ML20126J006
Text
y i
j
.*.. g
.p* %g':,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J'
l 4.-
t anosos av I
'""2nYda$.YEls E2 "
!.{
September 12, 1980 l
l Docket No. 50-498 i.
50-499
~
MEMORANDUM FOR:
File THRU:
l' W. C. Seidle, Chief, RC&ES Branch FROM:
W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section 508 JECT:
CONCERNS REGARDING QUALITY OF WORK SY DRUG USERS AT THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, UNITS 1 & 2, ON 50-498; 50-499 Region IV received a telephone call from Individual A at approximately 10:15 a.m.
on September 9,1980, in regard to the quality of work at the South Texas Project by workers who used drugs during work.
Individual A could not offer any specifies in regard to the type of work but did state that her exhusband (an electrician) was fired from the Thompson, Texas, power plant for drug use on the plant and was hired again at the Monsanto plant.
She stated the constructor at both sites was Brown & Root and was concerned about BAR's screening of new hires.
She stated her exhusband was fired twice by BAR for smoking pot.
Individual A stated that she had overheard conversations between her exhusband and some of his friends in regard to their use of drugs stile they were working on the STP site.
I told her that the Inspection and Enforcement office of the NRC did not follow up on drug charges and they were concerned only where it may affect the quality of construction at a nuclear power plant site.
She was insistent snat sne talk with someone from Houston, and I told her nat I would have someone get in touch with her for an interview to get more specifis in regard to her concerns.
W. A. Crossman, Chief Projects Section ec:
R. K. Here C. E. Wisner H. S. Phillies W. G. Hubacek 8
540MO l
393 POR l
J
_7
)-'
?;..O l
YjA%q
]
UNITED STATES y*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY Commission F
Ascion av 611 RYAN Pt.AZA DRIVE. SUITE 1000 D
ARLINGTON. TEX ts 78012 f
i l
....+
November 15, 1979 Docket No. 50-493/79 50-4?9/79-19 i
MINORAhlXJM FOR: File I
THRU:
W. C. Seidle, Chief, RC&ES Branch tres W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section FRON:-
'W. G. Hubacek, Reactor Inspector, Projects Section
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATIONS OF INTIMIDATION OF CIVIL QC INSPECTORS AT SOUTR TEKAS FROJECT (STP) DN 50-498; 50-499 On November 6,1979, at 6:40 p.m., W. A. Crossman and W. G. Hubacek called the Brown and Root (B&R) Civil QC inspector who had previously reported alleged intimidation of QC inkpactors to the STP Resident Reactor Inspector (RRI).
-(See memo for file, dated November 15,1979)
The QC inspector (NegN) stated that he is leaving STP to work at another nuclear project and desires that his identity be protected. He expects to depart Bay City on or about November 15, 1979. Any further contact with his should be made prior to that date.
The alleger made a lengthy rambling statement, the salient points are summarized as follows:
1.
A QC Hanager (Individual A) held a meeting ap~roximately eight months ago p
during which he stated that he would know if anyone went to the NRC and insinuated that he would "take care" of them.
2.
The alloser's concern and decision to contact the RRI were triggered by a senversation with the RRI and subsequent observations on November 1-2, 1979, that QC inspectors were "down in dumpe" due to occurrences within the last two weeks.
l 3.
qc inspectors identified a problem with " free fall" during a recent place-l ment of senatete in a secondary shield unil. The " elephant trunks" were I
set off too short allowing approximately tes feet of " free fall". Con-i I
streetten did not serrect the condition until QC threatened to " walk off".
During a subanquent poet placement meeting and discussion of the " free fall" I
problem, a construction foreman (Individual 5) and a QC inspector (Indivi-l dual C) disagreed and Individaul B threw his hat on the table and asked if I
l l
s
~
=.
l-I File - Docket No. 50-498/79-19 50-499/79-19 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 wrote a three part memo concerning this incident and sent it to Indivi~ dual D.
4.
Individuals B and E are production oriented and will violate specificiations if given the opportunity.
5.
QC inspectors are not getting backing by supervisors.
6.
Foremen 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 off a document, Individual D willo 7.,
Brown & Root upper QA nanagement is afraid to " stand up" to construction.
8.
HL&P QA lacks involvement in field activities. They are observed to be only infrequently in the field.
9.
Recent problems became apparent after 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 Individual 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 early 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 told 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 is very low.
i 15.
Construction has resumed previous practices after the recent concrete stop-work order was lifted.
6
e A
~
File - Docket No. 50-498/79-19 50-499/79-19 November 15, 1979
- 16. Placenent QC inspectors do not have two-way radios, making issuance of stop-work orders difficult. The 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 MEA-2 for over one hour.
Individual H was the inspector on this placement. This was also documented in an audit made by Individual I of the B&R Houston Internal Surveillance group.
. 18. Individual J was told to choose which side of the wall he wanted to be thrown off when he told construction that they were in violation of a requirement. Individual J believed the threat was serious.
t 19.
Concrete curing water has been improperly turned off by carpenters and " rod busters".
3 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 tha't traceability of embeds was lost af ter leaving receiving.
QC inspectors b Yonger have their own drawings, FREAs, specifications, etc.,
22.
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 statements to the NRC if their identities are protected.
(Addresses and telephone _ numbers were provided where available.)
ai.prd w A W. G. Hubacek, Reactor Inspector Projects Section ec:
H. S. Phillips i
R. K.-Herr J
C. E'. Wisner l
4 i
-.