ML20029C174
See also: IR 05000498/1979019
Text
-
--
Utillt 0 61 A 1 ( $
< .
f'p esc, %,
NUCLC AR R(.GUL A10RY COMMISSION
.
-
.
Ri otolv IV
2 .h, . . h. . *$
6)t MY AN FL AZ A ohlVI.$U41t 10D0
{ 74 .yg'g:/j
A R L 6Nr.1oN,1 t h a s M012
'
e;v
b.,,.#
Nev mbe r 15, 1979
Docket No. 50-498/79-19
50-499/*s-19
t
i
,
M}>10RA..'8N TOR: Tile
IHRUt
[L
V. C. Seidle, Chief, RC&ES Branch
(pM.,
W. A. Crossman, Chief, projects Section
TR0M:
l'. C. I!ubacek, Reactor Inspector. Projec ts Fec tiou
Rb)ECis
/ 1i T MSS (T ISTIMIDAT10N OF CIVIL QC INSPECTORS
AT SOU111 ILtAS PRO)Lc1 (51p) PS 50-498; 50-499
On November f ,1979, at ist
.m. , W. A. Crossman and W. C. Ilubacek called the
~ nspector who had previously reported alleged
Crown and Root (B&R
intimidation of QC 6spectors to the STp Resident Reactor Inspector (RRI).
(See ucmo for file, dated November 15, 1979)
The ' 6 11eger) stated that W is leaving STp to work at another
nuclear project'and desires that 6dentity be protected. lie expects to
depart Bay City on or about November 15, 1979. Any further contact with W
should be made prior to that date.
We alleger made a lengthy rambling statement, the salient points are sumarized
as follows:
1.
A QC Mau;ar (Individual A) held a meeting approximately eight months ago
during which he stated that he would know if anyone vent to the NRC and
insinuated that he would "take care" of them.
i
2.
We alleger's concern and decision to contact the RRI were triggered by
a conversation with the RRI and subsequent observations on Novmber 1-2,
1979,. that QC inspectors were "down in dumps" due to occurrences within
the last two weeks.
3.
QC inspectors identified a problem with " free fall" during a recent place-
ment of concrete in a secondary ahic1d vall. The " elephant trunks" were
cut of f too short allowing approximately ten feet of " free f all".
Con-
struction did not correct the condition until QC threatened to "valk of f".
During a subsequent post placement meeting and discussion of the " free f all"
problem, a construction foreman (Individual B) and a QC inspector (Indivi--
dual C) disagreed and Individaul B threw his hat on the tabic and asked if
information in thIs reord was de!dej
ACt. cwc;;,0:a __Q[]S 19 fr;g;u g y 7), tion
f
in a::Mn. n:
g
f 0lA fA--ff/__ -
'~
9103750365 910314
KOUr4Y90-361
!
1
9:.
file - Docket No. 50-498/79-19
50-499/79-19
-2-
November 15. 1979
.
he was being called a liar. A QC Supervisor (Individual D) was present at
the meeting but did nothing to back up his inspector (Individual C).
A
construction foreman (Individual B) stated that the problem was with two
QC inspectors and that Individual A should be at the meeting to " straighten
these people out".
Individual C vrote a three part memo concerning this
incident and sent it to Individual D.
4.
Individuals B and E are production oriented and will viointe specificiations
if given the opportunity.
5.
QC inspectors are not getting backing by supervisors.
6.
Foremea and craf t refer to Individuals A and D as " construction's boys".
It is commonly said that if a QC inspector will not sign of f a document,
Individual D will.
7.
Brown & Root upper QA management is af raid to " stand up" to construction.
8.
HL&P QA lacks involvement in field activittee.
They are observed to be
only infrequently in the field.
9.
Recent problems became apparent af ter Individual E was put back in charge
of concrete placement approximately three weeks ago.
It is believed that
Individual E was put in charge to increase production. Individual E replaced
Individuci F who was quality oriented.
Quality was better when Individual
F was in charge.
10.
Individual E told workers not to worry about consolidation of concrete
next to the containment liner during marly RCB-1 placements because this
area could not be seen (this is of special concern because of the Lif t 8
void problem).
11.
Individual E encouraged workers to push QC inspectors, drop concrete on
them or drop vibrators on them to get them out of the way.
12.
During an inspection, the alleger was to ' by a foreman to get out of the
way or he might be hit with a vibrator.
13.
Individuals C and G witnessed a statement by Individual E that he would
take care of the NRC if the NRC found problems with concrete placements.
14.
QC inspector morale in very low.
15.
Construction has resumed previous practices af ter the recent concrete
stop-work order was lifted.
- __
,
, , =
File - Docket Ro. 50-498/79-19
$0-499/79-19
-3-
Novembe r 15, .4 979
16.
Placement QC inspectors do not have two-way radios, making issuance of
stop-work orders dif ficult . Tne concrete foreman sometimes does not
have a radio or will not allow QC to use it if he has one.
17.
A foreman left a concrete pour in MLA-2 for over one hour.
Individual 11
was the inspector on this placement. 'niis was also documented in an audit
made by Individual I of the B&R llouston Internal Surveillance group.
18.
Individual J vas told to choose which side of the wall ho wanted to be
thrown of f when he told construction that they were in violation of a
requirement.
Individual J believed the threat was serious.
'
19.
Concrete curing water has been improperly turned of f by carpenters and " rod
busters".
20.
Individual K visited a vendor's shop, observed improper storage of stain-
less steel items and use of improper markers.
21.
Individual K stated that traceability of etabeds was lost af ter leaving
receiving.
.
22.
QC inspectors no longer have their own drawings,17EAs, specifications, etc. ,
since the area concept has been initiated. Construction does not want
drawings taken to the field.
23.
Individual L was threatened with bodily harm last week by Individual M.
24.
Individuals N, C, G and J are willing to make statcaents to the NRC if
their identities are protected.
(Addresses and telephonc numbers were
provided where available.)
g ( f), f P -1 L $ + 1 A
W. G. Ilubacek, Reactor Inspector
Projects Section
cci
11. S. Phi)1ips
R. K. llerr
C. E. Wisner
l
)