IR 05000445/1979020
| ML19210B974 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/04/1979 |
| From: | Crossman W, Renee Taylor, Tomlinson D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19210B968 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-445-79-20, 50-446-79-20, NUDOCS 7911130104 | |
| Download: ML19210B974 (9) | |
Text
_
_.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. 50-445/79-20; 50-446/79-20 Docket No. 50-445; 50-446 Category A2 Licensee: Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Facility Name:
Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2 Investigation at:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose, Texas Investigation conducted: August 15 through September 14, 1979 Inspectors:
/0/'/
m R. G. Taylor, Resident Reactor Inspector, Projects Date Section W
- hh D. P. T'omlinson, Reactc/r Inspector, Engineering Support Date '
Section Approved:
% __
/0 /f W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date N/Y29 f
&
R. E! IIall, Chief, Engigdering Support Section Date ~
'
1323 035 Thh 7911130
.
.
Investigation Summary:
Investigation on August 15 through September 14, 1979 (Report 50-445/79-2_01 50-446/79-20)
Areas Investigated: Special investigation of allegations received regarding unqualified welders and the placing of trash in a Reactor Building concrete placement as the result of a Christmas party. The investigation involved twenty-five inspector-hours by two NRC inspectors.
Results: The allegation relative to unqualified welders was not investigated because it was considered to be without merit. The allegation relative to the trash in a concrete placement could not be positively substantiated nor refuted, but appeared to be without substance.
1323 036
.
2
.
INTRODUCTION Comanche Peak Steam Ele tric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2 are under constraction in Somervell County, ie.as, near the town of Glen Rose, Texas. Texas Utilities Cenerating Company is the Construction Permit holder with Brown and Root, Inc.
as the Constructor and Gibbs and Hill, Inc. as the Architect / Engineer.
REASON FOR THE INVESTIGATION The Region IV Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Chief received a letter addressed to the Headquarters of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington, D. C., which contained allegations that indicated a possible breakdown in the CPSES Quality Assurance Program.
SUMMARY OF FACTS The Region IV Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Chief received a letter dated August 1, 1979. The letter, which was addressed to the Headquarters of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, was received by Region IV on or about August 14, 1979, and forwarded to the CPSES Resident Reactor Inspector (RRI)
for follow-up on August 15, 1979. The letter contained two allegations apparently received by the alleger from two other persons. The RRI and another Region IV Reactor Inspector interviewed the alleger on August 15, 1979. The following information was extracted from the letter. Additional information, included within parenthesis, was obtained from the alleger during the interview.
,
Allegation 1: The letter attributes this allegation to a former CPSES employee, who was the " chief welder" at one time, and stated that he knew of " numerous employees, men and women who, if they proved they could weld a straight line, were allowed to weld and most didn't know the difference between a 5 ton weld or 25 ton weld."
(The alleger concurred that the RRI's interpretation of hic letter was accurate and provided a last name for the welder and a means of contacting him. The alleger was of the opinion that the NRC did not need to be concerned with this allegation since it had been addressed in one of our previous investigation reports.)
Allegation 2: The letter attributes this allegation to a CPSES employee now retired for health reasons and relates to an event that occurred during a Christmas party held December 1978.
It was alleged in t' e letter that an individual, wha worked for Brown and Root during the month of December 1978, was on the job and attended a Christmas party being given for the employees. This occurred December 2, 3 or 4th. The letter stated that the individual observed " considerable drinking sad all employees were quite drunk, except for the individual whose job was to drive a vehicle 1323 037
-
to take the employees home when they became too drunk to stand." During the party, a load of " cement" came in to be poured. The foreman, without supervision, made the workers pour the " cement" into the forms after he had the men cleaa up the area and put the trash, garbage, bottles and cans in the forms.
The letter imn s that the concrete placement took
place on or in one w the tw, Rs
.a r eildings at CPSES.
(The alleger provided the IE inspectors ith specift directions on how to locate the individual and affirr~d that the alleged incident took place in a Reactor Bul_ ding.)
CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions are based on known conditions at CPSES, review of indicated records and an interview with +he individual involved in Allegation 2 which took place on August 16, 1979, in the individual's home.
Allegation 1: This allegation was determined to be without merit. There is not now, nor can it be established that there ever has been a " chief welder" at CPSES. The terminology "5 ton or 25 ton weld" is unfamiliar among IE personnel with individual and collective years of welding engineering or inspection experience.
IE inspectors have determined that all welders at CPSES are qualified to either the requirements of the American Welding Society or the American Society of Mechanical Engineers prior to performing production welding.
The implementation of the welder qualification program at CPSES has been the subject of several routine inspections by IE inspectors since welding began at CPSES. No major deficiencies have been identified in the program by these inspections.
Allegation 2: This allegation could not be fully substantiated nor refuted, but for the reasons delineated below, it appears that there is a small likelihood that the allegation has substance:
a.
The individual from whom the alleger states he received the information denied having ever participated in a party on CPSES property or that. he ever had knowledge of such a party.
He also denied having given any such information to the alleger.
b.
The only Reactor Containment Building concrete placement that took place in the specified time period was on Unit I and occurred on December 3, 1978. Examination of the Brown & Root time keeping records for that day established that the individual was not on payroll status that day and it is very unlikely that he wculd have been allowed on the station as a visitor.
c.
The RRI was able to establish telephone contact with one af the former Brown & Root employees shown by the time sheets to have in some capacity been involved in the concrete placement in question. This person stated 'c the telephone conversation 1323 038-
.
.
that he had not been directly involved in the placement, but rather in an unspecified cupport capacity.
He stated that he was unaware of any parties on the site during that time frame and doubted that such a party had taken place.
d.
Considering Brown and Root's policy in regard to worker discipline, it is not likely that Brown & Root would sponsor such a parcy for any or all of the more than two hundred workers on the station that day nor would such a party even be condoned if sponsored by the workers themselves.
1323 039
-
-.
...
.. - - - -...
. -. _.. _..
-
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Alleger The alleger, hereafter referred to'as the alleger, stated that he is a
" Researcher" for the " Citizens Committee for Better Local Government."
Principal Licensee Employee Site Quality Assurance Supervisor Brown and Root,,Inc.
Individual A, a" Chief Welder" Individual B, a light equipment operator on a medical leave of absence Individual C, an inspector in the quality control department Individual D, an inspector in the qcality control department Assistant Construction Project Manager 2.
Background Information The alleger sent a letter dated August 1,1979, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. The letter was received by the Chief, Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch, Region IV in Arlington, Texas, on or about Au~ gust 14, 1979, and was immediately forwarded to the Comanche Peak Station (CPSES) Resident Reactor Inspector (RRI) for investigation. The RRI determined that the letter contained two different allegations made by two individuals, neither of whom was the alleger.
In summary, the allegations were as follows:
Individual A is indicated in the alleger's letter as having been a.
a " chief welder" at CPSES.
Individual A is stated to have indicated to the alieger that "anyone, man or woman, who could weld a straight line, was allowed to weld, but most would not know the difference between a 5 ton weld and a 25 ton weld."
b.
Individual B is stated in the letter to have been a former Brown and Root employee who is on a pension from Brown and Root for medical reasons.
Individual B is stated as having attended a Christmas party on the site during December 1978 given by Brown and Root.
Individual B's job that day was to drive home the workers who became too drunk to drive.
During the party, a supervisor required the workers to clean up all the
" trash, garbage, bottles and cans" and place them in the form work of an ongoing " cement" pour. The alleger implied, in the text of the letter, that the incident took place during a Reactor Building concrete placemer t and specifically states that it occurred on December 2, 3, or 4, 1978.
1323 040
.
3.
Interview with the Alleger The RRI and another Region IV Reactor Inspector visited the alleger during the afternoon of August 15, 1979, in order to obtain the identity of Individual t.,
which was not given in the letter, and to obtain the address of Individual B, who was identified in the letter.
The alleger provided a last name for Individual A and the name and telephone number of another person through whom Individual A could be contacted. The alleger also stated to the IE inspectors that it would not be necessary to further check out the allegation relative to welding since he, the alleger, had reviewed a recent NRC investigation report that addressed the issue to his satisfaction. Dur~ng the discussion, the alleger affirmed the implication that the " concrete-party" allegation did involve one of the two Reactor Containment Buildings at CPSES but indicated he did not know which. The alleger gave the IE inspectors explicit instructions on how to locate Individual B in a nearby town.
4.
Interview with Individual I The IE inspector immediately drove to the nearby town following the alleger's instructions. The residence was at the time unoccupied although apparently lived in.
The residence next door, occupied by Individual B's father, according to the alleger, was found locked and/or boarded up and was apparently abandoned. The IE inspectors visited the local police depart-ment where it was learned that Individual B generally was listed by his second name rather than his first. No address was available, but a telephone number was obtained. The number was not answered during the period of the visit, but the RRI did succeed in contacting the person during the evening of August 15 and arranged for an interview on August 16.
The two IE inspectors interviewed Individual B at his home (not at the location given by the alleger) on the afternoon of August 16, 1979. Also attending the interview was Individual B's wife.
Individual B stated that he was aware of the allegation attributed to him since a reporter for e major national newspaper had visited him on or about Sunday, August 12.
Indisidual B indicated that the alleger had sent a copy of the letter to the newspaper.
Individual E also stated to the IE inspectors that the allegations attributed to him were completely false in every aspect. He stated that he was not sure how the alleger, who was well known to him, got the story of the party, but that it wasn't from him. He also stated tha*
while he had recently had major surgery, he was not being given a pensier by Brown and Root nor was he receiving any other money from Brown and Ro.
5.
Investigation Allegation 1: No investigation was performed of the allegations purportedly made by Individual A for the following reasons:
'
The alleger had stated to the IE inspectors that no further a.
investigation was necessary.
1323 041
.
___
.
b.
CPSES does not have nar has ever had a person identifed as a
" chief welder."
The allegation deals with the idea that the welders employed c.
by Brown and Root are not qualified since they, the welders, would not know the difference between a 5 ton weld and a 25 ton weld.
The RRI contacted several experienced welding engineers and inspectors in the NRC about the terminology, none of whom were familiar with it.
Reference to the six volumes of t'te " Welding Handbook" published by the American Welding Socie'y failed to reveal any reference to the strength or quality of. elds in terms of " tons" value.
d.
It has been well established that welders employed at CPSES are now, and were during the period of employment of Individual A at CPSES, tested and qualified in accordance with the standards of either the American Welding Society or the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, as appropriate, for the work involved.
Allegation 2: During a review of-records at CPSES, the RRI established the following facts:
No concrete placements were made on Saturday, December 2, a.
1978.
b.
A single placement of concrete was made on Sunday, December 3, 1978.
This placement was the second lift of concrete on the dome of the Unit 1 Reactor Containment Building and involved a placement of slightly over three hundred cubic yards of concrete at an elevation approximately two hundred feet above ground e)cvation.
'
Two relatively small placements of concrete were placed on c.
Monday, December 4, 1978. These placements, totaling approximately cixteen cubic yards, were in the Safeguards Building of Unit I and in the common facility Auxiliary Building.
d.
Working on the basis of the affirmed implication that the party took place during a Reactor Building placement, the RRI checked the labor crew time sheets, including those of the crew to which Individual B was known to have been assigned.
Individual B's name does not appear on any of the records for Sunday, December 3, 1978, and therefore, it appears very unlikely that he could have been on the site to drive the
" drunks" home. Had such a party taken place, Individual B would have had no first hand knowledge of it.
1323 042
-
..
The RRI interviewed Individuals C and D who were the Brown e.
and Root quality control inspectors assigned to the concrete placement on December 3, 1978.
Both emphatically denied that dDy such party took place then or at any other time on site property.
f.
The RRI interviewed the Assistant Construction Project Manager relative to Brown and Root policy for construction employees in good standing who became seriously ill for
~
prolonged periods. He stated that after a short period of time, such as a week, they are considered terminated, but subject to rehire if they can return with a medical released-to-work certification.
g.
Utilizing the above mentioned time sheets and current employment records, the RRI identified five individuals who may have been involved in the concrete placement on December 3,1978, and were no longer employed on the site. Review of the employment records for these five people indicated a reasonable possibility that contact could be established with three of them. The RRI interviewed one of these persons over the telephone on August 27, 1979. The person indicated that he had not actually been placing concrete in the form work but was in the area. He stattd that he was unaware of ary party at that time. The only party that he acknowledged took place the day before the Christmas holiday job shutdown when Brown & Root sent all those persons home who wished to do so at approximately 10:00 a.m.
This event, the RRI was aware of, and is considered a normal event in the construction field.
The person refrained from agreeing to a personal interview with NRC personnel, apparently because he had no knowledge not a! ready given the RRI over the telephone. Attempts to contact the other two persons were without success.
1323 043 9