ML20129G575
Text
F
.s. s.
.y July 16, 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. D. Thomburg, Dimetor, Division of Reactor Construction Inspection IE FROM:
Kar1V. Seyfrit, Director, Region IV IE
SUBJECT:
ANONYMOUS ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT On June 13, an anonymous letter containing eleven allegations was received
.in the Region IV office. The allegations wem rather vague and, for the most part, cove nd matters which had previously been identified by the investigation team. These included lack of management support, mcords management, inadequate. audits, inexperienced personnel, rapid turnover of per::annel, intimidation, etc. No time frame was included in the allegations, and it is not completely clear with what company or area of work the alleger is associated.
During a recent inspection at Brown & Root, efforts were made to identify specific areas mentioned in the letter. No absolute ties could be made to the allegations, although theit were problems identified in some areas (some also had been identified in earlier inspections).
One of the Region IV investigators reviewed the letter and made an assessment of what might be done, and the likelihood of measurable success, as well as relating some of the allegations to known actions during and since the investigation team effort.
Based on these two efforts, it does not appear that pursuing the allegations in the context of the anonymous letter would be fruitful.
The matters raised, by the Vendor Branch 1nspection will be pursued as part of the normal inspection
~
program.
The resident inspector is awam of the letter and its contents, and should any further infomation relating to the allegations be forthcoming, will keep the Region IV office infomed so that significant matters can be pursued.
Or:g.r.a! igr.ad by Karl V. Seyfrit Karl V. Seyfrit Director
Enclosures:
1.
Memo, Seidle to Seyfrit dtd June 30,1980 2.
Memo, Hale to Potapovs (undated) 3.
Herr, Memo to File dtd July 7, 1980 e M,60 g 3 840620 g
4.
Anonyumus Letter GLASSPIS4-393 PDR omcc h..R1V,,,d,,,,
sumads)..KVSeyfri,t;mf,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,j,,,,,,,,,,,,,
care >!.R1W80
.i.
.i..........
s
cc: w/ enclosures V. Stallo, IE R. C. DeYoung IE W. C. Seidle, RIV U. Potapovs. RIY W. E. Vetter, RIV R. K. Herr, RIV i
a e=
G d
6 9
\\
s 1
i s
i i
, ~ -
- r
,,p"84g UNITED STATES 4~
o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
RsonoN iv E
D8 i :
811 RY AN Pt.AZA DRIVE.sulTE 1000 m
ARUNGTON, TEXAS 76012
% ~ CA y June 30, 1980 f-MEMORANDUM TOR:
f.. V. Seyfrit, Director FROM:
W. C. Seidle, Chief, RC&ES Branch
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION AESIS'"ANCE PER REGION IV i
POLICY GUIDE NO. B48 (4/9/80) - ALLEGATIONS BY AN ANONDOUS SOURCE OF SOUTH TEXA's PROJECT, UNITS NO.
i 1 & 2, DN 50-498; 50-499 l,
A letter from an anonymous source containing eleven allegations in regard to the South Texas Projegy was received by the Director of Region IV on June 13, 1980.
A copy of the letter containing the eleven allegations is attached.
Preliminary consideration of the applicability of these allegations to the Brown & Root, Houston office was made by the vendor Inspection Branch during their normal inspection activities June 16-20, 1980. A copy of their obser-vations and findings is attached for your information.
It is requested that your investigatory staff investigate allegations 1 thru i
- 10. As stated in their memorandum of June 26, 1980, the PES, VIB will include allegation 11 during their next inspection of Brown & Root, Houston. The RC&ES Branch personnel will not become involved unless you identify specific matters which require their attention.
f W. C. Sei
, Chief Reactor C truction and Engineering Support Branch cc:
R. K. Herr C. E. Wisner W. A. Crossman H. S. Phillips W. G. ' Hubacek l
f ( /\\ f / --7A i/ ()
l v v V " V I V / W () ~
v,>
i a
nu clear acgulatory commission, Picase help us.
f.
L'e art direcicd to caallaudge prottems/deliccin cies in our ccancspondcnce 'sulject to KRC, Enviormental or inicaviner acvicu.
2.
3ana;c=cni will noi tupacri us when wc identily pacLLc=s
,with our KSSS suppticr. QA Lells us they lose 90 percent
'cl the infractions Lt.ey identify on the Nsss suplier.
9.
Audits on Brown L Root are cancelled or postponed when
- prollcas -are found.
6.
We have Laied to retrieve records that show numerious CA identified prostem'd Lui line that may lettere do not contain scrial numLers and therefore are not in the records dcolm.
5.
The License l salcly deptm. will not Leap up to dalc our FS/.R and tell us we must comply on ly to the TSAR.
6.
Regardless of the numLcr of request wc have QA, Civi e'a Me chan ical, Electical, and purchasing will not hire experienec perscanal.
7.
The QA department is Lecoming like BLR Engineerin g, their is
'a constant turnover of pegsonnel and no one is accountalle cpycore.
S.
The QA manager is intimidating his emplogies.
They are afraid to do their jot.
.o.
ML L P or B l R does not have any one responsille for some of i
the critical disiplines such as NDE, Uelding and Inspection.
- 10.
Supervisorinanagers and Project Engineers onthe STP have never had any nuclear experience.
Ecr example the sileQA Supcruisgr on STP is a non degree individual and lachs anyprevious experien ce.
l 11.
Pleasc inucsLiga-ic ELRe s Sincss cualuations on piping.
-N.
~
^
\\.;..
h :.
Date ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP TO: (Name. office symbo!. room riumber, initials Date bulM,..g. Agen:y/ Post) h.[
[h 2.
1 4.
5.
IAction Flie (Note and Retum b rowel For Ciearance
!Per Conversator lAs Requested For Correction
- Prepare Res#
Circule o For Your Info mation See Me
' Sagnature Commefit investigate Coordmetion Jus'.lfv i
REMARKS 5Clud '9M4n+10 M C Nebe SSCunf.-
A w h y w* kHCth m Wf~
G241 afixso b u mf2/K
"' hW 7 & m k G 0 4 m a blm.c o w & m Raaa.sf a w ]
e< w N
QW Nr
~
DO NOT une this form as a RECORD of approwsis, concurrences. disposals.
cteerences, and sunilar actions FROM:
org. symbol, Agency / Post)
Room No.-Bids.
bS (HD Phone No.
.- 1 er ( O 1% O aoss-30 l
OPTIONAL FORM 41 h*T/cE'Bi-su (Rev. 7-75)
.u
..o. m._...
r,.
4..
UNITED STATES f
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RQGION IV fp d.y 611 RY AN PLAZA DRIVE. SUITE 1000 5 ii #
. fj~,{,
. j ARLINGTON, TEX As 76012 8f_b.QL&
e MEMORANDUM FOR: Uldis Potapovs, Chi.ef, VIB i
FROM:
C. J. Hale, Chief, PES, VIB
SUBJECT:
ANONYMOUS ALLEGATIONS RE: BROWN & ROOT Duringourdune 16-20, 1980, inspection of Brown & Root, Dan Fox and I considered the applicability of the eleven anonymous allegations to the B&R Houston office.
By and large the allegations appear to apply to B&R's site activities with few exceptions. We did not reveal the fact that fomal allegations had been made but considered these items in the context of our J nomal inspection activities. The following are findings and observations relative to the allegations listed in the attached letter as they relate 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 and will be considered further in subsequent inspections).
I Item 2.
There may be some administrative 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 l
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.
1 G lE~M,I D,,
vn
v v
Ke:c to U. ?: tapers.
Itee E.
Si=ilar to Ite: 10., but withc.: s;e:ifies this coes n:t a:: ear to be chrtnic. There a;;ea-s to be a significant re.=her cf relatively new hires who we e brought en bcard to replace these e::leyees let ;: curing the last cut-back.
I e= 7.
This does not apoear as sericus as the allegati:n i=: lies. Tnere is turnover c' penennel for the usual reas:cs but this :es n:t appear to te having the alleged i:pa :.
M E-E.
This al s;ati:n a;;sars in::rre t.
I en 9.
Tnis a::ez s to have site a;plicability Only.
. Itee 10. A general review cf.W.: sten Office persennel cualificaticcs ard j b re:uirecents c: not suppo-t this allegation. Do:: rents obtained frac I
the site concerning the Site CA Manager 6: raise :r.estions with resse:t to his cualificaticns and ex:erience when excared to the recuirements for his posi-tion; however, the re: Orcs we obtained say have been in-Occlete, therefore this iten should mre pre:>erly be reviemed at the site.
Itac 11. Eased en a rather brief review in the area of piping stress aralysis, this iten say have basis in fact. A new engineerirG Grx; has been established fer ssall ;ipe analysis. This grec appears to be locsely controlled and will be an area of cieser inspection during our next trip.
Tnese allegatiens appear to have crigirated on site, and therefere I feel ea:h should be considered as site probles:s until acre clearly deter =ined te be ether-wise, with the pcssible exception of Itas 11. A::Ordingly, I re :rrend lead responsibility for further acticn on this satter be given to the C nstru: tion Branch. If Fox cr I can ;-Ovide further inforzatien on this matter please advise.
I C.J.'ede, W Chief Progras Evaluatico Se:tien Atta.5 ment:
As Stated cc:
D. F. Fcx
.