IR 05000498/1980031
| ML20008F227 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 01/21/1981 |
| From: | Digaloma T, Driskill D, Herr R, Seyfrit K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20008F226 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-498-80-31, 50-499-80-31, NUDOCS 8103120593 | |
| Download: ML20008F227 (10) | |
Text
>
.
I g
U.'S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Investigation Report No. 50-498/80-31; 50-499/80-31 Docket No. 50-498/499 Licensee:
Houston Lighting and Power Company P. O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Facility:
South Texas Project, Units Nos. 1 and 2 Investigation at:
South Texas Project, Matagorda County, Texas Investigation Conducted:
October 15-17, 22-23, and Novemcer 13, 1980 Investigator:
'%
- C'
'
a.% Sl D. D. Driskill, Investigation Specialist Date
, /yhy'
R. A. Herr, Investigation 5pecialist Date
[
i i
%L42.,4 //
/,b//f/
T. J. DiGaloma, Investigative Aiae (Co-Op)
Date h
- }" /E}'*'l._ _ _'[
./b/. I/
s TL? k Approved by:
Karl V. Seyfrit, Directo /
Date
/
810s22o 5 93
-
-.
- - - - - --
.
Summary Investigation on October 15-17, 22-23, November 13, 1980 (Report No. 50-498/
80-31; 50-499/80-31.
Area Investigated:
Allegations were received indicating a Construction Foreman was fired because he resisted pressures being exerted on his men; that Brown
& Root, Inc. (B&R), had rehired individuals who were formerly fired as a result of an NRC investigation; and that safety-related documentation, in a
!
particular activity, is inadequate and some have been falsified.
Results Investigation of the allegations that a Construction Foreman was fired for resisting pressures exerted on his men was determined to be unfounded.
The allegation that B&R has rehired individuals who were terminated as a result of an NRC investigation was substantiated.
The allegation that safety-related documentation is inadequate and has been falsified was found to have had merit, insomuch as cadweld location and inspection records were altered without the appropriate approval and justification for the alteration.
,- -
-
-
.
.
. _,
INTRODUCTION The South Texas Nuclear Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, is currently under con-struction near the town of Bay City, Texas.
Housten Lighting and Power Company (HL&P) is the construction permit holder, Brown & Root, Inc. (S&R) is the architect / engineer and construction firm.
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION On October 3,1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Reactor Inspector (RRI), South Texas Project, received telephonic allegations from an individual (Individual A) who requested anonymity.
The allegations related to questionable personnel hiring and termination practices and inadequate and/or falsified documentation within a safety-related activity at STP.
SUMMARY OF FACTS On October 3, 1980, the RRI at the STP received, by telephone, the following allegations from an individual who requested anonymity:
1.
A Construction Foreman was fired because he resisted pressures on his men.
2.
Brown & Root is re-hiring personnel who were fired as a result of an NRC investigation, No. 50-498/79-19; 50-499/79-19,- which may result in recurrence of former poor practices.
3.
Documentation regarding a safety-related activity has been falsified and is inadequate in conten.
Persons Contacted Princioal Licensee Emoloyees
- G. W. Oprea, Jr., Executive Vice President
- R. A. Frazer, QA Manager Other Individuals Contacted Individuals A through K
- Denotes those attending exit interview.
2.
Investigation of Allegations Allegation No. 1 A B&R Construction Foreman was fired because he resisted performance pressures being exerted on his men.
Investigative Findings On October 16, 1980, Individual A was interviewed and stated a concern that intimidation problems formerly identified at STP, subsequent to an NRC investigation, may be starting over again.
Individual A stated that a B&R Construction Superintendent recently exerted unnecessary performance pressures on a group of carpenters.
Resistence to these pressures by the carpenter general foreman (Individual B), a long-time B&R/STP employee, resulted in B's quitting or being fired.
Review of B&R Personnel Records On October 16, 1980, Individual B's B&R personnel record was reviewed at STP.
It disclosed Individual B was terminated on October 1, 1980, for insubordination to a supervisor.
Individual B's personnel record indicated B was hired by B&R on July 19, 1976.
The personnel record contained no other adverse information.
Other Investigative Effort On October 16, 1980, efforts to locate Individual 3 at 3's listed Bay City, Texas resisdence were unproductive.
Additional efforts identified acquaintances of Individual B who provided information relating to 3's current whereabouts in Texa "
.
Telephonic Interview of Individual B On October 27, 1980, Individual B was telephonically interviewed regarding the circumstances related to B's termination by B&R.
Individual B stated the termination resulted from a professional disagreement with a supervisor.
Individual B stated B and the supervisor had "never seen eye-to-eye" regarding some aspects of the job.
Individual B stated that the supervisor had always stressed quality as well as production and their disagreement did not pertain to safety-related aspects of the job at STP.
With regard to the termination, Individual B stated B had finally gotten tired of problems with the supervisor and had " told him what to do with it and left."
Individual B stated these actions were of B's own choosing and B would have quit if not fired.
Allegation No. 2 Brown & Root is rehiring personnel who were fired as a result of the NRC Investigation No. 50-498/79-19; 50-499/79-19.
Investigative Findings On October 16, 1980, Individual C was interviewed regarding the above allegation and provided the names of ten supervisory personnel who were terminated in February 1980 as a result of a reduction in force at STP.
(Investigator's Note:
Several of the names provided by Individual C coincide with names provided by Individual A as having been terminated due to the findings of the NRC investigative report No. 79-19.)
On October 16, 1980, Individual 0, a member of HL&P management, was interviewed and stated that it was understood that B&R reassigned, terminated and/or released approximately 10 to 12 persons in supervisory I
positions at STP during the February 1980 time frame in an effort to take partial corrective action of an unsatisfactory condition that existed and which was identified during an NRC investigation / inspection.
l Individual D stated information relating to these personnel actions was relayed to the NRC, Region IV, Director.
Review of B&R Records t
!
[
On October 16, 1980, a review of B&R personnel records disclosed that four of the individuals who were formerly identified as having been terminated, due to a reduction in force, in February 1980 had been recently rehired.
l l
L
-
_,.. - - - _
-
_
__ -.
,_
-
_ -
_
_
_.
..
_
.
Interview of NRC Region IV Director On October 21, 1980, Karl V. Seyfrit, Director, Region IV, NRC, was interviewed and stated he was informed in February 1980 by an HL&P representative that B&R had released ten individuals in mid-February 1980 as part of corrective action taken in response to NRC Investigation 79-19.
Allegation No. 3
.
Documentation regarding the safety related activity has been falsified and is inadequate in content.
Investigative Effort On October 16, 1980, Individual A was interviewed and related concerns regarding the documentation of cadweld location and inspection records.
Individual A stated the concerns stem from the work done at ST? by one particular individual (Individual F).
Individual A stated Individual F was a senior member of the B&R QA Department Cadwell Documentation Task Force (CDTF) originally. organized in early 1979 to identify and correct errors in the STP cadweld documentation.
Individual A stated Individual F, during reviews of.cadweld documentation, frequently changed or amended "FSQ's" (Field Sketch Quality), a nonstandardized document identifying locations of specifically numbered cadwelds and which is prepared by the respective cadweld inspector and "CIS's" (Cadweld Inspection Book), a document utilized by the respective cadweld inspector to report-each cadweld inspection status, without consulting the preparer of the document or without being able to substantiate the change.
Individual A also stated Individual F would not provide justification for the change which would accompany the altered document into the permanent record system. Individual-A proviced copies of docu-ments which contained changes in reported data and which contained Individual F's initials adjacent the changes.
Individual A stated that due to the long time periods which have lapsed between original i
preparation of these respective documents and their being changed, no means were availaole to substantiate a cnange in the document insomucn as cacwelds were now covered by concrete and no persons could reasonably be expected to recall the specific identification numcers of cacwelds
.and exact locations after so long a time.
Individual A stated that alternate records do exist which may be used to ' authenticate the
~
accuracy of record entries and sometimes ascertain the correct data which should have been recorded.-
Individual A stated; however, that it was the contention of numerous B&R employees that Individual F was changing / altering these records without substantial justification.
,
i
, - -.,
...
,
,
._
.
Individual A went or, to state that an NRC investigation conducted in early 1979 had identified Individual F as being responsible for placing the initials of QC inspectors on documents F had prepared from their field notes.
Individual A stated that when Individual A's supervisor was contacted regarding these alterations of records, the supervisor had stated those problems had been prev'ously investigated by NRC and the problem has been corrected.
It was Individual A's contention; however, that Individual F had continued altering records subsequent to that investigation and that changing of records destroys the credibility of safety related records, relating to the cadwelds, and that Individual F's credibility as a QC inspector is diminished.
Review of NRC Investication On October 16, 1980, NRC, Region IV, Investigation No. 50-498/79-01; 50-499/
79-0', was reviewed.
This report addresses the investigation of an allegation which states " original cadweld examination check lists (EC's)
prepared by field QC inspectors are being cnanged before sending the EC's to the document storage vault."
Findings of the investigatior, confirmed that the cadweld inspector (Individual F) had transcribed QC inspector's field notes onto EC's and scribed ti.a initials of the respective QC inspector on the EC's.
With regard to the EC, a review of B&R procedures prescribed that the cadweld inspector shall indicate
" completion of the above item by initialing in the ' Inspected By' column for each cadweld."
Inquiries by the investigating team did not locate any procedure which would have permitted the practice of entering the initials of other persons on EC's during their review process by persons other than the respective QC inspector.
Interviews of B&R Personnel On October 16, 1980, Individual G was interviewed.
Individual G acknow-ledged being aware of numerous instances wherein Individual F had changed F5Q's and CIB's.
Individual G stated a specific concern regarding this matter, was that the record of cadweld inspections are no longer credible due to the lack of justification provided with the identified changes.
Individual G also stated concern because no means exist to recognize all the changes which may have been made to the records.
Individual G stated a ccncern that Individual F may not be able to provide justification for all the changes made in cadweld records.
On October 16, 1980, Individual H was interviewed.
Individual H acknow-ledged being aware that Indivi ual F has made changes to numerous cadweld location and inspection recorus.
Individual H stated Individual F could possibly have used a process of elimination, utilizing various cadweld records, to have logically deduced what cadweld number was used at a specific location or possible even the location where a specific cadweld number was shot.
Individual H stated, however, that Individual H had observed and reviewed documentation relating to cadweld locations which L
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
were changed by Individual F and had not found ample data to justify such a change.
Individual H also stated that alteration of submitted records without accompanying justification was not authorized by the CDTF charter.
Individual H related that on one occasion Individual H had been working with Individual F trying to identify the general location cf specific cadweld numoers.
On this occasion, Individual H stated Individual F was present at the time they were done, and remembered the general location of these specific numbers, which were shot one to two years earlier.
Individual H stated it is difficult to believe anyone was capable of recalling numbers and locations after that long a period.
On October 22, 1980, Individual I was interviewed.
Individuai I related having formerly worked for Individual F on the CDTF and found Individual F to be difficult to understand and hard to work for.
Individual I stated that Individual F changed cadweld records before January 1979 and sub-sequent to that time.
Individual I stated the belief that Individual F felt, making all of the changes in records, was justified although the justification had not been documented.
Individual I admitted having attended the B&R QA meetings where problems with the CDTF were discussed and the topic of Individual F's changing records was discussed.
Individual I related having gotten the impression that some of Individual F's supervisors were embarrassed about Individual's F's performance but did not have another position to put F in.
On October 23, 1980, Individual J was interviewed.
Individual J acknow-ledged having heard rumors that Individual F was changing records.
Individual J, formerly a QA inspector working in the area of cadweld inspections, stated that some of the records changed by Individual F were Individual J's.
Individual J stated that Individual H and other cadweld QC inspectors would all stand by the records they had submitted, but stated there could have been some inadvertent errors in those records which could possibly be identified and justification found for correcting them.
Interview of Individual F On October 23, 1980, Individual F was interviewed.
According to F's statement, Individual F was assigned duties as Lead Cadweld Inspector at STP in late 1978, at hich time F learned that cadweld QA inspection personnel were inexperienced in documentation of cadwela locations and inspections.
According to Individual F a nrogram had been initiated, by F, whereby all cadweld location and inspection records were transcribed onto a new form from reports provided by the respective cadweld inspectors, subsequent to which their initials and F's signature would be placed on each document prior to being submitted to the storage vault.
Individual F stated that in mid-January 1979 F was interviewed by an NRC investiga-tion team who questioned the propriety of the above described actions.
Individual F admitted having agreed with the team that the actions were not proper.
Individual F stated that in June 1979 F was assigned to the
--_
_
_.
-.-.
.
.
Cadweld Documentation Task Force which was formed to determine the number of cadwelds which could not be identified by location and to review cadweld inspection records.
Individual F stated that between June 1979 and December 1979, the CDIF accomplished a review of all cadweld documenta-tion available at that time.
Individual F stated that during these reviews F found obvious errors in documentation which were corrected based en information available via other cadweld records.
Individual F stated corrections were based on what were considered to be sound judge-ment substantiated by other documents.
Individual F stated in retro-spect F can now understand how someone might believe that these corrections could be based on something less than good judgement because F provided no documentation which would be considered justification for the corrections /
changes.
Individual F stated no record of the documents on which changes were made was maintained.
Individual F stated that in retrospect F did not use good judaement in changing records without providing justifica-tion.
Individual F stated F's supervisors were aware of F's practice of changing the records and they took no exception with the practice.
During the course of the interview of Individual F, F was given the opportunity to review numerous documents which had been obtained during the course of this investigation and regarding which allegations were presented indicating F had made changes which could not be substantiated.
Individual F explained the reason for each change and provided documents which had been used to substantiate the changes.
In each case, the change / alteration of the record appeared to be adequately substantiated by other documents.
No instances of unjustified alteration of records was found in the sample documents.
Finally, Individual F agreed F should have prepared justification for these changes which could accompany the corrected documents and preclude any future allegations of impropriety.
Interview of QA Supervisor On November 13, 1980, Individual G, a B&R QA supervisor, was interviewed.
Individual G stated that when the CDTF was initially established, none of the personnel involved knew exactly how to accomplish the mission of identifying undocumented cadweld locations.
Individual G stated that Individual F was made a member of the CDTF because F was the best person on the project for work with cadwelds, based on F's past experience with cadwelds at STP.
Individual G stated that as the CDTF program developed, its mission was additionally charged with an indeptn evaluation of all documentation relating to cadwelds. When questioned concerning the allegation provided to NRC relating to alteration of records by Individual F, Incividual G stated that a January 1979 NRC investigation had disclosed that Individual F was changing original records.
Individual G stated, as a result of that investigation, Individual F was directed not to change original records, but change only copies of those records in an effort to correct cadweld documentation.
Individual G stated that during the course of the CDTF work G had personally received several allegations
.-
.
,
relating to Individual F's alteration of records and an investigation of those allegations disclosed no facts which would substantiate the allegations.
Lastly, Individual G stated a belief that any change in cadweld records made by Individual F was based on sound justification using other documents.
,