IR 05000498/1981011
| ML19347E804 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 04/21/1981 |
| From: | Baci P, Jay Collins, Gagliardo J, Herr R, Tapia J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347E801 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-498-81-11, 50-499-81-11, NUDOCS 8105130419 | |
| Download: ML19347E804 (14) | |
Text
-
,
'
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Investigation Report No. 50-498/81-11; 50-499/81-11 Docket Nos. 50-498; 50-499
.
Licensee:
Houston Lighting & Power Company-Facility:
South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 Investigation at:
Bay City, Matagorda County, Texas Investigation Conducted:
March 29 - April 10, 1981 Investigator:
['
-
i/,'I/
>
R. K. Herr, Investigator Date Investigation and Enforcement Staff
&
f*2-9/
pPeter 'Baci, Senior Investigator, Investigation Date Branch, Enforcement and Investigation Staff, HQ Inspector:
Mk 4/20 [6 l
..
J.,IfJapia,ReagtorInspector Date'
Er gineering and Inspection Section t
Il W
YC 7/
Reviewed by:
e I) E. Gagltardo, Director Date!
Investigation and Enforcement Staff Approved by:
d [b*M M dd ///'/
Wohn T. Collins, Deputy Director Dats Summary
.
Investigation on March 29-April 10, 1981 (Report No. 50-498/81-11; 50-499/81-11).
Areas Investigated:
Multiple allegations concerning Brown & Root dealing with
!
intimidation, unqualified personnel, concrete irregularities, quality control inspection errors, and conspiracy to obstruct an NRC inspection / investigation.
This investigation involved 178 investigative hours by two NRC investigators and one NRC inspector, and the Director of Investigation and Enforcement, Region IV.
81051304/$
Q
......
...
- -..
--.
.
- _ - _ _ _
.-
_
.
,
Results Allegations of quality control inspector error, intimidation, and conspiracy to obstruct an NRC inspection / investigation were confirmed.
Allegations of unqualified personnel and concrete irregularities were not confirmed.
,
.,
,
.
.
I
.
O
i l
i I
!
I l
-
,
i
, __
.-
-... _, _ _._, -,.
_
.,_ _, __
,_m.
-.
.._ _ _ _.,.,..__ _.,-
_ _ _. - - _ _ _,. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
.
SUMMARY Investigation disclosed that one quality control inspector admitted to making two errors in the inspection process, however, he corrected both errors when he was made aware of the discrepancies by Brown & Root (B&R) supervisory personnel.
The investigation further disclosed evidence of intimidation by one B&R foreman.
In addition, the investigation developed three B&R supervisory personnel who admitted, in varying degrees, of conspiring to obstruct an NRC investigation /
inspection.
Allegations dealing with generic problems concerning internal B&R procedures / management activities were identified to Houston Lighting & Power (HL&P) and B&R management representatives during an exit meeting in Houston, Texas.
BACKGROUND On September 22, 1980, the NRC Commissioners ordered that an expedited hearing be held to examine HL&P's competence and character in view of past violations of NRC regulations.
During the time period that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) was meeting in Austin, Texas, in accordance with prior telephonic arrangeraents, Mrs. Peggy Buchorn, a representative of the Citizens for Equitable Utilities (CEU), on March 18, 1981, provided an audio cassette tape and a letter addressed to the Director, OIE, and to Mr. Edwin Reis, Hearing Division, Office of the Executive Legal Director.
The letter was signed by both Mrs. Buchorn and a Mr. Lanny Sinkin, who is associated with the Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power (CCANP).
The letter characterized the tape as containing allegations against both B&R and NRC, Region IV.
Upon receipt of the tape by Mr. Reis, it was reviewed by Mr. D. Thompson, Director, Er.forcement and Investigation Staff, IE:HQ; Mr. William J. Ward, Chief, Investi-gations Branch, IE:HQ; and other members of the Investigations Branch.
It was the concensus of those reviewing the tape that its contents did not warrant with-holding it from Region IV.
Accordingly, a copy of the tape was provided to Region IV on March 21, 1981, and a copy of the letter provided on March 23, 1981.
Copies were also provided to the Office of Inspector and Audit in view of the allegations against Region IV personnel.
.
The tape was subsequently reviewed in its entirety by the Director, IE, on March 26, 1981.
Following a review of the tape by Region IV staff, Regional management determined that the allegations warranted the initiation of an investigation as soon as possible, both because of the apparent significance of the information as well as the scheduled imminent release of copies to attorneys for HL&P.
He also requested the assistance of an IE:HQ investigator due to constraints of time and resources.
Accordingly, an investigatien was opened and arrargements were made O interview Ms. Buchorn and the two persons who provided tra information contained on the tape in Bay City, Texas, on Sunday, March 29, 1981.
/
,
-
.
.
Review of Tape On March 27, 1981, a review of the tape in question disclosed the following listed allegations:
1.
That a B&R foreman intimidates employees who talk to HL&P personnel or who talk to B&R supervisory personnel.
2.
That a B&R quality control inspector is not performing adequate inspections of materials leaving the warehouse.
3.
That B&R personnel, in the electrical department (termination shack), are not qua'ified, including the foreman, who scored 30 on a recent electrical examination.
4.
That a concrete form shifted three inches during a recent placement and a foreman was fired as a result of this movement.
5.
That HL&P and B&R knew ahead of time when and what subjects NRC was going to inspect and that B&R supervisory personnel conspired to remove equipment and/or records out of the termination shack in order to obstruct an upcoming NRC inspection / investigation.
6.
That B&R made new procedures that will result in the use of FREA's (Field Request for Engineering Action) that circumvent writing NCRs (Noncon-forraance Reports).
7.
That safety-related work was presently being done at STP.
8.
That B&R personnel had low morale and the attitude of personnel is such that "no one wants to be around working when Unit 1 is fired up."
9.
That the termination shack lacks environmental controls to keep calibration equipment from going out of tolerance.
10.
That a survey was conducted but the results are unknown.
11.
That the temporary power department (electrical) is ordering supplies from the permanent power department, which is against the internal policies of BLR.
\\
.
'I DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
.
- R. A. Frazier, Manager, QA, HL&P
- 0. G. Barker, Manager, STP, HL&P Principal B&R Employees
- K. N. Broom, Senior Vice President, B&R
- S. H. Grote, Senior Vice President, B&R Other Individuals Individuals A through Z
- Denotes those attending exit interview.
2.
Inv'estigation of Allegations Allegation No. 1 That a B&R foreman intimidates employees who talk to HL&P personnel or who talk to B&R supervisory personnel.
Investigative Findings On March 29, 1981, Individual A was interviewed and explained that this allegation was provided by Individuals B and C.
Interview of Individual B disclosed that the allegation was provided by Individual C.
Interview of Individual C resulted in the execution of a signed sworn statement (Attachment 1) wherein Individual T was identified as the person who stated that anyone talking to HL&P or upper B&R supervisory personnel
'
about problems in the electrical department would be " hitting the gate."
Individual C admitted not telling the truth, to HL&P QA personnel about problems in the electrical 42nartment for fear of being terminated by Individual T.
Interview of Individuals 0, M, N, 0, P, Q, and R who represent former and present B&R employees who, at one time or another, worked for Individual T, disclosed that none were directly intimidated by Individual T wherein Individual T stated that they would be terminated for talking to HL&P personnel or going over his " head" to report problems.
However, investigation did disclose that with the exception of one employee
,
none of the individuals have written three part memos and/or discrepancy reports about any problem areas in the electrical department, explaining
'
that if there was a problem then Individual T would somehow take care of it.
Most of these individuals believed they did not know they had the responsibility to write discrepancy reports and some were unsure as to how to write discrepancy reports and/or three part memos.
(Herr /Tapia/Baci)
__
.
4 Allegation No. 2 That a B&R QC inspector is not performing adequate inspection of materials leaving the warehouse.
Investigative Findings Interview of Individual C identified Individual G, who maintained that Individual H is a QC inspector who failed to inspect piping heat numbers against recorded requisition heat numbers and signed off the requisition as being correct when, in fact, they were incorrect.
Interview of Individual G disclosed that on two occasions (December 1980 and January 1981)
Individual H had made errors during the inspection process that had resulted in time delays.
Individual G advised that in December 1980, Individual H failed to insure that heat numbers on piping were recorded on the proper requisition and, again, in January 1981, Individual H failed to insure that the heat numbers recorded on requisitions matched the heat numbers on piping.
Individual G stated, in January 1981, he personally brought this to the attention of Individual H, who subseque.ntly corrected his error.
Interview of Individual H resulted in his admisJion that on two occasions recently he has made errors during his QC inspetion process.
Individual H stated that during the past 2-1/2 years, as a QC inspector, he signed off 30 to 40 documents a week and that during the December-January time frame he was busier than usual and made two mistakes.
Individual H emphasized that he plans to slow down and perform his inspections more accurately.
(Herr /Tapia)
,
Allegation No. 3
!
That Brown & Root personnel in the electrical department (termination
!
shack) are not qualified, including a foreman who scored 30 on a recent electrical examination.
l Investigative Findings Individual C identified Individual I as an electrical _ foreman and Individual X, an electrical helper, as not qualified for their respective positions.
Individual C explained that recently Individual I took an electrical test and only scored a 30 and Individual X was recently upgraded into a higher pay grade without being qualified.
Interview of Individual J disclosed that he was an instructor for an after-hours (voluntary) 8-week electrical course conducted between January and March 1981.
Individual J advised that on the first night of the class he passed out a generalized test to about 18 personnel in the class in order for him to determine in what areas the personnel were weakest and strongest.
Individual J explained he wanted to be sure to place the most emphasis in those areas that were needed the mos *
.
Individual J said that only one or two people just barely passed, with a test score of 70.
Individual J remarked that to the best of his memory, Individual I scored 30 on the test, which was about average.
Individual J remarked he gave a final test at the end of the course and about fifty percent of the personnel passed.
Individual J stated he could not recall the exact score of Individual I.
(Herr /Tapia)
-
Interview of Individual I disclosed that he took an after-hours voluntary refresher electrical course sponsored by B&R between January and March 1981.
Individual I remarked they took a test on thL first night of the class and he missed about fifty percent of the questions.
Individual I stated that the personnel in the class graded their own tests and the tests were merely to let the instructor know what areas he (instructor) needed to stress.
Individual I remarked he did not take the test seriously and concluded by stating he scored about a 90 on the final examination.
(Herr /Tapia)
Individual K of the B&R training office was interviewed and asked to provide the test results of Individual I who recently completed an electrical course.
Individual K provided Individual I's test and it was noted that Individual I received a score of 88.
A review of the other test scores dis' closed that Individual I ranked in the upper third of the personnel taking the Electrical II course.
(Herr /Tapia)
Interview of Individuals L and S disclosed that most unskilled employees enter into the construction phase classified as a " laborer" which is the lowest pay rate-per hour.
The promotion or upgrading guidelines of pay are based on performance and time on tne job.
Individual L stated that the average good employee can expect to be upgraded from laborer to Helper Class III within 6 to 12 months, and then to Helper Class II paygrade I.
Individual L explained that from Helper Class II paygrade I up to paygrade III advancement is based on time in grade.
Individual L remarked that promotion to Helper I paygrade I up to paygrade IV is also based on time in grade and there is no qualification except to do good work and meet the time table established.
Individual S stated that if one person such as Individual X is skilled, or a quick learner and performs in an excellent manner then he can upgrade that person in accordance with B&R guidelines in the minimum amount of time, which was done in the case of Individual X.
(Herr /Tapia)
Allegation No. 4 That a concrete form shifted three inches during a recent placement and a foreman was fired as a result of this movement.
Investigative Findings Individual C advised that recently (January-February 1981), Individual F was reportedly overheard making a comment that during a concrete placement, a wall moved three inches.
Individual C stated that-Individual E reportedly was aware of the movement and maintained records to that effect.
Interview
_
_
. _. _
,
_.
. _. _
_.
.. - _ - -.
_
-
-.
.-
.
-_
..
,
of Individual F disclosed that he was present during a concrete placement (wall) on or about February 4,1981, when a form moved 3/16-inch.
Individual F stated he adjusted the form and brought the wall to within 1/8-inch movement, which was within tolerance.
Individual F advised that he did comment to a friend (whom he did not wish to identify), that a wall move-
ment occurred but did not intend for anyone to interpret that the concrete wall moved significantly.
Individual F stated he worked.on MEA No. 1 and MEA No. 2 and believed the movement was located at MEA No. 2.
Individual i
F stated he was not aware of any foreman that was fired as a result of this movement.
(Herr /Tapia)
Interview of Individual E disclosed that on or about February 4, 1981, an
HL&P QA person, Individual Y, requested copies of records concerning a i
concrete wall placement.
Interview of Individual Y disclosed that the records he requested on or about February 4,1981, were for the purpose of attaching the record to his surveillance report.
Individual Y further stated that this is standard procedure for all surveillance reports.
Individual Y stated he was not aware of any wall movement.
(Herr /Tapia)
A review by an NRC inspector of all complex concrete placements since Jan~uary 1, 1981, did not disclose documentation pertaining to any wall movement.
Further, a review of non-complex concrete placement records disclosed one documented case of wall movement.
The NRC inspector-noted that appropriate quality assurance action was documented and taken on this wall located in MEA No. 1.
(Tapia)
Allegation No. 5
,
That HL&P and B&R knew ahead of time when and what subject NRC was going to inspect and that B&R supervisors conspired to remove equipment and/or
,
i records out of the termination shack in order to obstruct an upcoming
,
NRC inspection / investigation.
l Investigative Findings
Interview of Individual C resulted in the reported observation by Individuals l
E and R that they witnessed Individuals T and U remove equipment from the
termination shack just prior to the NRC arrival.
Individuals A and C maintained that Individuals T and U removed equipment and/or documents in
order to obstruct an NRC investigation.
(Herr /Baci)
'
Interview of Individual D disclosed that on or about October 29, 1980, he was working near the termination shack.
Individual D stated that about
l 9:30 a.m., he observed Individuals T and U unlock the termination shack
and enter the building.
Individual D remarked that about 9:45 a.m., he saw Individuals T and U exit the termination shack.
Individual D stated-at this time Individual T was careying two gray suitcases and Individual U was carrying one gray suitcase.
Individual D advised that later he observed
.two NRC personnel arrive at the termination shack for an inspection and/or investigation.
Individual 0 advised that later that day, he observed the three suitcases he had seen earlier located in Individual U's office.
'
(Herr /Baci/ Collins)
)
_-
.
.
__
.
_
_
_. _
.
-
.
Interview of Individual R disclosed that he could not recall any particular event involving Individuals T and U on or about October 29, 1980.
Individual R advised he had no further comments at this time.
A search of Individuals U's and V's jointly shared office, by the reporting investigator and Individual Z, disclosed three gray suitcases.
Individual V was asked if he had any objection if the reporting investigator opened the suitcases, to which he answered "no."
At this time, Individual Z and the reporting investigator opened one suitcase and discovered 95 documents pertaining to tool assignment sheets, inspection records, calibration logs, sign-out sheets, recall notices, deficiency reports, and miscellaneous memos pertaining to tools that were maintained and issued from the termination shack, as well as a piece of equipment that apparently con-tained a pressurized gas container with an attached gauge.
The two other suitcases contained the same type of equipment, however, no additional records were discovered.
Further, these records were noted to be dated 1978, 1979, and 1980.
There were no records or documents inside the suitcases that identified what the equipment was used for or where the equipment came from.
Int'rview of Individual T disclosed that he learned in October 1980, e
that the NRC was going to inspect the termination shack in a few days.
Individual T explained that he was in charge of the termination shack and decided to go through all of the records to assure that the records were in order.
Individual T admitted that he found old, incomplete records and pulled them out of the files.
Individual T stated he also found three suitcases containing apparent pressurized compressed air bottles with gauges but could not find any paper work associated with the equipment.
Individual T admitted that he decided to remove the suitcases from the termination shack and place them in his supervisor's (Individual U) office.
Individual T explained that "the NRC was coming and since I did not know the answers to questions that I believed they might ask me about the suit-cases and the documents, I decided to remove the suitcases.
I did not want to be embarrassed."
Individual T advised that Individual N assisted him in straightening up the termination shack and that the documents were placed inside the suitcases by either himself or Individual N.
Individual T executed a signed sworn statement (Attachment 2).
(Herr /Gagliardo)
Interview of Individual U resulted in his admitting that he and Individual T " collectively decided" to remc;c the three suitcases in question'from the termination shack and store them in his office.
Individual U remarked that he looked inside all the suitcases and could not find documents per-taining to the identity of the equipment.
Further, Individual U stated he did not observe any documents and/or records inside the suitcases.
Individual U stated he could not recall:
1.
when the suitcases were removed, 2.
why the suitcases were removed, and 3.
if the NRC was going to inspect the termination shack.
l
'
.
Further, Individual U stated he had no plans to do anything further with the suitcases.
Individual U stated that Individual Z observed the contents of the suitcases in their office and also could not identify the equipment.
Individual U remarked that Individual V knew where the suitcases came from and did not object to the suitcases being stored in their office.
Individual V stated that Individual V never asked why the suitcases were being stored in their office.
(Herr /Gagliardo)
Interview of Individual V disclosed that some time in October 1980, Individual T brought three suitcases into his office and displayed the contents.
Individual V remarked that Individual T wanted to determine the identity of the equipment.
Individual V explained he looked at the equipment and could not identify it.
Individual V stated that Individual T told him the suitcases were from the termination shack and that he (:ndividual T) did not want anything in the termination shack that did not belong because he was going to have an audit in the near future.
(Herr /Gagliardo)
Interview of Individual N disclosed that during the last week of October 1980, Individual T asked for assistance in straightening up the termination shack because the NRC was coming to conduct an audit.
Individual N stated that they went through the records and noticed the records were incomplete.
Individual N cited an example:
The transfer of crimpers from one kit to another kit was not recorded in the individual log book for each crimper.
Individual N recalled typing up card files for the equipment (meggers and crimpers) that contained an ST-CC number.
Individual N recalled that Individual T found three suitcases in the termination shack and asked if they could be identified.
Individual N explained that after looking at the equipment in the suitcases, the equipment was unfamiliar.
Individual N stated that Individual T remarked that he was going to remove the suitcases and, sutsequently, Individual N stated Individual T was observed removing one of the suitcases from the termination shack.
(Herr /Gagliardo)
Interview of Individual S disclosed that he claimed he heard, in October 1980, that NRC was coming to conduct an audit of the termination shack in the very near future.
Individual S advised he told Individual T to be sure that everything was straightened up for the audit.
Individual 5 stated he could not clearly recall how he learned that the NRC was coming but believed that one of his supervisors told him.
Interview of Individual W dislosed that he was Individual S' top supervisor and could not recall advising Individual S that NRC was coming to conduct an audit in October 1980.
Individual W maintained that he could not even recall if he was aware that NRC was coming to conduct an audit in October 1980.
Individual W stated he could not provide any further pertinent informatio.
This investigation included implementation of NRC Procedure No. 307038 dated July 1,1980, Section 2, paragraph 1.1, which states, in part:
An entrance interview shall be conducted with the plant manager or the most senior licensee representative directly responsible for the areas to be inspected.
During the entrance interview, the inspector should address the following items, as related to the functional areas to be examined during the inspection, as appropriate.
Included in the discussions is the scope of inspection, including estimated deviations, records, procedures for documents to be reviewed, and personnel to be interviewed.
Clarification of Allegations Investigation of the following two allegations mentioned in the tape in question were withdrawn or corrected by the alleger.
Allegation No. 6 That Brown & Root made new procedures that will result in the use of FREAs that will circumvent writing NCRs.
Inv'estigative Findings Individual A, when questioned concerning this allegation, advised that the mention of this item on the tape was meant as a " comment, not an allegation."
Individual A remarked that this comment was made during a conversation and was not meant to be interpreted as an allegation.
Individual A explained that presently there is no concern over this new procedure.
Allegation No. 7 That safety-related work was being done by B&R because deficiency reports had been written up.
Investigative Findings Interview of Individual C disclosed that this comment, made on the tape in question, was a misstatement and that the comment should be corrected to state "that no safety-related work was being done by Brown & Root, etc...."
Individual C explained that upon making that statement an error was made and there is not presently a concern in this area.
Generic Allegations Investigation of the following listed allegations disclosed that these allegations are internal generic problems that were addressed and presented to HL&P and B&R management during the exit intervie *
.
Allegation No. 8 That B&R personnel have low morale and the attitude of personnel is such that "no one wants to be around working when Unit 1 is fired up."
Investigative Findings Interview of Individuals 0, E, F, G, H, I, J, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, and R (14 individuals) disclosed that about half of these individuals believe that morale of B&R employees is low because of being transferred from one job to another, nepotism, and favoritism on the part of the foremen and general foremen.
In addition, about half of the individuals stated that they did not want to be around when the Unit 1 is fired up because of rumors or stories they have heard concerning poor workmanship.
These individuals, when pressed for details, could not provide specific examples or cite actual cases involving questionable activities.
Most of these individuals, when pressed for more information, explained it was a feeling they had which was hard to express in words.
(Herr /Tapia/Gagliardo)
Allegation No. 9 That the termination shack lacks environmental controls to keep calibrated equipment from going out of tolerance.
Investigative Findings Individuals N, 0, and P explained that the termination shack has received insulation during the past few weeks and that this additional protection would hopefully stop any great temperature fluctuation, and believed that this additional protection will help maintain the equipment sitting on the shelves to remain in tolerance for a longer period of time.
Allegation No. 10 That Brown & Root conducted a survey of employees to identify problem areas and solicited recommendations for improvement but the results are unknown.
Investigative Findings At the exit interview, it was acknowledged that a survey was conducted, and the results will be made available to all employees.
Allegation No. 11 That Brown & Root's temporary power department in the electrical division is ordering supplies from the permanent power department which is inconsistent with B&R's internal procedures, l
l
.
Interview of Individual V disclosed that he is in charge of the temporary power department, however, the termination shack does come under his management.
Individual V explained that the termination shack is the only permanent power department under his jurisdiction and he can order supplies for his temporary power group from the permanent power group department based upon needs.
Exit On April 10, 1981, an exit interview was conducted at the offices of HL&P in Houston, Texas.
Present were two HL&P upper management representatives and two B&R upper management representatives, as well as the Deputy Director, Region IV, and Director of Investigation and Enforcement.
All of the above allegations were discussed.
Allegation No. 8 was discussed in detail resulting in B&R's representatives stating they were concerned with the area and will make a determined effort to pinpoint the cause and take appropriate action.
Allegation No. 9 was discussed and B&R representa-tives. remarked it is a matter being addressed at the present time.
B&R representatives advised that Allegation No.10 concerning a survey was conducted by an outside contract agency and that efforts would be mad'e to assure that word of the results of the survey will be forwarded to all employees.
Allegation '40. 11 was addressed and B&R representatives stated the procedure would be reexamined.
Additional comments attributed to Individual L concerning anyone who reports to or talks to anyone outside the Brown & Root Company about problems of B&R would be fired, were discussed.
B&R representatives remarked that this alleged comment will be addressed by B&R to assure that comments of this nature by any individual are not supported by the upper management of B&R.
In addition, it was pointed out that B&R telephone operators dc not have ready access to the telephone number of the NRC Resident Inspector.
.
.
f,
00CUMENTS The written statements and copies of all documents identified herein relating to these allegations are being maintained in the NRC, Region IV, office.
The following is a list o' documents utilized in this report:
.
1.
Document 1 - St.
aent of Individual C, dated April 1, 1981 2.
Document 2 - Statement of Individual T, dated April 9, 1981 Y
d
.
l
.