ML19325E410
| ML19325E410 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1989 |
| From: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | NATIONAL INSPECTIONS & CONSULTANTS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19325E411 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8911070010 | |
| Download: ML19325E410 (6) | |
Text
Ueditt0 STAfts
'#j>* he?gA NucttAR RaoutAnRY COWMsslON 4
- 8 atoioes m f
m noo.svin meno
.s
.u.uv. iu.~oi...m g '"*
- a 00T 26 989 President AMS Rll!-85-A-0006 National Inspection and Consultants suite 207 3949 Evans Avenue Ft. Meyers, FL 33901
Dear Sir:
SUBJELT: DISCRIMINATION AGAINST EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN PROTECTED ACTIVITIES The purpose of this letter is to infom you of the results of the NRC Office of Investigations (01) Report No. 3-85-004 and to forward to you the resultant Notice of Violation issued to Illinois Power. The 01 investigation was conducted during the period of January 25, 1985, to April 18, 19G9, to determine, among other things, whether an alleged discriminatory act had occurredagainstNationalInspectionandConsultants(NIC)qualitycontrol(QC) inspectors by your Fir.d Services Vice President in the sumer of 1984.
The 01 report was t.ompleted on April 18, 1989, and a synopsis of the 01 report is provide /, for your infomation. The report concluded that your NIC Field Service 1 Vice President threatened NIC QC inspectors by indicating that the inspectors' employment would be terminated if they identified l
Clinton Power Station quality concerns to the NRC (Allegation No. 1).
Your Vice President threatened a group of about 30 to 40 NIC QC inspectors at the NIC office in Heyworth, Illinois. 01 investigators identified nine fomer NIC QC inspectors who were present at the N!C Heyworth, Illinois office in the sumer of 1984, and verified that your Vice President comunicated a threat to terminate the employment of any inspector who surfaced a quality issue to the
~
NRC.
The NRC has determined that the threat of adverse action against an employee for engaging in protected activities can be characterized as a " condition" of employment. Discrimination includes actions that relate to terms and conditions of employment. Therefore, the Vice President's threatened actinn was a violation of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50.7 because the threat constituted discrimination against employees engaging in protected activities.
We consider these actions by an officer of your coimany to be unacceptable.
Future similar actions on the part of NIC will not 3e tolerated and other enforcement actions as indicated in 10 CFR 50.7(c), will be pursued as
.1 appropriate. We request that you respond, in writing, within 60 days of i[
receipt of this letter identifying actions taken or planned to preclude j
repetition.
$$1338$ $NSh1
%BS'l 4
i A
m,..
i
\\
c
,1 1
2
.00T 2 6 $89 1
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Comission's regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
We will discuss any questions you have regarding this matter.
Sincerely, A. Bert Day s i
~
Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
I 1.
01 Report 3-85-004 Synopsis l
2.
Illinois Power Company j
letter dated 10/19/89 with l
cc w/ enc 1csure' 1
Mr. Gordon Lake, Vite President l
NationalInspectionandConsultants i
Suite 207, 3949 Evans Avenue, Ft. Meyers, FL 33901 Florida Power and Light Company Illinois Power Company l
Office of Enforcement, NRC M @RflM98)y PD i
i i
I I
i l
+
i I
SYN 0PSIS On January 25, 1985, the NRC Region !!! (NRC:Rl!!) Administrator requested that the Office of Investigations (01:R!l!) conduct an investigation to detemine whether National Inspection and Consultants (NIC)(discriminated i
against its employees working at the Clinton Power Station Clinton)for contacting the NRC with quality concerns. NIC was a company providing j
manpowertoBaldwinAssociates(BA),thefirmcontractedtoconstructClinton.
i l
Additionally, the NRC:R111 Administrator had requested on March 2g,1984, that 01:R!l! conduct an investigation to detemine if BA Quality Control (QC) l management had attempted to intimidate QC inspectors in violation of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
j These two investigations were initially pursued as separate matters. Since i
they ultimately involved the same individuals of BA:QC and Quality and Technical Service (Q&TS) management and occurred in approximately the same timeframe of 1984-1985, they are both detailed in this report.
j l
As both of these matters were investigated, six additional allegations were f
received by 01:Rllt. The scope of the investigation included the BA Quality Control Electrical (OCE), Quality Control Piping Mechanical (QCPM), QC, and O&TS management. The investigation encompassed 65 interviews of 60 individuals. As a result of these interviews, eight allegations are I
detailed in this report.
i l
i l
In Allegation 1 a fomer BA:QC inspector contracted through NIC alleged that I
in the sumer of 1984, he attended an NIC meeting at which the NIC Field Service Vice President threatened to teminate MIC employees tif they went to the hRC with a quality concern. An additional eight NIC employees who attended the meeting confirmed the N!C Field Service Vice President's threat.
i The NIC Field Service Vice President denied threatening the employees with temination for going to the NRC with a quality concern. The Vice President l
said that the employees probably misunderstood his
- alligator policy," which i
requires the NIC:QC inspectors to use the client's (BA's) procedures in reportinj deficiencies. The OI:RIII investigation detemined that although the NIC cield Service Vice President threatened the employees with temination r
for going to the NRC, the threat was never carried out. No evidence was found that the threat affected the NIC employees' perfomance in identifying and reporting deficiencies.
The second allegation involved an allegation made by a BA:QCE inspector that he was teminated as a result of writing nonconformance reports (hCRs). From May until July 1984, a BA:QCE inspector wrote a series of NCRs, same of which resulted in work being stopped. This was a period of high construction called into the QCE Supervisor's and the QC Manager'pector claimed he war, activity in the electrical area at Clintsn. The ins s office as a result of his NCRs and received threats from these supervisors over the NCRs. Thu i*
BA:QCE inspector also claimed he was transferred to a remote location "the l
cut shop." to prevent his writing NCRs. The QCE said after he wrote one NCR, he attempted unsuccessfully to contact the NRC about the problem. The QCE's supervisors denied that any actions were taken because of his NCRs, but rather because he had interpersonal problems in dealing with craft.
In late July Cate No. 3-85-004 1
i l
o f
1984, the BA:QCE inspector was teminated af ter an altercation with a QCE lead l
inspector. LA:QC management stated he was teminated for insubordination, f
The investigation confimed that the inspector was terminated for l
insubordination. Additionally, it was also detemined that his transfer to 1l the " cut shop was because of the NCRs.
j The third allegation dealt with an allegation that two BA:QCE inspectors provided felse infomation en their experience / education to BA. This false
'1 !
information was utilized by BA to certify them as QC inspectors. The first i
QCE inspector stated he had obtained a high school equivalency degree (GED) while in the military in 1971 and provided BA with a military record stating l
he had received a GED score of 86. This inspector claimed he had worked at other nuclear plants before Clinton and assumed they had verified his GED. A company official of the contract fim employing the first inspector became suspicious of a notation on the individual s m'litt.ry record and subsequent j
inquiries failed to verify the GED. The inspector was teminated as a result of this. An inquiry by 01:Rll! into the inspector's military record reflected that he had taken the GED examination, but received an unsatisfactory score.
The individual admitted to typing the GED score on his military record, but claimed he obtained the information from the Army. The 01:RI!! investigation l'
l found that this individual falsified his background information.
The second individual was found to have a QC welding c'ertificate from a
!j previous nuclear site in his BA personnel folder that the document author I
claimed was fraudulent. The individual was confronted with the evidence by his employer, but denied altering it. The investigation detemined that the individual falsified the document, f
Allegation 4 details an allegation that a BA:QCE lead inspector cheated on a QC certification examination, in that he had obtained copies of the tes'.
[
questions before taking the test. On June 22, 1984, two QC inspectors found I!
papers which contained several of the questions contained on a QC l!
certification test administered that day in a QCE lead's desk. The lead had i
taken the test that day, along with nine others, and was one of three who received a score of over 70%. BAandIllinoisPowerCompany(IP) management investigated the incident and determined that the test was inadvertently placed there by a QC inspector detailed to write the test. The-QCE lead offered to resign over the incident, but the Senior Quality Electrical Engineer (SQEE) said he did not feel any deliberate wrongdoing had occurred, j;
In interviews conducted by 01:RIII, the QCE lead said he was* initially i
detailed in April /May 1984 to write the test, and after preparing several questions, he realized that the situation was improper,-since he had not yet i
been certified in that area. After notifying the QCC Supervisor, another QC i
inspector was detailed to write the examination, and the QCE 51ead.gave. the i
inspector the questions he had already prepared. The.QCE Jead.said the inspector must have placed these questions back in his :(the4CE 4ead's)-desk.
The lead claimed he did not know they were in his desk untt1.the questions were found a month later. The SQEE denied assigning the lead to write t
questions for tiiat particular test.
The QC inspector assigned to write the certification test was interviewed twice by OI:RIII. The inspector claimed that the lead never gave him any questions. The inspector gave two different versions of how the questions
=
~
Case No. 3-85-004 2
l ultimately got into the QCE lead's desk.
In the first version, the inspector said he put the questions in the lead's desk on two different occasions and I
forgot about them after the second time.
In the second version, the inspector said he only placed the questions in the lead's desk once for two or three
{
days and they were then titrned into Training. The inspector identified the writing on the questions found in June in the lead's desk as his, but said the a
questions contained notations placed on them by the Training Department. The i
investigation concluded that the QCE lead violated the integrity of the BA:QC certification testing program by knowingly possessing test questions prior to l
taking the examination.
I The fifth allegation dealt with an allegation that in 1984, the BA:QC Manager intimidated QC inspectors by calling them into his office over the writing of r
NCRs. One inspector alleged that the QC Manager threatened to teminate him if he continued to write NCRs. A QCE inspector claimed the SQEE intimidated i
him by ordering him to close out another inspector's NCR.
Interviews of other inspectors working in QC failed to corrcborate the incidents or uncover similar incidents. None of the inspectors making the allegations said that the incidents affected their job perfomance. The origina alleger threatened l
l with termination said he voluntarily resigned from Clinton. The SQEE said on i
occasion he would discuss NCRs with inspectors, but never attempted to dissuade inspectors from writing NCRs. The QC Manager denied making threats or taking actions against inspectors for writing NCRs. ' The Q4TS Manager said l
he was unaware of the allegation egainst the QC Manager. The investigation found that the inspectors were intimidated, but not to a point where it affected their job perfomance.
Allegation 6 dealt with several allegations that related to the independence of the BA quality program from cost and schedule. The allegations center around two areas of concerns the use of quotas in QC, tetised the " bean count
During the course of the investigation, it was alleged SA management, in 1984, hired a new SOEE and brought in an IP employee as the Assistant Q&TS Manager 1
to get the BA:QA/QC program tc respond to the project schedule.
After the Assistant Q&TS Manager was in place, two upper level QC supervisors terminated their employment at Clinton. One of the two, the QC Manager, claimed his firing in mid-1984, which was termed a layoff, occurred after he f
told the Assistant Q&TS Manager that his (the Assistant Q&TS Manager's) pressures interfered with his ability to perfom in a quality manner. The other, the SQEE, said that although he did not consider the schedule pressures excessive, he resigned because the Assistant Q&TS Manager did not give him the freedom he felt he needed to do the job.
3 The investigation documented that the BA Assistant Q&TS Manager instituted a statistical tracking system in mid-1984 and set goals within QC based on these statistics. The SQEE, the Q&TS Manager, and the QC Manager said the Assistant Q4TS Manager attempted to use these statistics as a quota on the inspectors, l
but they interceded and prevented this from happening. The Assistant Q&TS Manager denied the allegation.
Interviews conducted of QC inspectors failed to uncover any incidents where job actions were taken against inspectors over the
- bean count." No instance of the " bean count" affecting QC inspector perfomance was documented in the investigation.
4 Case No. 3-85-004 3
1
l i
f In mid-1984 several QC inssectors, corroborated by available BA:QC i;
documentation, indicated tiat QC inspectors were required to work mandatory l !
overtime, which on occasion exceeded 70 hours8.101852e-4 days <br />0.0194 hours <br />1.157407e-4 weeks <br />2.6635e-5 months <br /> per week. The QCE Assistant Supervisor said the work hours were instituted because QC had developed an i
inspection backlog end was under considerable pressure to support the i
schedule. Several inspectors said the work hours affected their perfomance, QC management acknowledged the long hours and mandatory overtime, but said l
that they infomed the inspectors that if the hours were affecting their i
perfomance to nctify supervision and they would be pemitted to go home.
l An IP consultant investigated the overtime situation in BA:QC and reconnended it be reduced. As a result, the Q&TS Manager placed a 60 hour6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> limit on an
[
inspector's work week. The SQEE said that he notified QC and Q&TS management of the work hours affecting inspectors' perfomance and was told to " support 5
the schedule." After the 60 hour6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> limit was instituted, the SQEE said he asked
+
the Q&TS Manager for guidance when his inspectors reached the limit, and was told to support construction. The Q&TS Manager denied the SQEE discussed the situation with him. The investigation found that schedule pressures were i
exerted on the BA:QC progre:n did not lead to a breakdown in the independence of the quality program.
i Piping / Mechanical Engineer (ged that in January 1986, the Senior Qua In Allegation 7, it was alle had failed to document deficiencies discovered on the suppression pool downcomers on NCRs or had closed out NCRs improperly.
Several QCPM inspectors discovered that welders had damaned the downcomers and notified the SQPME of the problem. These inspectors c' aimed that the SQPME personally handled the i
problem and failed to process the deficiencies per BA:QC procedures. The i
inspectors said they notified the Assistant Q&TS Manager of the problem and i
the SQPME was laid off because of the incident. The $QPME denied the allegation and said he was laid off per a nomal reduction in force. The l
Assistant Q&TS Manager said he was unaware of this allegation and confimed
[
the SQPME was laid off per a nomal reduction in force. A review of the i
documentation related to the alf egation detemined that the SQPME wrote NCRs and they were processed by BA Technical Services. The investigation found that there was no falsification of records by the SQPME.
i Allegation 8 dealt with an allegation that in December 1984, a QCPM inspector i
documented on a BA inspection report that he used a particular gauge that was not available at the time the inspector claimed he used it. A QCPM lead inspector reviewing the questic.ied inspection report realized that the gauge referred to in the report was locked up in the tool crib at the time the 4 CPM inspector claimed he used it. The QCPM lead said he had another inspector examine the location of the questioned inspection which revealed physical evidence that the inspection had not been perfomed. The QCPM 1ead verified that the questioned gauge was not available to the inspector. BA:QC management was notified and the inspector was teminated.the next day. 4The BA:QC Manager said that the inspector admitted to falsifying the use of the I
questioned gauge.
In his 01:RIII interview, the inspector,.in a-sworn statement, denied falsifying the inspection report. The investigation found that the QCPM inspector falsified the inspection report.
l l
Case No. 3-85-004 4
l l
- - ~
-