ML20199G015

Board Notification 86-014:forwards Synopsis of Ofc of Investigation Repts 4-84-039, Alleged Intimidation of QC Inspector & 4-84-050, Alleged Intimidation of Texas Util Generating Co Auditors by QC Mgt

ML20199G015
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	04/04/1986
From:	Noonan V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Asselstine, Palladino, Roberts NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
TASK-AS, TASK-BN86-014, TASK-BN86-14 BN-86-014, BN-86-14, NUDOCS 8604090035
Download: ML20199G015 (7)

Text

. . -

i M005 pn t e49 i UNITED STATES '

j' [g ~ j'k g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION v t WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

-l

\ *****

/ APR f ggg Docket Nos.: 50-445 50-446 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine Comissioner Bernthal Comissioner Zech FROM: Vincent S. Noonan, Director PWR Project Directorate #5 Division of PWR licensing-A

SUBJECT:

BOARD NOTIFICATION - 0FFICE OF INVESTIGATION REPORTS SYNOPSIS COMANCHE PEAK (B0ARD NOTIFICATION NO.86-141 This Notification is being provided to the Comission in accordance with the revised Commmission's notification policy of July 6,1984, to inform the Comission on all issued on the cases before the Comission.

This notification provides the synopsis of Office of Investigation (01) report number 4-84-039 " Alleged Intimidation QC Inspector" and 0! report number 4-84-050 " Alleged Intimidation of TUGC0 Auditors by QC Management".

These two reports are relevant to certain instances of intimidation and harassment at Comanche Peak.

The parties to the proceeding are being notified by copy of this memorandum.

, /7 '

~

, ,/

< / M t , onani irector

., Projec Directhrate#5 Division o PWR licensing-A

Enclosure:

1. Synopsis Report No. 4-84-039

2. Synopsis Report No. 4-84-050

Contact:

Annette Vietti-Cook (492-8525) cc: See next page 040900

f ~.

{-

'T t cc: P. Bloch, ASt.B W. Jordan, ASI.B K. McCollom, ASI.B E. Johnson,-ASI.B H. Grossman, ASI.B SECY (2)

EDO OGC j OPE L ACRS (10)

Parties to the Proceeding See next page M

~ ' '

' ' ~ '

__ ___.___.__m.___.. _ _ _ . _ _ .

! I - ENCLOSURE SYN 0PSIS

'o i This investigation was initiated to determine if Brown & Root Inc.

(B&R) Quality Control (QC) supervisors at the Comanche Peak Steam

~

Electric Station (CPSES) improperly ordered a B&R QC inspector to'make late entry sign off's on liner plate inspection travelers using QC acceptance recorded on construction documents made years earlier. This 3

investigation into the propriety of the QC supervisors' instructions focused specifically on how the QC supervisors allegedly ordered the QC l inspector to~ interpret what the construction documentation represented.

4

- During 1978 and 1979, liner plate for the spent fuel pools in Unit I,

, Unit II, and the transfer canals was under construction. Liner plate j inspection travelers were used by QC inspectors to record their QC

acceptance at various hold points during construction. During this same period of time, B&R construction procedures required the use of a i nondestructive examination (NDE), which served as a request (chit) by craft employees for a QC inspection at predetermined hold points. The QC inspectors signed off the NDE chits as well as the inspection travelers as a record of their inspections.

I In 1983, in anticipation of the resumption of work on the liner plate, a j

determination was made by site managers that liner plate inspections were j

to become the responsibility of the non-American Society of Mechanical

' Engineers (ASME) QC group. When the. liner plate inspection travelers were initially transferred from the ASME QC group to the non-ASME QC group, it was detennined that some of the inspection travelers had unsigned inspection hold points. In an effort to find a solution to the incomplete documentation, non-ASME personnel discovered the existence of the NDE chits. The non-ASME QC inspectors proceeded to transfer infonnation from the old five-point ASME travelers to the new eight-point non-ASME travelers. Confusion soon arose among some of the non-ASME i

inspectors when they were told they may have misinterpreted what 1 inspection step the NDE chits represented. Some of the ASME inspectors recovered the eight-point non-ASME travelers which they had completed,

and they destroyed them. Consequently, the non-ASME QC group refused to

accept the incomplete five-point travelers, and these travelers were returned to the ASME group.

I' Discussions were held among the two QC inspection groups to find a

! solution to the incomplete documentation. Subsequently, an agreement was reached between the two groups that old NDE chits signed by QC inspectors

, during their original inspections in the construction of the liner plate

! could be used to substantiate that the QC inspections had been performed.

In this regard, by using the corresponding NDE chits, the unsigned lines on the liner plate inspection travelers could be signed by a QC inspector referencing a late entry. A QC inspector was assigned to conduct a document review of the travelers and the NDE chits; and sign off the travelers if supporting NDE chits were available.

lI I

An allegation was subsequently made that the sign off of the inspection travelers using the NOE chits was improper because the QC inspector had not actually performed the inspections. It was also alleged that some of i

i l

Case No. 4-84-039

' 1 l

i

.. ~

l the NDE chits might not represent the corresponding hold points. This allegation was investigated in coordination with a representative of the Comanche Peak Technical Review Team (TRT). The TRT assumed the -

responsibility (or detemining the validity of the use of the NDE chits for making the late entry sign offs. During the course of the, e investigation, it was learned that two QC supervisors in charge of the

! liner plate inspection traveler review may have improperly ordered the QC l inspector to sign off incomplete inspection hold points whether or not  !

there were corresponding NDE chits. It was further developed that one of  !

the QC supervisors threatened to make the QC inspector stay over a weekend if necessary to complete the task. The focus of this investi-l gation was changed to detemine if such improper instructions were given

,,to the QC inspector.

l Fifteen present and former employees were interviewed as part of this i j investigation. Five employees provided testimony regarding their i

recollection of how the liner plate inspection travelers and NDE chits had been used during 1978 and 1979. Although these employees' under-standing was not exactly the same, their recollections indicated that Category 1 on the five-point traveler had been reserved for the fit-up and cleanliness inspection on the inside weld. The five employees' testimony indicated that the five-point liner plate inspection traveler had not contained a line for sign off on fit-up and cleanliness for the inside weld. These employees believed that the NDE chits in question had been used for fit-up and cleanliness in preparation for the initial l

tacking of the plates. This general understanding was also repeated by an EBASCO QC supervisor representing the utility during testimony before

- ithe CPSES Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB).

i 'A TUGC0 senior engineer testified he was aware that the B&R ASME super-

. visor in charge of transferring the travelers to the non-ASME group was  !

' attempting to use the NDE chits to complete the unsigned inspection steps t on the travelers.

Two EBASCO QC specialists testified they were in the millwright shop on the evening the QC inspector received the traveler project instructions.

t Both QC specialists said the QC inspector expressed concern to them about I the ASME supervisors' instructions.

An EBASCO employee working for TUGC0 as a non-ASME supervisor confimed  :

+

' that his inspection group had refused to accept the incomplete travelers.

l This supervisor said he heard portions of the QC inspector's conversations ,

with the ASME supervisors. This non-ASME supervisor said he heard the ASME supervisors explain to the QC inspector that the chits could be used

to sign the. incomplete hold points. The non-ASME supervisor said he recalled that the QC inspector expressed confusion about these instructions.

The non-ASME supervisor said he reconsnended that the QC inspector reference

> a late entry on the travelers. The non-ASME supervisor said that one of -

, his non-ASME QC inspectors represented him during the discussions between

! the ASME supervisors and the QC inspector assigned to complete the travelers.

I Case No. 4-84-039 2

l i

___-...___ ._._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ , , , _ , , _ _ _ , - _ _ _ _ , _ . _ , _ ,_ . J

s This non-ASME QC inspector who was present during the discussion between the ASME supervisors and the QC inspector in the millwright shop confimed that he heard one of the ASME supervisors order the QC-inspector to sign off the incomplete hold points on the travelers whether or not there were corresponding NDE chits present to substantiate that the original inspections had been performed. This non-ASME inspector testified that he knew the ASME supervisor's instructions to the QC inspector were improper. He added, however, that the QC inspector did i not sign off traveler hold points which did not have corresponding chits.

Additional testimony confirmed that a nonconfomance report (NCR) was prepared on travelers which had not been signed off due to the absence of

, supporting documentation.

The B&R ASME QC supervisor who was identified by the QC inspector as the one who ordered the sign off of the travelers testified that he did not recall being present when the ASME QC supervisor in charge of the project gave the QC inspector instructions for completing the travelers. The other B&R ASME QC supervisor responsible for the liner plate inspection travelers said he assigned the QC inspector to conduct a document review and detemine which travelers had corresponding NDE chits that could be used for signing off the travelers by referencing a late entry. This supervisor said he instructed the QC inspector to write an NCR if corres-ponding NDE chits were not found which could substantiate that the original inspections had been performed. This supervisor denied ordering the QC inspector to sign off travelers which did not have corresponding chits, and denied saying the QC inspector would have to stay over the weekend to complete signing off the travelers if it took that long. This supervisor said that to the best of his recollection, no one else had been present at the time he instructed the QC inspector how to complete the inspection travelers.

The TRT prepared a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) which reflects there were apparent record anomalies in the travelers which included instances of hold points being signed off improperly; however, none of these l irregularities were attributed to the QC inspector who made the late

! entry sign offs on the travelers.

The weight of the testimony obtained during the OI investigation indicates the independence and organizational freedom of the QC inspector was interfered with by at least one of the QC supervisors. Further, if the QC inspector had succumbed to the improper order and implied threat, inspection records would have been falsified. The QC supervisors' actions appeared to have been solely based on production demands.

Case No. 4-84-039 3

ENCLOSURE

.\

-. SYN 0PSIS In early 1983, a confrontation occurred at the Comanche Peak Steact Electric Station (CPSES) site Quality Assurance (QA) audit office between the site Quality Control (QC) supervisor and members of two corporate QA audit groups. The site QC supervisor mistakenly believed that one of the QA auditors with whom he had a continuing personality conflict had directed craft personnel to remove a weld on a support in contravention to an existing agreement between QA and QC management.

Another QA auditor, the one actually involved in identifying the suspect weld, explained to the QC supervisor that craft personnel had initiated '

the issuance of an item removal notice for the weld of their own volition.

Subsequent to the auditor's explanation, the site QC supervisor made a statement to the auditors in which he referenced potential physical or political harm to the auditors as related to their audit activities.

The circumstances of the incident were investigated by utility staff personnel. A report was issued in which the staff concluded that although the QC supervisor's behavior was improper, none of the auditors had been intimidated.

In November 1984, one of the QA auditors, who had been present during the 1983 confrontation in the audit office, made an allegation to the NRC that the site QC supervisor had threatened and attempted to intimidate the QA auditors. A copy of the utility's investigative report on the incident was reviewed by a representative of the NRC Office of Investiga-

.tions (01). The utility staff investigators were also interviewed, and I they reported that the notes from their interviews with the witnesses had been destroyed following the issuance of the report in consideration of the confidentiality they had granted the employees. An 01 investigation was initiated.

In addition to the interview of the site QC supervisor accused of intimi-dation, five employees who were present in the QA audit office when the incident occurred were interviewed. None of the QA auditors reported evidence of discrimination or any adverse change in their work conditions as a result of this incident. One witness did not recall the site QC supervisor making a statement related to physical or political harm. The remaining four witnesses recalled that the QC supervisor had made the statement. Two of the four said they did not believe the QC supervisor had intended to intimidate the auditors, nor did they believe any of the auditors had been intimidated. The remaining two witnesses concluded the the site QC supervisor's statement regarding " political" harm constituted a threat which was intended to adversely influence the auditors' freedom

(- to conduct

• audits and report findings.

l The site QC supervisor declined to be interviewed citing the fact that his testimony had already been taken in a deposition for the CPSES Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. A review of the deposition confirmed that the site QC supervisor had made the statement regarding physical and political harm. The site QC supervisor said that his remarks had been addressed to one auditor only. The site QC supervisor said his reference to physical harm was an unfortunate statement and was unintentional. The Case No. 4-84-050 1

s --

site QC supervisor said he intended to convey in his reference to political harm that he was prepared to report the auditor's performance (invalid findings) to his QA supervisors if necessary. ~

. Case No. 4-84-050 2