IR 05000498/1978014
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:l . . O En ~ =
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ?
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT [
REGION IV
, " Report No. 50-498/78-14; 50-499/78-14 Docket No. 50-498; 50-499 Category A2 Eg+ @s.
Licensee: Houston Lighting and Power Company ~ s.
= Post Office Box 1700 ri= Houston, Texas 77001
Facility Name: South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2
==: ' +=::
Investigation at: South Texas Project, Matagorda County, Texas F{ Investigation conducted: August 22-25, 1978 {l.;7.
E:l.a =:: Investigatord/ $D,Nba d, 7//SbT ..... J. J. Ward, Investigation Specialist Date .ss:. . ...... Inspectors: 4/, 97N[/w k 9 //3 hT hh-W. G. Hubacek, Reactor Inspector, Projects Section Date = 7lffl7g - W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date -.E.1 ....... f//.T/ 8 + Approved by: --- - W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date - gg Investigation Summary: . j Investigation on August 22-25, 1978 (Recort No. 50-498/78-14; 50-499/78-14) l Areas Investigated: Speical, unannounced investigation of an allegation of M misconduct by a Brown and Root Quality Control employee.
The investigation , l involved fifty-five inspector-hours by one investigator and two inspectors.
~~ ' Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
a- = :: -J12., 8104270Nf w-
- =g.
.q._.........;.. .-....;-... . - -..... - .. - ......_ ;... ; ._.;;. =- _ .- - :===
:====
. .:::. -
- =,::==,
.::= l .y._ _ _ _ . -.. _,, -. ...., _ _... ,.,. _. _ ,. _ - - ._.r.,. - -
. . r .=: . - INTRODUCTION The South Texas Project Units No.1 and 2 are under construction in Matagorda County, Texas near the town of Wadsworth, Texas.
Houston Lighting and Power Company is the Construction Permit Holder. Brown and Root, Incorporated is both Architect Engineer and Constructor for ~ the plant.
hi~ ' REASON FOR INVESTIGATION
- _
if Region IV was notified by Brown and Root representatives of an alleged hh$ bribery attempt by a Br6wn and Root Quality Control inspector, which E? could involve safety-related components.
gge \\ E.: SUMMARY OF FACTS ~ E " On August 17, 1978, in a meeting with tne RIV Director, PC&ES Branch Chief, ~ and the RC&ES Branch Section Chief, executives of the Brown and Root Houston E office reported that a Brown and Root construction person had alleged to the Project Manager that he had been approached by a Brown and Root Quality =: Control inspector who stated that he could help construction get jobs moving _... if he were "taken care of."
un August 23, 1978, the RC&ES Branch Chief was informed by Brown and Root ,z that the Quality Control inspector had been terminated on August 22, 1978.
T' An IE investigation was conducted on isgust 22-25, 1978, at Bay City.and the STP site.
In the course of this investigation, the terminated Qualtiy Control - (QC) inspector denied the allegation of attempted bribery and counter alleged that, with him as an example, other QC inspectors would be intimidated and would not feel free to find nonconformances. The IE investigation examined both allegations and the effect either has had or could have on the construc-tion of the plant's safety related components, structures and systers.
CONCLUSIONS [[ . 1.
The allegation that an attempted bribery had been committed by a QC inspector, who had offered to expedite acceptance of construction in exhange for material favors cculd not be substantiated by the IE investigation. The allegation was dented by the QC inspector. There were no witnesses to the alleged bribery attempt; none of the other
- ':.
_.. -2- =.5 - - =- -
== =:. a
. . i i .
- .
. f QC inspectors had any knowledge of any prior bribery or attempt at [ bribery by the accused QC inspector. Other construction personnel E stated there had been references, in a bantering jocular manner, to L-an exchange of a bottle of whiskey for QC acceptance of construction ';. work, but no such exchanges were made.
p E The HL&P representative stated, as a result of the allegation, that E Brown and Root has been directed to provide a written report on all E aspects of the allegation to HL&P who will determine their course of ?:-? action after reviewing the report. HL&P is considering performing = a very-detailed audit of construction safety related activities, F specifically those in which the individual identified in the allega-r. _ tion was involved.
k !=
- .
The HL&P represent 5tive also stated that on site surveillance of safety related activities will be increased.
[, The allegation that the QC inspectors, as a group and individbally, as.
2.
have been intimidated by the firing of the QC inspector for reasons
of his refusing to accept construction which did not meet specifi-E: cations and that they will, in the future, be reluctant to report
== 1onconformances on construction work that foes not mest specifi- =: cations, was not substantiated. All QC inspectors interviewed .. _ denied that any items of nonconformance would be overlooked by them = for any reasons or for fear of losing their jobs. Neither did they C.' have any knowledge of attempts of bribery or past incidents of non- = conformances having been purposely overlooked in excnange for favors =. - (whiskey, invitations to vendor-sponsored hunting trips, dinners, p# and other events).
- l.g;.
s = l=E-g . :. M
. .p.
se .' =g ~ . N.E.
I "**'::, .. ! -3-i . :. .... _. _;;., _ , ..... ..... ns... ..~...v.-....,. ! - t _
. . ' . '.;. DETAILS s- - 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees . ' W. M. Phillips, Projects QA Supervisor, HL&P S. A. Viaclovsky, Project QA Supervisor, HL&P _ .. Brown & Root, Inc.
e,up; Individuals "A" through "L" (... ' 2.
Investigation - August 22-25, 1978 GEE =
- =
a.
Allegation No. 1 ' . i;a An attempted bribery had been committed by a QC inspector who, on !9 August 11, 1978, had offered to expedite acceptance of construction 'i... in exchange for material favors.
g= w:. Findings iw Interview with Individual "A" pg.
Individual "A" stated that he had been acquainted with individual "F"l/ b F for approximately two years and had worked with him at the South Texas Project site. Durino this two-year period, according to "A," "F" had
- s importuned him fry '.1me to time with " nitty" things, suggesting vari-r,
- .;
- :;;
ausly that "F" :,nould be included in dinner engagements with vendors;
- s various outings such as hunting trips and other gratuities such as a
_.. fifth of whiskey. These requests were made with the implied return
- .....
of favors by overlooking nonconforming items.
{:[#5 = = =. On Friday, August 11,1978, about 10:00 a.m., "F" came into "A's" 5.5I5 office and stated, "I need to show you something." Another individual E~ was present in the office at the time (individual "B"). Since "F" 2E indicated that he wanted to talk alone with "A," they went out to-gether and got in "A's" truck and drove off to another part of the site.
"F" opened the conversation by saying, "I want to talk to you, .... - I want to find out from you what is your biggest problem out here."
sll "A" responded that he considered he had four problems; one, that "A" ..... did not have top supervision; two, that there were problems in design
==:.. (which would cause congestion of rebars for example); three, a need .... = for better civil engineers;. and four, problems with last minute [ checkouts by quality control. At that point,"F" stated, "What is the biggest problem you have? What is the one major problem which holds
- _.::.::.
- Ei-J/QC inspector alleged to nave made bribery attempt.
S:'s
- . ::.
-4-fka .C : ,.., ........, _. "" '"']'. .,~ ' . ,, , -, _ . - -.,. ,., _ _ _ . .
. . . C.
up a concrete pour?" At that point, "A" stated that the QC check- [
out holds up more pours than anything. Then "F" said, " Correct, E I aa your biggest problem, QC is your biggest problem. To prove [ this, pick up your FREAs and see."
"F" then said, "I know HL&P
QA has been told to back out of the picture and I've got inside E information on every move they make and they've been told to stay
out" (this apparently implied that "F" would have more authority M without being overruled by HL&P QA).
"F" then said, "How much pull do you have with Brown and Root?" ' "A" stated that if he thought the problem was severe enough he , E: could go to "L," a Brown and Root representative.
Then "F" said, F- "How much control do you have over vendors?" He said, "I know - = you have contracts with vendors which involve lots of money and f= that the vendors were willing to give a lot."
"A" answered yes, E that he dealt with vendors and "F" then said, "Let me ask you, = what would it do for you if you could go down and make a pour
whenever yce scheduled one?" "A" said that it would be good "F" g . said, "I can guarantee you that every one of those pours can be on ' schedule." He advised then that his two imediate supervisors 1._ = know only what he tells them and what paperwork they see come across their desks. Furthermore, "F" said that his people do what he tells
them to do.
"F" said, "If I want them to accept quarters (1/4-inct, out of tolerance) they will accept this," and "what can you do for - us?"~ "A" said "What would you want?" "F" said, "We would like to , have air conditioned field offices. We would like to have transpor-1.
tation on the job. We would like to have occasional dinners out ??E with vendors."
"A" then said, "Whst could I do for you?" "F" said, d? "I'd like to have a shrimp boat.
Remember, this is big." He went
on to say, "But if I can't get a shrimp boat, how about a motorboat, =. or even a row boat. How about a load of wood - some people to work ~ with it? It wouldn't be that big a problem. Or, how about a dog -
house?" He said, "I would like to go on some of those vendor hunting trips."
"A" told "F" that he could go hunting on some 1.. property owned by his relatives. He said, "You've got a gun, don't s.i you?" "F" said, "Oh, that's another thing, you could get me a gun.
- This is something you can et me."
He went on to say that "A" could get him a bottle of whiskey, just anything to help things out. At .... I that point, "A" started the truck and stated to "F," "There is no way in the world that you could move any lumber out - the security at the plant is too good," and he stated that he gave "F" some other noncommittal answers in regard to the other requests. Subsequently.
- "A" stated that he advised his supervision about the contact.
- The following Monday morning, "B" was in "A's" office when "F" came in with one of his co-workers. According to "A," "F" asked, "Have 2.: you got us a dove hunt lined up? You know the season. starts next month."
"A" said, "Let's go up to my dad's pla:e," and "F" said, ~ "No, I just want to go up with one of those vendors."
E:. -5-M em 9, see 4i - = m vh a De .e
- - + * =
or = +
- e m ee
_
. . , . --.. p On the next day, Tuesday, "F"-again visited "A,s" office and asked
"A," "What's going down? Something real heavy is happening.
I know next month there is going to be a big meeting - very important
to Brown and Root. They've got to get their act together."
, On Wednesday morning at 7:30 a.m., "F" came into "A.'s" office and iz ' said something really heavy is coming. He advised "A" that a supervisor had called a corporate construction manager and they - n had flown in to the site yesterday evening. He stated, "I think E~ I know what it is about. They got the previous QA Manager out and _ now they're going to give it to Brown and Root."
- .
p "A" stated that when he had contacted his supervision, he was sub-Fi - sequently put.in touch with an attorr.ey from Houston who arranged 6E for him to make a deposition in the form of an affidavit which
==.F
generally summarized the meeting as described above by "A" and stated that, "In our conversation, dealing with what I cbuld do E== for him, we talked about boats, guns, lumber, a small crew of men to build a house, dining out, whiskey; in general, just anything fe he could get.
In return for these favors, I could be guaranteed =? meeting more schedules."
"A" stated that both "B" and "E" had = been prasent at various times when "F" had asked for favors in El.. exchange for QC clearance for pours. As an often repeated phrase, E' "B" stated that "F" would say, "You'd be surprised what a bottle ~ of whiskey could do for these pours."
F , Interview with Individual "B" b "
- ==
Individual "B" stated he was present when, on August 11, "F" told g== "A" that he wanted to talk to him privately. They departed together E and after "A" returned, "A" told him that "F" had suggested a bribery offer.
"B" stated that on two other occasions he had heard "F" allude
to gratuities.
"F" said, "You know, I used to have a responsible - position in government work and the way we kept the inspectors happy
was to give them a fifth (of whiskey) now and then."
"B" stated that = at other times he had heard "F" suggest to "A" that "F" should be included in dove and deer hunts sponsored by vendors.
- "B" stated that on August 11, when "A" returned from his meeting with ~ "F," that he ("B") and "A" went (to Blessing) for lunch and talked ' _;. 2 things over.
"A" then went to see the Construction Project Manager -- and on the following Tuesday there was a meeting in the Construction , Project Manager's office attended by four members of Brown and Root ' management. On the next morning, "F" came in to see "A" with another , individual while "B" was present.
_ i _ l "F" said, "What's going on?" He observed that the NRC had recently l been to the site. On other occasions when they had left, they had I.,s always held an exit interview. He indicated something was brewing . . = =. and maybe NRC was ready to shut down the plant.
"F" then commented 5T that it would not bother him, "can't nobody fire me, because NRC needs QC."
__ -6-F=
kkIi: l k: i ..._.-l.
.12.
- _ .:::::. e
. , , ~ + - ~ . -. V - Interview with Individual "C" F i Individual "C" stated that he had no knowledge of any offers by any E QC inspectors to overlook nonconforming items in exchange for any I gratuities.
L Interview with Individual "0" gi Individual "D" stated that he had no knowledge of any offers by QC b= inspectors to overlook nonconformance for gratuities.
- ==
Interview with Individual "E" b E5 Individual "E" stated that there had been occasions, when other people IT were present.that individual "F" was accused by individual "A" with [.T.
holding up QC approval. On three or four occasions, "F" had responded !T' that "you can't ever tell what a fifth of whiskey could do."
These !V comments were made in a jocular bantering fashion,-according to "E" [:.i.
and he did not think they were significant. Similarly, one day =.l during the daily concrete meeting, "F" said to "A," "What would it
be worth to you to get the scheduling done? You all ought to take E.
QC on one of those (vendor) trips."
y:=
Interview with Individual "F" % y Individual "F" was interviewed on August 23 between 8 and 9:45 p.m.
k=- "F" stated that he had been terminated by Brown and Root effective =_ 5:30 p.m. the previous day, August 22.
He stated that he had been EF notified Friday, August 18, at about 11:00 a.m. that he was either
- .
soing to be terminated or transferred in connection with vague E~!!" allegations that he had either asked for or accepted gratuities.
He was told that he could go home that day with pay. On Monday ?L - morning, August 21, he went back to work and worked all day with no EC discussion concerning the allegations.
Late Monday, his supervisor EE advised him to be in the QA office Tuesday morning at 8:00 a.m.
F When he arrived at the manager's office Tuesday morning, his immediate
supervisor told him to go to the Assistant Project Manager's office L , l where he saw four members of Brown and Root management, including
- an attorney, and a court reporter. The attorney, at that point, E asked everyone else to leave and told individual "F" that he wanted - him to make a sworn desposition.
"F" stated that before he would do i so he had to call his attorney and he did so.
"F" stated that his t attorney told him not to proceed with the deposition and not to sign
anything.
"F" stated that originally he had been led to believe that-E it was alleged that he had accepted nonconforming items in order to 2= expedite the signing of pour cards, but in the discussion with the ~ attorney it was indicated that he was suspected of having accepted .7 gratuities for accepting nonconforming work. When "F" stated that EEE he would refuse to make the deposition, the attorney told him that,
== that could be an act of insubordination and that he had been ill-th advised by his attorney.
'EP l-7-i =- . j I' , - , . "55:?l:.: '.;_;;[ l[&._; ::=E j
- =:
=: z+ n- = :- _-. _ .
,
- -.-
.. -E ' - ~ At about 8:45 that same morning, "F" was told to go into the project i~. Control Engineer's office, and he stayed there until about noon when E he went to the QC Supervisor's office and he subsequently was told E to go home. The QC Supervisor came to his home that evening for the Eb purpose of obtaining "F's" signature on his termination papers.
"F" ~.. produced a copy of the termination paper which stated that the ter-E mination was made because of a lack of confidence (NF) and because E he occupied a sensitive position of critical importance. No mention i= was made of alleged bribery or acceoting of gratuities.
"F" stated M that when the Senior Construction Manager first contacted him, he had Ei indicated that somebody had said that "F" was signing the pour cards ff and overlooking items in order to make "A" look good. The Senior Ei= Construction Manager fur ther stated it must be understood that this EE _ will get all over the job site and, if he can prove who was lying, ff= the individual will either have to terminate or transfer.
=[jp:. .; ... "F's" QC supervisor comented in discussions with the other individuals ?52 that "F's" work record was excellent and that he was a good employee.
5j._ "F" stated that a problem has been that the QC inspectors end up llF doing the work of foreman because the construction foremen don't know E== where to put rebar that is missing.
"F" indicated that the construc-F tion foremen apply a lot or pressure on the QC inspectors.
g
m Interview with Individual "G" ig
M Individual "G" stated that he had been informed of the allegation that ig a QC inspector had solicited bribes from a construction foreman but he is was not privy to events leading to termination of the QC inspector.
El He further stated that he was not aware of any evidence that the QC [[.; < inspector had solicited bribes from the construction foreman; however, gi he said that he had occasionally heard QC inspectors make joking E=~ remarks which could have been misinterpreted as such.
{{ Interview with Individual "H" InMvidual "H'? stated that he was informed of the allegation that a QC inspector had solicited bribes from a construction foreman and of
- ...
events leading to the QC inspector's subsequent termination. He said E= l' that the construction foreman, when questioned if he could be mistaken ~_ ' about the alleged solicitation, maintained that the solicitation had occurred as he had reported to his supervisors and that it was not E perceived as a joke.
"H" further stated that a second construction F ' foreman also felt that he had been similarly approached by the QC
inspector during the last :'o months.
bi E is
-8-s . [ p l E , p I [3
==
~ 3=g==p..= = g.
l ~, _. .. - . -. - - - - - , - -,_~ , -
. -
h5 "H" also stated that a lawyer and a court stenographer were at the If: STP site on August 22, 1978, to take depositions related to this E allegation; however the QC inspector named in the allegation re-Ei fused to make a statement.
"H" believes that the QC inspector was E terminated because of his refusal to make a statement.
"H" stated E that he was not aware of-any incidents involving safety-related ir; activities, wherein the QC inspectors had solicited and/or accepted L; bribes from construction personnel.
[ En Interview with Individual "I" E! iE Individual "I" stated that he was aware of the allegation that a QC E inspector had solicited bribes from a construction foreman, but he .. had no personal knowledge of any acutal solicitation or acceptance [5
. of bribes by tha QC inspector. He also stated that he had occasion-if ally' heard remarks made in jest by the QC inspector which may have L been misconstrued as actual solicitations.
"I" further stated that !T he felt that the QC inspector identified in the allegation did not E have the influence or the capability to either unnecessarily hold [. up construction work or to accept nonconforming work without ih detection by other personnel. He stated that he felt certain that la there had been no compromise of quality.
jh :
Interview with Individual "J"
b Individual "J" stated his knowledge was limited concerning the alle-gation that a QC inspector had solicited bribes from a construction ._ foreman; however, he stated he had observed the QC inspector for g= approximately 1-1/2 years and was favorably impressed by the inspec-E= tor's competence and performance.
- =su E
Interview with Individual "K"
- Individual "K" stated that he had confidence in the competence and - integrity of the terminated QC inspector against whom the allegation of solicitation of bribes was made. He stated he was not aware of-E any compromise of the quality of safety related z.ctivities.
i No items of noncompliance o'r deviations were identified.
- .e b.
Allegation No. 2
- +333 The QC inspectors, as a group and individually, have been intimi-e.=
dated -by the firing of the QC inspector for reasons of his refusal to accept construction which did not meet specifications and that they will, " che future, be reluctant to report nonconformances on construction work that does not meet specifications.
_ y= = . [ ' -9-s;. h.i- ' t ' Q l - . _.. ... - _
- - =
- -
- - u _ = = __ _, _,. _ _ _ __ _
. . .. , . r-- Findings g !+ ~ Interview with Individual "F" .: "F" denied that he had made any attempt to offer to overlook non-En conformances in exchange for gratuities. He stated that the E= charges against him were trumped up and that he was fired only f because he would not let pours proceed when there were noncon-g- formances. He said that, as a result of his being fired for this, & the QC inspectors would feel their jobs would be in jeopardy if EP= they reported nonconformances and accordingly, in the future, none E would be reported. He :tated the reason given on the termination [f paper (which he had refused to sign) was that he had been terminated EEE for " apparent misconduct" and the company's " lack of confidence (in EE~ him) for a sensitive position of critical importance."
[M lmE
Interview with Individual "G" g? , s
- .:
Individual "G" stated that, in his opinion, the termination of the [= QC inspector would not have an adverse impact on future QC inspec-Es= tion of safety related activities, but he expects that there will
- + '
be a hardening of the QC inspector's stance and a ceterioration of i= QC/ construction relations. He also stated that sonn: QC inspectors E: feel that what has happened to the terminated QC inspector could E_ also happen to them and he expects that some QC personnel will !? resign because of their perception of the manner in which the ter- [3g mination was accomplished.
C '.. Interview with Individual "H"
EE## Individual "H" stated that he did not feel that the other QC .;.== - inspector's future performance of safety related work would be g.- adversely affected by the termination of the QC inspector.
[p.yg ge Interview with Individual "I" F: _ Individual "I" stated that other QC inspectors have expressed concern i=. _.
l ! that if the allegations against the QC inspector caused his termina-U~ tion, they, too, were vulnerable to the same process.
He also stated En
! that, in his opinion, the stance of the QC inspectors relative to % construction quality related activities has hardened.
jhi , p7 i Interview with Individual "J" = = ~ MB l Individual "J" stated that he does not believe that the termination 3.. of the QC inspector for alleged solicitation of bribes will adversely =~ l ' affect the performance of other QC inspectors in the discharge of g f:5:
& Es i E4 .... - -10- = ... ... - _ -y; ~-
- , *,' - '
' :. ~- l
L
. . , . _.. . ;;; . ,
- .::..
. their duties. He also stited that he-had no knowledge of any related [."
- ~~
occurrences which could have n d adverse impact on safety related- . ' components or activities.
!
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
- -
?.:=
- )
. EG.::
- ....
IE.. E5 , .
si EijE= .
E: ..:=.-:. EE= ET ' 55.
- ==
E5;f i.a.-
. _ .'
==.
- =
- ?
=
.NY EE=., 5=: ::. r.
, 7.... .::== - ll& . ~ "
- r
- . '::
is...... ' --.=:
- =
[$[ -- : E.=.:.k: =: .. .= $*, .::: .:
ib;r-11-
- J '
k=::.
. . :. E: ' -,..-. -
- .; ;- -
=?.=:?- .::,.::= .. ..-
- "'"~
.... .:.: _ ...... -... ;..;...::.:. =.. :.:.::. -. _;.-.=.=-
- .
.;. - -........ ..=::. _
- .
.. _3 =
- .,.. =... ;;;;; ;;;.
.. - -..
e a--+.-e . - -,,. +, -.. ~..- }}