ML20129G159
Text
, _.
,t.' H6 UNIT _D STATES t'.S
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f.T R EGION IV y
't y'
$11 RY AN PLAZA DRIVE. SulTE 1300 I
.%Q j
ARLINGTON. TEX AS 76012 7L %':b.M:. !'
%.,C A 2412Lf MEMORANDUM FOR:
Uldis Potapovs, Chief, VI5 FROM:
C. J. Hale, Chief, PES, VIB SU5 JECT:
ANONYMOUS ALLEGATIONS RE: SROWN & ROOT During our June 16-20, 1980, inspection or orown & Root, Dan Fox and i considered the applicability of the eleven anonymous allegations to the S&R Houston office.
By and large the allegations appear to apply to E&R's site activities with few exceptions.
We did not reveal the fact that formal allegations had been made but considered these items in the context of our
- normal inspection activities. The following are findings and observations
{
relative to.the allegations listed in the attached letter as they relate i
to the Houston office activity.
Item 1.
This allegation was not apparent; however, there.could be a tendency for B&R engineering management to take lightly the concerns expressed by their engineers (two such items were noted during this inspection j
and will be considerad further in subsequent inspections).
i Item 2.
There may be some adninistrative interface problems with the 'NSSS, but'this-problem may be more appropriately directed to the site where the NSSS interface is more direct.
One engineer, indicated that among other site related " problems," the protective coating on NSSS components does not meet specification requirements and no action is being taken.
Item 3.
A significant number of vendor and internal B&R audits have been postponed, and in some cases not re-scheduled, but there is no evidence that " problems" are the reason.
Item 4 Not apparent, but without specifics this is very difficult to follow-up.
Item 5.
There is a problem with the use of the PSAR vs. the FSAR.
An item similar to this was identified during our previous inspection and was made a deviation in this inspection.
8506070177 840620 PDR FOIA OLASSPIB4-393 PDR 4
emo to U. Potapovs -
Item E.
Similar to Item 10., but without specifics this coes not acoear i
to be chronic.
There appears to be a significant number of j
relatively new hires who were brought on board to replace i
those employees let go during the last cut-back.
Item 7.
This does not appear as serious as the allegation implies.
There is turnover of personnel for the usual reasons but this does not i
appear to be having the alleged impact.
- 1-E.
This alls.:stien a;;sars incorrect.
Item 9.
This appears to have site applicability only.
Item 10. A general review of houston office personnel qualifications and job requirements do not support this allegation.
Documents obtained from
~
the site concerning the Site QA Manager do raise questions with respect to his qualifications and experience when compared to the requirements for his posi(ion; however, the records we obtained may have been in-complete, therefore this item should more properly be reviewed at the site.
Item 11. Based on a~ rather brief review in the area of piping stress analysis, this item may have basis in fact.
A new engineering group has been a
established for small pipe analysis.
This group appears to be loosely controlled and will be an area of closer inspection during our next trip.
These allegations appear to have originated on site, and therefore I feel each should be considered as site problems until more clearly determined to be other-wise, with the possible exception of Item 11.
Accordingly, I recommend lead responsibility for further action on this matter be given to the Construction Branch.
If Fox or I can provide further information on this matter please advise.
~
C. Jl'N le, Chief Program Evaluation Section Attachment As Stated cc:
D. F. Fox 1
)
-, -. - - -