ML20029C174

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Withheld Memo Summarizing 791106 Telcon W/Brown & Root Inspectors Re Allegations of Intimidation of Civil QC Inspectors During Insps 50-498/79-19 & 50-499/79-19
ML20029C174
Person / Time
Site: South Texas  STP Nuclear Operating Company icon.png
Issue date: 11/15/1979
From: Hubacek W
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To: Seidle W
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML20029C132 List:
References
FOIA-90-361 NUDOCS 9103260365
Download: ML20029C174 (3)
v • d • e


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

PDR

FOIA

KOUr4Y90-361

PDR

!

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

)

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20029C174&oldid=4608382"