ML20023C911
| ML20023C911 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, South Texas |
| Issue date: | 04/03/1980 |
| From: | Thornburg H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Harold Denton, Shapar H, Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20023A411 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-603 NUDOCS 8305180276 | |
| Download: ML20023C911 (11) | |
Text
t,
- i G
p aa 5
o UNITED STATES j'
f,,g e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 APR 3 1980 MEMORAND' M FOR:
Harold R. Denton, Director NRR J
Howard K. Shapar. Executive Director, ELD Victor Stello, Jr., Director, IE FROM:
Harold D. Thornburg, Director Division of Reactor Construction Inspection,.IE
SUBJECT:
COMMISSION INFORMATION PAPER ON THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT INVESTIGATION AND PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION Enclosed is a draft of the Commission'Information Paper which we intend to present during the week of April 14, 1980 which addresses the investigation that was conducted at the South Texas Project, as well as the proposed enforcement.
Comments / concurrences will be needed not later than noon on Wednesday,
, April 9, 1980.
It is noted that members of your staffs received a copy of the enclosures to the'Comission paper by cover memo dated April 1,1980.
O:
9 A4-Harold D. Thornburg Director Division of Reactor Construction Inspection Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
l.
Draft Connission Paper 2.
Memo of 4/1/80 transmitting So. Texas Investigat;. ion Package i
cc/w'enclocure 1:
l R. C. DeYoung, IE J. McGurren, ELD R. Herr, RIV D. Thompson, IE E. Licitra,.NRR R. Compton, RII G. W. Reinmuth, IE W. Haass, NRR E. Jernigan, RI K. V. Seyfrit, RIV D. Hayes, RIII J. Cummings, OIA J. -Murray, ELD S. Phillips, RRI-RIV CONTACT:
R. E. Shew:naker, IE 49-27551 O
83'05180276 830309
/
[$pb0kO2-603 PDR
=!~
For:
The Commissioners O
From:
Victor Stello, Jr., Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Thru:
Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
INVESTIGATION OF. SOUTH TEXAS NUCLEAR PROJECT AND PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT
Purpose:
To inform the Commission of the results of an investigation of allegations of lack of QA management suport, barassment and intimidation of Brown and Root quality control inspectors at the South Texas Project and to inform the Commission of the resulting enforcement action proposed.
Discussion:
Background
Several investigations wer,e conducted by Region IV in response to a series of allegations made in connection with harrassment and intimidation of contractor quality assurance inspectors at the South Texas Plant during the period February 1977 to November 2, 1979.
The Region IV investigations did not substantiate most of the allegations.
Considerable
Contact:
R. E. Shewmaker, IE 49-27551
't
.I O
congressional and media interest was shown regarding these matters.
The mid-term quality assurance inspection for this site was performed during the period August 6 to August 10, 1979.
The results of this inspection indicated some of the quality assurance deficiencies disclosed by the subiect investigation,.
The FBI performed an investigatic,n of possible criminality.
in connection with earlier matters during the period
' June 1979 to October 1979.
The Department of Justice has retained an interest in this case and OIA has an on going review of the NRC actions in this case.
O-A resident inspector was assigned to the site on August 26, 1979.
On November 2, 1979 allegations were made to the
. resident inspector by. employees at the site.' On November 3, 1979, the Director, IE directed'that an in-depth investiga-tion into the continuing allegations of lack of QC management l
support, harassment and intimidation of contractor qua.lity control employees be made along with a review of the j
effectiveness of the implementation of the quality assurance program (Enclosure I, Section A.2).
l O
e
, O The Director, Division of Reactor Construction Inspection was charged with the responsibility of forming a multi-discipline investigation team selected from the various regions.and including the assigned resident inspector.
The following team was selected from available regional resources:
D. W. Hayes, Chief, Engineering Support Section I, Region III R. Herr, Investigator,: Region IV H. S. Phillips, Resident Inspector, Region IV E. P. Jernigan, Reactor Inspector (Speciality-Nondestructive Testing) Region I
.R.-M. Compton, Reactor Inspector (Specialty-Civil / Structural)
Region II i
R. B. Landsman, Reactor Inspector (Specialty-Soils /Founda-i tions) Region III l
l It should be noted that 57 statements were taken under l
cath and that approximately 50.less formal interviews were conducted during the investigation.
The investigation team not only reviewed placement of Category I concrete, the area l
e
_4 O
where the preponderance of allegations were directed, but the following areas were reviewed using more usual technical inspection techniques:
. Soils
.' Welding
. NDE l
. Handling of Nonconformance Reports
. Audits It should be noted that the team expended 1113 inspector.
hours in completing this investigation, which amounts to a significant expenditure of effort.
Other events which relate to background information are as follows.
l The licensee stopped all placement of concrete in complex Category I structures, e.g. containment dome, on the basis l
O
.n*
,,. _ +,...
. O of an Immediate Action Letter (IAL) issued on December 31, 1979.
The above referenced IAL was issued in a timely fashion based on the results of. this investigation.
The licensee stopped work in the welding area on March 18, 1980 by issuance of a Stop Work Order.
The licensee has initiated a program for correction of identified deficiencies.
Results of Investigation The team substantiated a large number of the allegations made as detailed in Enclosure I, Section E.1.d.
Several instances were confirmed on the basis of several statements where contractor quality control inspectors were harassed.
Several.
instances of threats and intimi'dation were also confirmed through statements.
Evidence that production pressures were brought.to bear on contractor quality control inspection was l
also obtained through statements.
Finally, evidence of nonsupport of contractor personnel by their supervision 'as also confirmed through statements.
These confirmed findings 1
are considered to be instances where the independence of i
l the quality assurance function was lost contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
It should be noted that no findings were made as a result of the I
allegations which leaves major doubt regarding the safety l
of completed construction.
i
. O In addition, significant quality related deficiencies were found as follows:
. The quality of certain safety significant plant backfill is questioned.
Welder qualification and weld quality was questioned.
. The system for proper disposition and handling of non-conformance reports was found to be def icient.
. The audit system was found to be def icient.
. The code status of the containment fuel transfer tube is questioned.
A number of other items were identified for followup and resolution.
The specific items of noncompliance identified during the investigation are set out in the Notice of Violation which is a part of Enclosure II.
O
?.
- O Conclusions The team has concluded that the quality assurance program at the South Texas Plant has significant deficiencies.
They-have concluded that quality assurances program has broken down in the sense that several lines of defense in the quality assurance program had been seriously impaired; viz.
quality control inspection in the civil discipline through loss of independence, disposit' ion of nonconformance reports, and audits.
In addition serious questions were raised in the areas of plant backfill and welding and welder qualification.
In the matter of loss of independence of contractor quality control inspectors, the ultimate responsibility for the
. problem must be placed on the licensee.
The inspection function in the civil area must surely have been impaired through the relationship that was allowed to exist between quality assurance personnel and construction workers.
In our experience there is much'"give and take" among construction workers, but the South Texas situation appears to have exceeded the norm.
\\
There are two mitigating factors, however:
O
L. There does not appear to be significant evidence of poor
~
' quality construction on-site with the exception of some voiding found in unit 1 and unit 2 containment walls and possibly the as-compacted condition of backfill.
. The licensee has initiated corrective action to many of the identified deficiencies.
In further consideration of the findings of this investigation and the results of previous inspections we believe that the licensees has not been in sufficient control of the South Texas Project.
The matter of independence of contractor quality assurance inspectors and th'e other matters related to quality assurance program implementation are clearly matters controllable by management.
It should be made clear that we do not wish to place significant blame on i
the inspectors or the workers.
l Proposed Action l
[.
Because of the significance of the findings of this investigation in terms of implementation of the quality l
assurance program at South Texas, we believe that higher thresh old enforcement action is appropriate.
The fact O
. O that several layers of the quality assurance program wereseriouslyimpaQjedindicatesthepossibilityofa breakdown.
We intend to issue a civil penalty in the amount of $108,000
~
in this case.
The proposed civil penalty is contained in Enclosure II.
We believe that a civil penalty is the appropriate sanction in this case because the most critical work has been stopped and will remain stopped until we are satisfied that proper corrective action has been taken.
We' plan to issue a 10 CFR 50.54 letter, Enclosure III,'to explore ways to provide the licensee with improved methods for project control.
t l
.The unresolved items identified during the investigation will
~
l be followed up during the course'of normal inspections.
Coordination:
We have concluded that the questions concerning the adequacy of as-built engineered backfill must be transferred to NRR for resolution since the original criteria do not~ appear to have been met.
We will be coordinating the resolutior of 1'
this problem with NRR. The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation concurs in this paper.
I
y
.;V C
. O The investigation report is to be sent to OIA for considera-tion on the question of referral to the Department of J
Justice.
The proposed action was concurred in by the Office of the Executive Legal Director.
Victor Stello, Jr.
Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
Enclosures:
~1.
IE Report 50-498, 499/79-19 2.
Notice of Violation, Appendicies A & B
_3.
10 CFR 50.54(f) Letter, Appendix C l-l l
l
. f^'
WPU:DM 1
l 4/3/80
[
Job I(2)
L a
IM lu' W (m 7,
k)$
~-
/
'o,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
( 4 ***** /
JUN 9 1980 Docket No.:
50-498/499 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Dudley Thompson, Executive Officer for Operations Support IE FROM:
Harold D. Thornburg, Director, DivisioJ1 of Reactor Construction Inspection, IE r/0L OL
SUBJECT:
ITEM FOR REFERRAL TO OIA ON SOUTH TEXAS It has come to nly attention from verbal discussie.!s with the management of Houston Light and Power Company that they allege that the intervenors have in their possession original QA/QC documents which were removed from the site.
I have mentioned this allegation to R. Fortuna during a telephone conversation so that the item is not totally iew to OIA.
It is nly opinion that this item should be formally brought to 01A's attention for possible follow-up from a criminal viewpoint.
If you have any question on this matter please contact us.
O as as Harold D. Thornburg
(
Director T
Division of Reactor Construction Inspection i
Office of Inspection l
and Enforcement l
cc:
V. Stello, IE I
R. C. DeYoung, IE J. Taylor IE l
G. W. Reinmuth, IE K. V. Seyfrit, RIV l
D. W. Hayes, RIII J. P. Murray, OELD CONTACT:
R. E. Shewmaker, IE 49-27551 l O A.
w-r L
'Mr
{
/'-
$a as-o,,
UNITED STATES
,3, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3l
[
g E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- ...e)
&Sn J
\\/
JUN 131980
/
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Roger A. Fortuna, Assistant Director for Investigations, DIA FROM:
Dudley Thompson, Executive Officer for Operations Support, IE e
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATION RE PURLOINED QA/QC DOCUMENTS As you are aware, discussions between Houston Light and Power (HLP) management and RCI Director Harold Thornburg have yielded allegations that intervenors are in possession of original QA/QC documents which were removed from the South Texas Project (STP) site.
While it dus not appear that this matter comes under the purview of the NRC, Mr. Thornburg's memorandum of June 9,1980 is being forwarded to 0IA for your information.
/)dleyl
- ~ ~
Du sn Execut e Officer for Operations Support, IE
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
urg, RCI l
l CONTACT:
P. Baci 49-27246 O D q of
.: c: -
33+W+14 -
Y 44s77
/
o UNITE D sT ATEs 2[
?8'j$g.h,*tj NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
%# [
I
$.; 4k,i 4[a wassincion. o. c. 20sss v.
i (q * " * * #
/
' U, JUN 2 01980 f(-l Qll./ f :.[ vu u,of'
- Sh A
l'EtiORAtlDUl1 FOR:
Dudley Thompson, Executive Officer fnr Operations Suoport.-I.E
',.-j, p (
[-
Office {of Inspector and AuditorPoper A
- F,ortuna, (6/P FRO?!:
/
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATI0?! RE PURLOIf!ED OA/DC DOCUf'Ef!TS lie are in receipt of your June 13, 1980 memorandun transrittino H. D. Thornburg's June 9 cemorandum regarding Houston Light and Power Conpany's (HL&P) alleoation that intervenors are in possession of original OA/DC records. Assuming an unlawful removal from the South Texas Pro.iect site, such conduct, even if substantiated, does not fall within the purview of federal criminal statutes.
I recomnend that if HL&D management wishes to pursue this matter it contact the appropriate local law enforcement acency.
cc: H. Thornburg, RCI -
9 e
ao
~.
^.f '
.'.7, y
Y g '9@$ e!!, =
W8
-