ML19210D185
| ML19210D185 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1979 |
| From: | Crossman W, Hubacek W, Phillips H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19210D177 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-498-79-14, 50-499-79-14, NUDOCS 7911260015 | |
| Download: ML19210D185 (13) | |
See also: IR 05000498/1979014
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFTICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEFENT
REGION IV
Report No.
50-498/79-14; 50-499/79-14
Docket No.
50-498; 50-499
Category A2
Licensee:
Houston Lighting and Power Company
Post Office Box 1700
Houston, Texas
77001
Facility Name: South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2
Investigation At:
South Texas Project, Matagorda County, Texas
Investigation Conducted: September 4-7 and 11-14, 1979
Inspectors: M,9MMd
/o/// h7
W. G. Hubacek, Reactor Inspector
Date
Projects Section
NY79
==
k II
S. Phillips, Resident Reactor Inspector
Date
o
Projects Section
Approved:
[ff.g7 e-
/S[#/7f
W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section
Date
Investigatioc Summary:
Investigation cn September 4-7 and 11-14, 1979 (Report No 50-498/79-14;
50-499/79-14)
Areas Investigated:
Special, unannounced investigation of allegations
regarding nonconforming construction practices and insufficient quality
control programs for construction at the South Texas Project. The investi-
gation involved eighty inspector-hours by two PRC inspectors.
Results: One item of noncompliance (failure to follow procedures for release
of Stop-Work Notice
paragraph 2.i.) and one deviation (failure to include the
date and identification of person entering supplemental information on an
inspection report - paragraph 2.h.) were identified during the investigation.
1392
297'
7911260 O/
INTRODUCTION
The South Texas Project, Units No. I 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 & Root, Incorpo-
rated is both Architect Engineer and Constructor for the project.
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION
During a recent site inspection,1/ the Region IV Project Inspector was notified
by the licensee of alleged incidents of intimidation of QC inspectors by
Brown and Root construction personnel.
In addition, information concerning
alleged QA/QC irregularities at the South Texas Project was received by Region
IV from confidential sources.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
On August 8, 1979, the licensee reported alleged intimidation incidents to
the Project Inspector. Subsequently, allegations of QA/QC program irregu-
larities were received from confidential sources. The following specific
allegations were expressed:
1.
Two Brown end Root QC inspectors were intimidated by five Brown and Root
construction persons.
2.
Brown & Rect QC inspectors were involved in continuous card games
during working hours for a several month period in 1977. The QC inspec-
tors left the card games only to sign inspection forms when requested by
construction and immediately returned to the card games without performing
inspections of safety-related work.
3.
Waterproofing membrane was installed at night on Reactor Containment
Building (RCB), Unit No. I and Fuel Handling Building (FHB), Units No.
I and 2 without proper QC inspection prior to backfill.
4.
Holes left in concrete walls of safety-related structures following
removal of tapered form ties were not solidly filled with grout.
5.
Cadweld inspection reports were signed by QC inspectors who had not per-
formed the reported inspections.
6.
Lift 5 of RCB, Unit No. 2 contained 116 Cadwelds which were not accounted
for.
7.
Some Cadweld inspection forms were hanging on the walls of the QC field
shack and had not been submitted to the QA records vault since January
1979.
1/ IE Inspector Report 50-498/79-13; 50-499/79-13
2
1392 298
..
.
...
8.
An inspection report for the RCB, Unit No. 1 equipment hatch contained an
entry by a person other than the inspector responsible for the report.
The
entry was not signed or dated by the person who made the entry.
9.
A QC inspector was given verbal instructions to disregard a stop-work
notice and sign the concrete pour card for placement No. ME2-M3.
10.
A void in the concrete in the area where the FHB ties into RCB, Unit No. I
was not repaired in accordance with approved procedures.
CONCLUSIONS
1.
The alleged intimidation of two QC inspectors by five construction
persons could not be sustantiated or refuted due to conflicting state-
ments made by these individuals during interviews by the NRC investiga-
tion team. The QC persons involved conveyed strong impressions that
statements made to them by the five construction persons were perceived
as serious threats that were meant to hinder their performance as QC
inspectors.
The five construction persons denied making direct threats
or using abusive language in direct conversations with the QC inspectors.
One of the construction persons stated that he may have made statements
about objects falling on one of the inspectors, but such statements were
meant as safety concerns or possibly were meant as jokes but not as
threats.
Another construction person stated that he may have made remarks
about one of the QC inspectors, but denied making abusive or intimidating
remarks directly to the inspector. The licensee's actions in response to
this incident have apparently been effective in preventing further similar
incidents.
2.
The allegation that Brown & Roct QC inspectors were involved in con-
tinuous card games during working hours for several months in 1977 with
detrimental effects on QC inspections could not be substantiated. The
investigation team interviewed nine individuals who were present at the
site during the alleged card games, but none were aware of the card
games that were alleged to have occurred in 1977. Two of the individuals
stated that card games took place in 1976, but were not of the scope
alleged and did not have adverse impact on the performance of inspections
by QC personnel.
3.
The allegation that waterproofing membrane was installed at night on
RCB, Unit No. I and FHB, Units No. I and 2 without proper QC inspection
could not be substantiated. Five individuals interviewed by the investi-
gation team stated that they had no knowledge of improper inspection of
the membrane prior to backfilling. Review of QC records and the inspection
procedure for waterproofing membrane was inconclusive and resulted in the
identification of an unresolved item pertaining to the frequency of
inspections stated in the procedure.
1392 299
3
-
. . . . .
. .
- .
. . _ _ . . .
4.
The allegation that holes left in concrete walls of safety-related
structures after removal of tapered form ties were not solidly filled
with grout was substantiated; however, this matter was previously identi-
fied and documented by the licensee.
Corrective action was in progress.
5.
The allegation that Cadweld inspection reports were signed by QC inspec-
tors who had not performed the reported inspections could not be sub-
stantiated nor refuted. The confidential source of this information
declined to provide information to support this allegation. Two
individuals previously named by the alleger as individuals who signed
the inspection reports were no longer employed at STP and were not
available for interview.
6.
The allegation that Lift 5 of RCB, Unit No. 2 contained 116 Cadwelds that
could not be accounted for was substantiated; however, it was determined
that this matter was previously identifi-d by the licensee and documented
in a nonconformance report.
7.
The allegation that some Cadweld inspection forms were hanging on the
wall in the QC field shack and had not been submitted to the QA records
vault since January 1979 could not be substantiated.
It was determined
by direct inspection of the QC field shack that the alleged inspection
records were not hanging on the wall in the QC field shack.
Interviews
with personnel indicated that only duplicate copies of records are
maintained in the field shack and originals are promptly forwarded to the
QA records vault upon completion of required inspection and Cadweld
location verifications.
8.
The allegation that an inspection report for the RCB, Unit No. 1 equipment
hatch contained an unsigned and undated entry by a person other than the
responsible QC inspector was substantiated and resulted in issuance of a
citation to the licensee for deviating from a PSAR commitment to ANSI
N45.2.9Property "ANSI code" (as page type) with input value "ANSI</br></br>N45.2.9" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process..
It was determined that an entry was made on an inspection report
related to placements CSI-12A and CSI-13A by the responsible QC inspector's
lead inspector. The lead inspector failed to date and sign the entry
contrary to ANSI N45.2.9, which requires that such entries be dated and
the individual making the entry be identified.
9.
The allegation that a QC inspector was instructed to disregard a stop-
work notice and sign a concrete pour card for placement ME2-M3 was
substantiated and resulted in the issuance of a citation to the licensee
for failure to follow procedures in the release of a stop-work notice.
It
was determined that the QC inspector was verbally instructed to sign the
concrete pour card for placement ME2-M3 on July 20, 1979, although
Stop-Work Notice S-14 applicable to the placement was still in effect.
The Stop-Work Notice was not released in writing until August 1, 1979,
several days af ter placement ME2-M3 was completed. Brown & Root procedures
do not provide for verbal release of stop-work notices.
1392
300
4
-. _ _ _ . .
.
10.
The allegation that a void in the concrete in the area where FHB, Unit
No. I ties into RCB, Unit. No. I was not repaired in accordance with
approved procedures could not be substantiated.
Individuals interviewed
were aware of the 'xistence of some small voids in the area but maintained
that they were sma'i and were repaired in accordance with established
nrocedures.
They were not aware of any voids that were improperly repaired.
1392
301
.
5
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Principal Licensee Employees
- T. D. Stanley, Project QA Supervisor
- M. H. Smith, Plant QA Supervisor
- R. L. Ulrey, Senior QA Specialist
- B. K. Schulte, Junior Engineer
- H. E. Orban, Construction Supervisor
L. D. Wilson, Site QA Supervisar
W. N. Phillips, Projects QA Manager
C. L. Grosso, Associate Engineer
Brown & Root Employees
G. T. Warnick, Site QA Manager
- D. Shumway, QC Shift Supervisor
- E. Tolley, Construction Chief Engineer
- W. Abrams, QA Engineering Supervisor
The IE inspectors also interviewed other licensee and contractor employees
including members of the QA/QC and engineering staffs.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview on September 14, 1979.
2.
Investigation Details
The fol] aing specific allegations were investigated during this investi-
gation.
Resultant findings of the NRC investigation team are indicated
below:
a.
Allegation 1: Two Brown & Root (B&R) QC inspectors were intimidated by
five Brown & Root construction persons.
The alleged intimidation
included threats to throw the QC inspectors out of a building, to drop
things on one QC inspector, and the use of vulgar and abusive language
in reference to the two QC inspectors.
Investigation Findings: The investigation team interviewed eight
individuals (A through H) who were identified in the allegation
as the persons involved in the alleged intimidation.
6
1392
302
(1)
Interview with Individual "F"
Individual "F" stated that the first incident of intimidation
occurred approximately 1 months ago when "F" was inspecting
the Unit 1 Turbine Generator (TG-1) Building.
When "F" wrote
a Noncontorm.sace Report on the storage of equipment that was
located in the area "F" was called a vulgar name by individual
"D".
Individual "F" stated that approximately one week after the
above incident, individual "G" threatened to throw "F" and
individual "H" out of the TG-1 Building if "F" placed any more
QC hold tags.
"F" stated that, although "G" did not appear to
be angry, the threat was not perceived as a joke.
Individual "F" also stated that individual "A" (described as
short-tempered) called "F" vulgar names on several occasions,
some of which were witnessed by individuals "E" and "H".
Individual "F" further stated that on another occasion individual
"C" had asked what "F" was doing in the Unit 1 Fuel Handling
Building (FHB) and questioned "F's" ability and knowledge of
procedures.
"F" stated that "C" used abusive language during
this encounter.
During the interview "F" stated that "F" took assigned respon-
sibilities seriously and that there had been no direct accusations
of " nit picking" or playing "I got you" by construction.
"F"
was not aware of any other cases of intimidation of QC inspectors
by construction personnel.
(2)
Interview with Individual "H"
Individual "H" stated that approximately 1 to 2 months ago
while inspecting equipment storage in RCB, Unit No. 1
(accom-
panied by individual "E"),
"H" was at a drinking water cooler
when "B" stopped for a drink and threw a used cup on the floor.
"B" picked up the cup after "H" mentioned it to him.
"B" then
asked what "H" was doing and stated that things (spud wrench)
could fall on "H's" head if anything was written up in his
area.
Individual "H" was with "F"
when "G" stated that he would
remove them from the TG-1 Building if another hold tag were
hung.
"H" perceived this threat as harassment rather than
as actual intent to physically remove "F" and "H" from the
building.
}
}b
.
"H" feels that others may consider "H"
to be a " nit picker".
"H" has had no further contact with "B" since the incident.
(3)
Interviet, with Individual "E"
Individual "E" stated that "E" was present when "B" told
"H" not to write up anything in his building.
"E" heard "B"
say to "H" that "something may drop on you".
"E" stated that
"B" spoke on this subject for approximately five minutes and
went out of his way to make his meaning clear.
"E" stated
that he felt concerned about "H's" safety although "B" did
not appear to be angry or upset. The conversation took place
near the water cooler in the RCB, Unit No. 1.
"E" recalled instances where individual "A" used vulgar lan-
guage in reference to "F" but not in direct conversation with
ff{ft
"E" had no knowledge of intimidation of QC personnel other than
individuals "F" and "H".
"E" stated that he is not aware of any
recent problems wit- intimidation or abusive language since
these incidents.
(4)
Interview with Individual "D"
Individual "D" stated that he had no problems in his contacts
with QC and he does not consider QC inspectors to be nit pickers.
"D" did not recall any instances of the use of vulgar language
in conversations with QC personnel.
(5)
Interview with Individuai "B"
'
Individual "B" stated that approximately 2 months ago in the RCB,
Unit No. I he splashed water into his eyes to relieve welding
burns and threw the empty cup on the floor.
"B" was approached
by "H" (accompanied by "E") who stated "H" could " write up" "B"
for throwing the cup on the floor.
"B" then picked up the cup.
"B" stated that he did not recall specifically what was said
during the incident and maintained he did not threaten "H".
In
response to the IE inspector's questions,
"B" stated that he
may have said that something could fall on the QC inspector's
head since they were in an area where there was the possi'uility
of falling objects, but he stated that if such was the case, no
harm was intended.
"B" further stated that he may have made
such a statement as a joke.
"B" stated that he gets along well with QC.
1392
304
8
.
..
. . _
.
(6)
Interview with Individual "A"
Individual "A" stated that he did not recall the specific
instance of the use of vulgar language alleged by "F" but
stated that it was possible that he may have done so.
"A" said that he had had no problems with other QC inspectors.
(7)
Interview with Individual "C"
Individual "C" stated that he could not recall any instances
where verbal abuse or vulgar language was used in conversations
with individual
"F".
"C" stated that he first became aware of
the problem when he was called in to discuss the matter with
the Brown & Root Project Manager.
"C" feels that the QC inspectors involved are over-zealous and
" nit picking".
(8) Interview with Individual "G"
Individual "G" stated that he recalls speaking to "F" in the
Turbine Generator Building but denied that he made any threats
against "F" or any other QC inspectors.
Discussions with licensee and Brown & Root representatives re-
vealed that the individuals involved in the alleged intimidation
incidents had been counselled by management and instructed to
conduct themselves at a high level of professionalism. The
individuals were informed that future occurrences of similar
incidents could result in removal of offenders from the job-
site. The licensee and Brown & Root representatives
stated that this matter was viewed with grave concern and that
methods of dealing with similar problems in the future,
including establishing a special group to hear grievances, are
being considered.
This allegation was neither substantiated nor refuted.
b.
Allegation 2:
Brown & Root QC inspectors were involved in continuous
card games during working hours for a several month period in 1977.
The QC inspectors left the card games only to sign inspection forms
when requested by construction and immediately returned to the card
games without performing inspections of safety-related work.
Investigation Finding: The investigation team interviewed nine
individuals who were present at the STP site during the time of
the alleged card games. None of the individuals interviewed had
any knowledge of the extensive card games alleged to have occurred
in 1977; however, two of the individuals indicated they knew of
card games which took place in 1976. The two individuals stated
}hh2
9
__
..
_
..
.
that the 1976 card games were not extensive but took place during
periods of lit tle construction activity and involved QC personnel
who had little or no work to do.
Two other individuals stated that
they had heard of the 1976 card games from other site personnel but
had no direct knowledge of the games. None of the nine individuals
interviewed vere aware of any cases where QC inspectors failed
to properly inspect safety-related activities or signed inspection
records only when requested by construction because of participation
in card games.
This allegation was not substantiated.
c.
Allegation 3:
Waterproofing membrane was installed at night on
RCB, Unit No. I and FHB, Units No. I and 2 without pr,per QC inspection
prior to the placement of backfill.
Investigation Finding: The investigation team interviewed five
individuals who were involved or had previously been involved in
inspection of waterproofing membrane installation. All of the
individuals stated that they had no knowledge of the placement of
backfill against the membrane prior to proper completion of membrane
inspections by QC.
During review of documents related to membrane installation, the IE
inspector observed that there were apparent inconsistencies in pro-
cedure CCP-12 " Installation of Waterstop and Waterproofing Membrane,"
Revision 4 relative to the scope and frequency of the required QC
inspections.
Paragraph 3.3.1 of the procedure states that the QC
inspector will inspect the membrane system utilizing the Site QC
Schedule (appendix B).
Appendix B indicates that all but two items
on the schedule shall be inspected on a semiweekly basis.
The two
items - No. 280, "Special Application Techniques Employed," and No.
308, "Not Damaged to the Point Where Membrane Needs to be Repaired,"
are shown requiring inspection daily, as applicable. Paragraph
3.4.3.1 of the procedure states that all membrane surfaces will be
visually inspected by QC for discontinuities and imperfections.
During discussion of the above CCP-12 requirements with licensee
and contractor personnel, some individuals interpreted the procedure
to require 100% inspection of the membrane, other individuals inter-
preted the procedure to require something less than 100% inspection.
This matter is considered unresolved pending clarification of CCP-12
membrane inspection requirements and subsequent review by IE.
This allegation was not substantiated.
d.
Allegation 4: Holes left in concrete walls of safety related struc-
tures following removal of tapered form ties were not solidly filled
with grout.
10
1392
306
-
.
Investigation Finding; The investigation team was informed by
licensee and contractor representatives that improper grouting of
tapered tie holes was first identified in Deficiency and Disposition
Report S-0325 hich was initiated on December 29, 1977. Similar,
problems related to improper grouting of tapered tie holes were
documented in Nonconformance Reports S-C2257, S-C3126 and S-C3130
initiated on May 18, 1979, August 30, 1979, and September 10, 1979,
respectively, which remain open pending completion of corrective
action.
This allegation was substantiated; however, this matter had been
identified by the licensee and corrective action was in progress.
e.
Allegation 5: Cadweld inspection reports were signed by two QC
inspectors who had not performed the related Cadweld inspections.
Investigation Findings: The confidential source of this allegation
declined to provide information to support the allegation. Two
individuals previously named by the alleger as individuals who
signed the inspection reports were no longer in the STP area and
were not available for interview.
This allegation was neither substantiated nor refuted.
f.
Allegation 6: There were 116 Cadwelds in Lift 5 of RCB, Unit No. 1
wall that could not be accounted for.
Investigation Findings: The investigation team was informed by
licensee representatives that Nonconformance Report (NCR) S-C2228,
dated April 26, 1979, documents that 114 Cadwelds shown by original
QC documentation to be in Lift 5 of RCB, Unit No. 2, were, in fact,
not in Lift 5.
The 114 Cadwelds were shown to be in Lift 5 due to
errors made by QC personnel in the frame of reference used to
determine as-built locations.
Correct locations of the Cadwelds
areexpectedtobeestablishedby27eansofthecurrentlyongoing
computer-assisted records reviev
This allegation was substantiated; however, the problem was pre-
viously identified by the licensee,
g.
Allegation 7:
Some Cadweld inspection forms were hanging on the
wall in the QC field shack and had not been submitted to the QA
records vault since January 1979.
Investigation Finding:
During inspection of the Cadweld QC field
shack, the IE inspector did not observe any Cadweld inspection forms
hanging on the walls of the shack. The IE inspector was informed
2/ IE Report No. 50-498/79-09; 50-499/79-09
11
{392
307
.
by the licensee representatives that only duplicate copies of
inspection records and Field Engineering as-built location records
are maintaineil in the field.
Original records are promptly for-
warded to the QA records vault after completion and checking by
the lead ins}rctor.
This allegation was not substantiated.
h.
Allegation 8: An inspection report for the RCB, Unit No. I equip-
ment hatch contained an entry by a person other than the inspector
responsible for the report. The entry was not signed and dated by the
person who made the entry.
Investigation Findings: The investigation team observed that the
subject inspection report (Examination Check form for placements
CSI-12A and CSI-13A, dated November 9, 1978) contained an entry
on the back of the form that was made by a person other then the
responsible inspector. The entry had not been signed or dated.
Discussions with licensee representatives revealed that the entry
was made by the responsible inspector's lead inspector in response
to remarks entered on the back of the report by the responsible
inspector. The person who made the entry signed and dated his
entry on September 13, 1979, while the investigation was in pro-
gress. The IE inspector informed the licensee that failure to
sign and date the entry on the report at the time it was made was
a deviation from ANSI N45.2.9-1974 in that supplemental information
was entered on the report without including the date and identifi-
cation of the person who made the supplemental entry.
This allegation was substantiated.
i.
Allegation 9: A QC inspector was given verbal instructi'ns to dis-
o
regard a stop-work notice and sign the concrete pour card for
placement No. ME2-M3.
Investigation Finding: The investigation team reviewed records
related to placement ME2-M3 which indicated that the placement
was made on July 20, 1979, but that a documented partial release
of the related stop-work notice (No. S-14) was not approved until
August 1, 1979. Discussions with the responsible B&R representa-
tive revealed that he verbally instructed the QC inspector to sign
the concrete pour card with the understanding that the written release
of the stop work notice would immediately be issued. The B&R repre-
sentative also stated that neither Section 15.0 of the B&R QA
Manual nor QA Procedure ST-QAP 2.7 provide for verbal release of
stop-work notices and that B&R QA was at fault in failing to issue
a written release concurrently with the verbal release on July 20,
1979.
- a
d 2 308
12
The IE inspector reformed the licensee that verbal release of the
stop-work noti <e is considered to be an item of noncompliance
with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, in that procedures or
instructions affecting iguality were not followed.
This allegatica .as substantiated.
j.
Allegation 10: A void in the concrete in the area where the FHB ties
into RCP, Unit No. I was not repaired in accordance with approved
procedures.
Investigation Finding: The investigation team interviewed seven
individuals concerning the existence of a void in the area where
the FHB ties into RCB, Unit No. 1.
Two of the individuals were aware of
small voids in this area but stated that they were small and did
not affect the integrity of the structures. Repairs were classed
as " cosmetic" and were accomplished in accordance with established
procedures. The other five of the seven individuals stated that
they had no knowledge of a void in this area. The allegation lacked
specific information regarding the location of the void, consequently
review of pertinent records was not performed.
This allegation was not substantiated.
3.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are catters about which more information is required
in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of non-
compliance or deviations. An unresolved item disc 30 sed during the
investigation is discussed in paragraph 2.c.
4.
Exit Interview
The IE inspectors met with licensee.representeLives (denoted in Isara-
graph 1) at the conclusion of the investigation on September 14, 1979.
The IE inspectors summarized the purpose and the scope of the investi-
gation, reviewed the allegations and the findings, and discussed the
unresolved item, the item of noncompliancs and the deviation.
1392
309
13