IR 05000498/1981035
| ML20039E966 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1981 |
| From: | Galiardo J, Herr R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039E948 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-498-81-35, 50-499-81-35, NUDOCS 8201110669 | |
| Download: ML20039E966 (7) | |
Text
-
-
_-.
-.-
.
.
.
APPENDIX
,
U. S. NUCLEAP. REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
,
!
Investigation Report No. 50-498/81-35; 50-499/81-35 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: October 29-November 10, 1981
,
-t Investigator:
5,
/4//.pg/,*,P/
Ry K.,H6rr, Senior Investigator Date Iinvesti tion and Enforcement Staff
'
-
'
q L th 11 M 2/
'
Approved by:
- f
'U\\,E. Galgliarco, Director Date
-
Investigation and Enforcement Staff i
)
Summary
Investigation on October 29-November 10, 1981 (Report No. 50-498/81-35;
50-499/81-35).
l Area Investicated:
Allegations of intimidation and decreasing emphasis on
..
quality.
This investigation involved 10 manhours by one NRC investigator.
m.
j Results
-
Investigation disclosed no evidence of intimidation; however, it did confirm that a preventive maintenance foreman, on one occasion, did comment that he was more interested in quantity than quality.
,
,
8201110669 820108
,
PDR ADOCK 05000498 T
..
.
i,v
,
-
,,
,.
-
-
,-
.y-.
~..
_
.
-
-
.
_ _ _
i l
,
.
.
l
>
1, SUMMARY A
Investigation disclosed that the allegations of intimidation by a preventive
maintenance (PM) foreman towards a QC inspector and two subordinates was
partially true.
Interview of the QC inspector, maintenance foreman, and a witness resulted in the identification of a disagreement between a QC inspector
.
and a foreman, wherein the QC inspector o' ecame somewhat hostile towards the
,
foreman.
Investigation disclosed no evidence that the preventive maintenance i
foreman in question intimidated, or attempted to intimidate, the QC inspector,.
as a result of the hostile attitude of the QC inspector.
Interviews with one of the maintenance journeymen disclosed that the foreman in question engaged in
.
fisticuffs with him 3 weeks earlier, over the weekend at a local bar, while
{
playing pool.
The subordinate stated that the fisticuffs had nothing to do I
with work and that his superior (foreman) has not displayed any indication of intimidation towards him before or after the fisticuffs.
Another subordinate
i stated he felt intimidated by the foreman in question because the foreman made
__ _ _.
'
a statement to the effect that he (the foreman) was only interested in quantity
{
not quality, and if anyone reported this comment to the NRC that he would fire
this individual.
Is.terview of three individuals resulted in all three stating they had heard the foreman in question make a comment to the effect that he was
" interested in quantity not quality; and one of the witnesses overheard the subject foreman state words.to the effect that if anybody notified the NRC
-;
about this, he would fire them.
The foreman in question stated he did not recall making any such statements and emphasized that he stressed quality to all his subordinates.
Interview of other subordinates disclosed that quality has.been
,
j emphasized in their work and this attitude has been prevalent in the past.
BACKGROUND i
On October 29, 1981, Individual A, a Brown & Root (B&R) employee telephonically contacted the Resident Reactor Inspector (RRI) at his office, located at the l
South Texas Project (STP), and reported that Individual I had intimidated a QC
'
inspector and two of his subordinates.
In addition, Individual A maintained
^~
.
that Individual I made a comment to the effect that he (Individual I) was interested in quantity not quality, ana words to the effect that if anybody reported this statement to the NRC, that the person would be fired.
!
...
,
gyb w
T
7 t
1
,
-
__.- --. -,-,,
,y
,
, _. -,
.
,,y
_
.4 m
..m,
.,,,. u,
._
-
.
.
Details 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Emoloyee J. E. Geiger, HL&P QA Manager Principal Brown & Root Emoloyee G. Martin, Assistant Project Manager Other Individuals
,
2.
Investigation of Allegations
-
.._ --
Allegation No. 1 That Individual I, a Brown & Root (B&R) Millwright Foreman, assigned to the preventive maintenance department (PMD) intimidated Individual H, a B&R QC inspector.
<
Investigative Findings Interview of Individual H disclosed that recently, after he had written up a number of QC discrepancies against the preventive maintenance
!
department, Individual I had made a comment to his (Individual I's)
supervisor to the effect that he (Individua.1 H) had been somewhat unfair in his QA/QC analysis in one area of the preventive maintenance
'
department.
Individual H stated that he took exception to this comment and confronted Individual I on a number of occasions to determine if Individual I was calling him a liar.
Individual H stated that Individual
,
'
'
I would not discuss this situation with him.
Interview with Individual I
~
,
disclosed that in accordance with B&R procedures, when a disagreement with a QC inspector occurs, he is to immediately notify his supervisor.
'
Individual I continued by stating that his supervisor and Individual H's supervisor got together and resolved the issue.
Individual I remarked
.,_
~
that Individual H got very upset with him for not discussing the situation with him and voiced a strong objection because he (Individual I) had
-"
passed the disagreement to the supervisory level.
Individual I denied any in,timidation and indicated that if any intimidation had occurred, that Individual H had unsuccessfully attempted to intimidate him.
Interview of witnesses, Individuals C and D, both B&R employees, confirmed that Individual I did not intimidate nor attempt to intimidate Individual H i
adding that Individual H was subsequently transferred to another area of responsibility.
a
_
i
= -
n..
-
-e m
,
,
_.
.
.
.
Allecation No. 2 That Individual I had intimidated Individual E, a subordinate, when Individuals I and E engaged in a fistfight, wherein Individual I won the fight.
Investigation Findings Individual A stated that Individual E told him that he (Individual E) and
'
Individual I had a disagreement that resulted in Individual I beating him up.
Interview with Individual E resulted in him executing a signed j
statement (Attachment 1) wherein he stated that approximately 3 weeks ago, he and Individual I were playing pool at a local bar, over the weekend, when a disagreement came up that resulted in a fistfight.
Individual E explained that he had been drinking beer with Individual I all afternoon and that the fight had nothing to do with job-related activities.
. _ _ _.
Individual E remarked that he and Individual I have made up and continue to work harmoniously as they have in the past and that Individual I has not attempted to intimidate him.
Interview of Individual I disclosed that he and Individual H had a disagreement while playing pool at a local bar, approximately 3 weeks ago.
Individual I stated they both had been drinking beer all afternoon and things "just got out of hand."
Individual I explained that the argument had nothing to do with job-related activities and since that time, Individual H and he have become friends.
Individual I denied intimidating or attempting to intimiate Individual E.
Allegation No. 3 Individual A alleged that Individual I made a statement that he (Individual I) was more concerned with quantity than quality.
Individual A added that Individuals F, G, and H overheard this comment.
-
-
!
Investigative Findings Interview with Individual H disclosed that when Individual I was
..
confronted with the number of deficiencies found in the preventive
'
maintenanca department in an area under his direction, he made a comment
___.
"~
to the effect that he (Individual I) was interested in quantity not quality.
Individual H remarked that it was his impression that Individual I was joking.
Interview with Individual G resulted in his executing a signed statement (Attachment 2) wherein he stated that he was present when Individual I made a comment to the effect that he (Individual I) was worried about quantity not quality.
Individual G explained that Individual I is his supervisor and Individual I was under pressure to check the desiccant in
,
.
.
$
-
_
_
. _ _.
_
__,,.c$
,
. _,,
-
_
-
.
all the valves under his area of responsibility in a relatively short period of time.
Individual G admitted that in opening the valves to ensure that the desiccant was acceptable, he felt hurried and pushed and as a result he did nut reseal the valves properly.
Individual G remarked that he did not retape all the valves in accordance with the procedures because of the short time limit he had and the large number of valves he had to check. Individual G stated that when a QC inspector discovered that not all the valves were sealed properly and confronted Individual I with this information, Individual I made the comment about quantity versus quality.
Individual G believed that Individual I was serious because Individual I was under pressure from his supervisors to check and tag over one thousand valves in a short period of time.
Interview of Individual F resulted in Individual F executing a signed statement (Attachment 3) wherein he stated he was present when Individual
- --
I made a comment to the effect that he (Individual I) was more concerned with quantity than quality.
Individual F explained the comment was made shortly after Individual H confronted him about deficiencies found by the
<
quality control department regarding the proper sealing of valves.
Individual F remarked that it was his impression that Individual I was under pressure from the supervisors.
Individual F also emphasized that he overheard Individual I state, when confronted with the possiblity of NRC hecoming aware of his comments, "You would not like to look for another job, either." Individual F interpreted the remark as a threat of being fired if anyone went to the NRC about his comment concerning quantity versus quality.
Individual F stated that approximately 3 weeks later, it was his understanding that Individual I's supervisor, Individual B, became aware of the comment and began monitoring Individual I's work more closely.
Interview of Individual B, B&R Preventive Maintenance Department Superintendent, revealed that he was aware of Individual I's involvement
'
in a dispute with Individual E at a local bar.
Individual B explained
_,
that he talked to Individual E to determine if he wanted a transfer; however, Individual E requested to remain at his present position.
Individual B remarked that he was also aware of a disagreement between Individual I and Individual H concerning the improper sealing of valves.
-~
,
A Individual B stated that Individual I's Jmmediate supervisor got together with Individual H's immediate supervisor and they settled the issue
~
. __;
satisfactorily.
Individual B stated that he was also aware of a comment i
made by Individual I that quantity was more important than quality and stated that he had been monitoring the PM department to ensure compliance with all B&R procedures.
Individual B stated that in his opinion the preventive maintenance department is presently operating properly.
Interview of Individual I Individual I-initially denied making comments to the effect he was more interested in quantity than quality and that if anyone went to the NRC that he would fire them.
Individual I subsequently, stated during interviews, that he could "not recall" making such comments; however, he pointed out that during this time frame in mid to late October 1981, his supervisor told him an audit of his department was scheduled in about 2 weeks.
Individual I explained that to ensure his department was
{
operating properly and would make a good showing in the audit, he was
,.
_ _ _ _
__.
_
. _
...
.
instructed by his supervisors to recheck and tag all valves under his area of responsibility.
Individual I remarked that he had about 2,000 valves to unseal and check the desiccant, reseal, and tag the valves and he had a short time frame to accomplish this task with only two men.
Individual I explained that eventually he assigned ten men to the above task in order
'
to prepare for the audit.
Individual I admitted that some valves were not resealed properly, but since that time all valves have been properly seal.
Individual I advised that he was working under a lot of pressure from his supervisors.
a s
'
.
..
k
.
,
$
.
.
J l
.
4 i
%
+
V*
I MD
- ?
m
/
f
1
,1
'
-
.
. - -
-..
.
-.
___ _ _
..
. - _....
.
_
..i
.
Documents The written statements of documents identified herein relating to these allegations are being maintained at the NRC Region IV Office.
The following is a list of documents utilized in this report.
1.
Statement of Individual E, dated November 9, 1981.
2.
Statement of Individual G, dated November 10, 1981.
3.
Statement of Individual F, dated November 9, 1981.
-
,
...
!
l
..
l l
l r
!
- *
,
.
.