ML20126J458
Text
r -
S hoe I,
j UNITED STATES f{
E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. y, -
l':
REGION IV
- s j-
$11 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SulTE 1000
{
'D4 ARLINGTON, TEXA5 76012
~
August 20, 197.9 Bocket No. 50 498 50-499 i
i i
J MDDRANDUM POR:. File l
THRU W. C. Seidla, Chief, RC&ES Branch l
W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section i,
FROM:
W. G. Hubacek, Reactor Inspector, Projects Section
.St!BJECT:
ALLF.GED INTIMIDATION OF BROWN & ROOT QC INSPECTORS SOUTE TEIAS PROJECT, UNITS 1 & 2, DN 50-498; 50-499 1 -'
i on Augus.tI'8*,'1979, the ML&P Site QA Supervisor inforand the on-site RIV
' Proje~ t,;3nspector of alleged intimidstion and/or abuse of Brown & Root QC c
inspec y';by Brown & Root construction personnel.
..:.n.,
t
..The } Sit @1979,'and on Monday, August 6,1979, accos'panied by the Brown &
. Supervisor became aware of the alleged intimidation on Friday, t;2p
? Ipoo Proje,.ct QA' Manager, aat with the QC inspectors involved and their
- 's 6k.* The QC inspectors (two fennie maintenance inspectors) alleged thpk itWr$dts had been made against them by three superintendents and two I
fotsames**,*The alleged tapropriaties, some of which were witnessed by the
,, QC,iinspheto'r's supervisor, were said to include calling the inspectors vile
'..en{dispaiagingnaass,threatsofdroppingthingsonthem,andthreatsto
' '.throv* theisLout of 'the buildings. They were also told that they " hang too
,sppy Mil (*,*)ngs."
Although at first reluctant to do so, the QC inspectors j
,reyndled tpa _ identities of the individuals who allegedly unde the threats.
j
-f n V 4
"7/
t, Afteg meetin..g with the two QC inspectors, the ML&P Site QA Supersisor and tIIe Brown'W, Root Project QA Hanager discussed this matter with the Brown &
l j',ksetI&enior,',ProjectManagerandtheAssistantConstructionProjectManager
<r w stW agreed,% o pursue this matter with the five construction personnel who t
i were, named'by the QC inspectors. Their (Brown & Root construction) findings as,follows:
l t
l l'. ' One construction General Foreman admitted asking a statement about l
dropping a spud wrench.
4
'2.'
The two QC inspectors have a reputation of being diffleult to get along
.with.
1 540630
~
l d-393 POR
'2 h 5
- 4 l
]
p-
'.4 File 498 30-499 A=gus: 23, 1979 i.
l*
i l
3.
One of the QC inspectcrs plays "I get you" with cc.structics.
I l
. ' 4.
There is considerable frustratio= among the five individ uls related te tl-the QC inspectors.
h foregoing inforestion related to this matter was decmested in a draf:
I ammo that the IL&P Site QA Supervisor was prepari s for transmissic: ts his supervisor. The II Project Inspecter obtained essentially the same infor-astion during discussions with the IL&F Site QA S ;erviser and the Iro.n &
Boot Senior Project Manager. No attempt was made by the II i=spe :=r :s contact the two QC 1vrpectors and their supervisor or the five constructice perseasel involved ie this matter.
During Mar==sions with licenses and Brown & Roc: representatives, they
- tated that, due to conflicting statements by QC and cocatruction persecael, s
they were unable to deterniae conclusively who was at fault ta the alleged incidents; however, they feel that both sides contributed to the problem.
Both QC and conserretion personnel involved have been caw.selled and tastructed to conduct themselves at a higher level of profess *M*1*==-
They were informed that future occurrences of similar incidents any result in removal of the offenders from the jobsite.
The IL&P Site QA Supervisor stated that this matter was viewed with grave concers and that methods of daa=
with similar problems in the fut:re were baias considered.
.q sa W 6 W. G. Rubacek Enactor inspector cc V. A. Crossman i
C. E. Visser 1
I l
l l
I I
l
-