September 19, 1979, disclosed that proper disposition (radiograph)
was ordered by T-B authorities on September 20, 1979, concerning the weld in question.
The radiographs did not indicate any scale or defects. The allegation could not be substantiated.
c.
Allegation No. 3 Individual A alleged that the T-B Quality Assurance supervisor and manager intimidated the Quality Control welding inspectors on the job site.
Investigation Findings On September 24 and 25, 1979, interviews of Quality Control welding inspectors B, C, D, E, F, and G disclosed that no intimidation, threats, or harassments were received by them from the T-B Quality Assurance supervisor and/or manager. The allegation could not be substantiated.
3.
Additional Investigation During the interviews with Quality Control welding inspectors B, C, D, E, F, and G, concerns over threats received from various construction fore-men and welders were expressed. Examples of threats received by Quality Control welding inspectors, when issuing discrepancy notices, are as follows:
a.
"I'll get your job."
b.
"This is your last pay day."
c.
"How would you like to be thrown off the dome."
1665 177
d.
"I'm going to kick your --."
"Go ahead, write your DN, so I can get my supervisor to override your e.
supervisor and we can get on with the job."
All of the Quality Control welding inspectors maintain that these threats did not deter them from writing proper deficiency notices nor would the threats impair them from writing future discrepancy notices when necessary.
A review of T-B discrepancy notice files appear to confirm that DNs are written routinely on a continual basis by all inspectors.
On September 25, 1979, during the interview of Individuals B through G, Individual E alleged that on September 21, 1979, during the morning hours, he was inspecting a weld in the Containment Spray System at elevation +208 that had been previously identified by an ANI as a " hold point."
Individual E stated at this time the welder properly notified him that the ANI hold point was ready for inspec-tion.
Individual E remarked that he then notified (via two-way radio) the ANI that the weld was ready for inspection.
Individual E stated that he was subsequently ordered to lower his inspection paperwork by rope pouch to the ANI who was on elevation +46.
Individual E stated that approximately 15 minutes later, the paperwork was returned to him via the rope pouch, at which time he noticed that the ANI had signed off the fit-up hold point as being inspected without actually seeing the weld.
Individual E identified the ANI and reduced his comments to a typed written signed statement.
Individual E stated that welder Individual H could verify his claim and that T-B maintained the original documents that the ANI signed.
On September 25, 1979, an interview of Individual H disclosed that on September 21, 1979, during the morning hours at elevation +208 he notified Individual E that he had completed the necessary fit-up and was ready for the ANI inspection.
Individual H stated that he observed Individual E lower the paperwork on a rope pouch to a lower level.
Individual H stated that approximately 10 to 15 minutes later Individual E received the paperwork back via the rope pouch at which time Individual E told him to continue welding since the ANI would not be inspecting.
Individual H claimed that he continued to weld and maintained that the ANI did not inspect his weld fit-up.
Individual E reduced his comments into a typewritten signed statement.
I665 178
..
4.
Review of T-B Records On September 25, 1979, a review of T-B records disclosed one ANI inspection report, wherein an ANI identified by Individual E signed the inspection report as having inspected the weld fit-up in question on September 21, 1979.
The alleged improper inspection report was substantiated.
5.
Exit Interview On September 25, 1979, the IE investigator and inspectors met with the principal licensee representatives identified in paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the investigation.
The IE investigative team summarized the scope and findings of the investigation.
The inspectors emphasized their concerns relative to the apparent threats being made to the T-B welding QC inspectors and the incident involving an improper sign-off by the site ANI.
The licensee indicated that these matters would be investigated, and that corrective measures will be implemented.
6.
Supporting Documentation Some of the documents used in preparation of this report are on file in the Region IV office.
They include:
T-B-3 Control Procedures Section 6.5.4 - copy a.
b.
DN W-604 dtd 9-19-79
- copy c.
Statement of Individual E dtd 9-25-79 - original d.
Statement of Individual H dtd 9-25-79 - original c.
ANI Inspection Report dtd 9-21-79
- copy 1665 179 8