IR 05000387/1981023
| ML17139A566 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1982 |
| From: | Christopher R, Matakas R, Mccabe E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17139A565 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-387-81-23, NUDOCS 8203050337 | |
| Download: ML17139A566 (14) | |
Text
U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Report No. 50-387/81-23 Docket No. 50-387 Region I License No.
CPPR-101 Priority Licensee:
Penns lvania Power and Li ht Com an P
2 North Ninth Street Category Allentown Penn s 1 vani a 18101 Facility Name:
Sus uehanna Steam Electric Station Unit 1 Investigation at:
Berwick Penns lvani a Investigation conducted:
October
1981 November
1981 Investigators:
C.
R.
K.
ristopher Investigator, Enforcement a d Investigation Staff R. A. Matakas, Investigator, Enforcement and Investigation Staff at signed gd d te signed date signed Approved by:
Ebe C.
McCabe, Chief, Reactor Projects Section. 82B, DR@PI date signed el(z. 4z.
date signed Investi ation Summar
Investi ation Conducted October
1981 November
1981 Investi ation Re or t 50-387/81-23 Area Investi ated:
An investigation was conducted based on concerns raised,--
by members of the Construction Surveillance Group (CSG) at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station that reports of nonconforming conditions by the CSG Personnel were being materially changed or suppressed by their supervisor.
8203050337 820218 I
PDR ADOCK 05000387.
,.G
.
PDR, I
I.
SUMMARY An investigation was initiated as a result of concerns raised by members of the Universal Testing Laboratories (UTL) Construction Surveillance Group (CSG) at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station indicating that reports of nonconforming conditions by the CSG personnel were being changed or suppressed by their super-visor.
During indepth interviews with the allegers, they advised that they did not feel their reports were being changed to reflect false information and they were not aware of any deficiencies in the plant that were not corrected because their reports were being rejected/changed by the supervisor.
During the inter-views, the allegers indicated their concern was not that their inspection reports were being falsified, but that in their opinion, the CSG supervisor, a
'employee, should not be reviewing and editing their (CSG) inspection reports'his issue was clarified during an interview of the licensee's Nuclear guality Assurance Manager.
It was determined that the CSG supervisor was required and expected to edit the submittals of the CSG inspectors and to insure that the CSG inspectors were used to assure adequate secondary coverage of Bechtel (}uality Control Surveillance activities.
No incidents of falsification of the CSG surveillance reports were identified by the allegers.
Accordingly, no.further investigative effort was expende TABLE OF CONTENTS I
SUMMARY II PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION III BACKGROUND A.
Source of Information B.
Identification of Involved Organizations IV DETAILS A.
Scope of Investigation B.
Interview of Individual A C.
Joint Interviews of Individuals B and C
I D-F. Persons Interviewed Regarding Initial Allegation G.
Document Review V
STATUS OF INVESTIGATION
II.
PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION This investigation was initiated to interview and obtain specific information from members of the Construction Surveillance Group (CSG) at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station regarding concerns brought to the attention of the NRC Project Inspector.
The concern was that reports of nonconforming conditions by the CSG personnel were being materially changed or suppressed by their super-viso III.
BACKGROUND A.
Source of Information On September 18, 1981, two (2)
NRC region I based inspectors met with a group who identified themselves as inspectors in the Construction Surveillance Group employed by Universal Testing Labatories (UTL) under contract to the licensee.
Their function was to perform secondary survei llances of Bechtel inspections of construction work, with particular attention directed to in-process inspections.
The individuals, who requested confidentiality, alleged improper workmanship on systems requiring modifications/rework
.cn."
turned over to the Intergrated Startup Group ( ISG).
Additionally, the individuals raised concerns to the inspectors over the possibility that reports of nonconforming conditions prepared by members of the CSG were being changed or suppressed by there supervisor who is a licensee employee.
Investi ators Note The allegations regarding the ISG modifications/rework were addressed in NRC combined inspection report 50-387/81-26, 50-387/81-27.
B.
Identification of Involved Or anizations 1.
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (PPRL)
2 North Ninth Street Al 1 entown, Pennsylvania 18101 An electric utility licensee by the NRC to construct a nuclear power station under NRC construction permits CPPR-101 and CPPR-102.
2.
Universal Testing Labatories (UTL)
579 Pompton Avenue Cedar Grove, New Jersey 07009 A company contracted by the licensee to perform overview of equality Control Inspection activities performed by Bechtel Power Corporation and their subcontractor IV.
OETAILS A.
Sco e of Investi ation The investigation included interviews of the allegers from the Construction Surveillance Group (Individuals A, B, C), of additional CSG personnel (Individuals D and E) and of the licensee's Manager of Nuclear Quanlity Assurance.
The investigation also included examination of nonconformance reports provided by CSG personnel and examination of procedures and
~.,
responsibilities of the CSG.
B.
Interview of Individual A Individual A was interviewed by the NRC investigators on October 28, 1981.
He said his main concern centered on documents generated by himself as a
result of his quality assurance (QA) inspections.
He said these reports primarily consisted of Quality Assurance Action Requests (QAAR') and Special Surveillance Inspection Reports (SSI').
Individual A said his main concern was that the supervisor of the CSG group (a licensee employee)
was editing or rejecting QAAR's and SSI's that he was submitting.
He said the factual contents of the reports were not being changed but he felt the supervisor's changes caused delays in correcting the deficiencies.
Individual A also said he was of the "impression" that he was to concentrate on work done by Bechtel and to "lay off" PP&L work.
Individual A said he has never been asked to falsify or submit surveillance documents that were not accurate and that he had not seen any final documents that contained false information after they had been changed by the CSG supervisor.
Individual A clarified that his complaint was that he felt his submitted reports were final and they should not be changed or altered by the CSG supervisor and not that they were being altered to the extent that the meaning or intent of the report was changed.
Individual A did say that, in some cases, nonconformance reports he has written were rejected by the supervisor but that the CSG supervisor usually wrote a reason on the report or verbally told him why it was rejected.
Individual A concluded by stating he knew of no deficiencies that existed in the plant that went uncorrected as a result of the CSG supervisor editing his reports.
At individual A's request, his identity and signed statement is being withheld from the public record.
C.
Joint Interviews of Individuals B and C
At their requests, Individuals B and C were interviewed jointly by the NRC investigators on October 28, 1981.
In this interview, Individuals B and C
stated their concerns over the CSG supervisor's editing thei} reports and voiced their opinion that, for the sake of a more unbiased review, the UTL surveillance reports (QAAR's and SSI's)
should be reviewed by their site
UTL supervisor not their CSG supervisor who is employed by the licensee.
The individuals said that the CSG supervisor routinely edits their inspection reports and, on some occassions, rejects them completely.
Individuals B
and C did agree that the CSG supervisor usually initialed any changes or corrections he made on the reports and they also confirmed that the reports were formally submitted under the CSG supervisor's name.
Both individuals felt that the main problem appeared to be that the supervisor did not seem to review their reports closely enough and did not maintain sufficient contact with the, workers to know what was actually being done.
Neither individual said they had ever been. asked to falsify a surveillance inspection report, nor were they aware of any inspection reports that were formally submitted by CSG supervisor and contained false information.
They also stated that they knew of no deficiencies in the plant that would affect the Public Health and Safety that went uncorrected as a result of the CSG supervisor's editing/rejecting of their reports.
Additionally, Individuals B and C said they had never been pressured to close out an SSI before they were fully satisfied with the corrective action taken.
Individuals 8 and C
advised that the original reports they submit cannot be compared with those that are formally'ubmitted by the CSG supervisor, in that no record is maintained of their initial submittal.
0.
Interview of Individual D
Individual 0 was interviewed by the investigators on October 29, 1981.
He stated that his main concern was not that he or the other inspectors were being asked or forced to falsify any surveillance documentation, but that the submitted documentation, such as Quality Assurance Action Requests and Special Surveillance Reports, were being rewritten by the CSG. supervisor or
"kicked back" to the inspectors for rewriting.
Individual 0 opined that he did not feel the CSG supervisor had the right or authority to change a
surveillance report that was submitted by the inspectors.
He further opined that the CSG supervisor appeared to be "babying" surveillance reports that pertained to PP&L work, perferring that the deficiencies be identified and corrected by word of mouth rather than formally reporting the deficiencies in a QAAR.
Individual 0 said he knew of no surveillance identified deficiencies that had not been corrected as a result of the CSG supervisor either rejecting or rewriting the surveillance report.
Individual D opined that the CSG supervisor was too inexperienced for the job and that he was not giving adequate instructions to the CSG personnel as to what he wanted, particularly with respect to the handling of the SSI reports.
Individual D said that, while deficiencies in the plant were being identified and corrected, it was his opinion that the re-work was not being done as effectively as it should be.
He also voiced his opinion that the CSG supervisor was favoring surveillance reports on PP5L work in order'o make PP5L look bette o
E.
Interview of Individual E
Individual E was interviewed by the NRC investigators on October 29, 1981.
He said that, based on his own experience, the CSG supervisor in question had not made a practice of modifying or changing QAAR's or SSI's as described by individuals A, B, C and D.
Individual E did state that he thought the CSG supervisor wasn't paying as close attention to PP&L work activities as he was to Bechtel work activities.
Individual B. said he was aware of no incidents in which Quality Assurance Inspection Reports had been prepared and/or submitted that were false as a result of editing by the CSG supervisor.
He concluded that the problem with the CSG supervisor was largely due to a communications gap existing between himself and the workers under him.
Individual E provided no further pertinent information.
F.
Interview of Licensee Mana er of Nuclear ualit Assurance N A Mr. Andrew Sabol was interviewed by the NRC investigators on November 5, 1981 at the licensee's corporate headquarters in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
Mr. Sabol said that the last NRC Systematic Assessment of Licensee ~ Per-formance (SALP) report cited concerns over the effectiveness of the licensee's quality control program at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
He said this resulted in Univeral Testing Laboratories (UTL) being awarded a contract to provide quality assurance inspection/surveillance personnel under the direction of a PP&L QA supervisor.
Mr. Sabol said the sole purpose of this Construction Surveillance Group was to concentrate on the selection and performance of surveillance on Bechtel's inspection of in-process construction inspection and to parallel the Bechtel QC inspection plan and verify that the required Bechtel QC inspections were performed.
When questioned regarding the concern that the CSG supervisor. was downplaying PP&L work activities, Mr. Sabol responded that he would expect the supervisor to act in that fashion.
He explained that CSG has no inspection respon-sibility over PP&L work or PP&L QC surveillance He emphasized that the CSG is strictly a construction surveillance activity and that the PP&L QA/QC function is organized to independently perform their own primary and secondary surveillances.
Mr. Sabol further explained that, because of its numerical size, CSG could not be expected to duplicate or be present for all Bechtel inspections and it was therefore imperative that the CSG QA supervisor assure that his inspection force was committed to monitor Bechtel activities displaying the most significant and frequent quality control problems.
Mith respect to the CSG supervisor editing and changing CSG inspections reports, Mr. Sabol said that the CSG superviso~
had review responsibility for all inspection surveillance reports submitted by the CSG and in that capacity he (Mr. Sabol) would expect the CSG supervisor to edit and smooth the submitted QAAR's and SSI's to ensure that they were readable, coherent, and correc Investi ators Note At conclusion of the interview, Hr. Sabol was advised that the nature of the concerns received by the NRC might indicate a management problem within the CSG.
He responsed by stating that in light of the apparent misunder-standings between the CSG supervisor and the UTL inspectors, it was his intent to closely examine the operation of CSG and to implement whatever corrective actions he deemed necessary.
G.
Document Review During interview of individuals B and C on October 28, 1981 they advised the investigators that their original QAAR and SSI submittals were not retained after the formal submittals by the CSG supervisor were made.
Therefore., it was not possible to examine their initial draft submittals against the final report to analyze the changes made.
As an exception to this practice, Individuals B and C provided to the investigators one QAAR and one SSI in the draft forms and in the final submitted forms, which they opined were good examples of the CSG supervisor's edit,ing.
These documents were examined by the NRC project inspector concluded that, while the reports were edited, nothing in the editing created a false or inaccurate statement and did not change the content of the reports.
The project inspector opined that the original submittals were difficult to read and the intent of the editing appeared to be to form a more coherent and readable inspection/
surveillance report.
The allegers were unable to provide any other specific example ~ 'oal pj's y
~ I fit Fj
V.
STATUS OF INVESTIGATION The results of the interviews were discussed with Mr. Ebe McCabe, Chief, Reactor Project Sections No. 28.
He concluded that the interviews of the allegers indicated an internal supervisor/employee relationship situation that had no identifiable affect on public, health or safety.
Accordingly, he recommended that no further investigative effort be expended on this issue.