ML20205C280
| ML20205C280 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1983 |
| From: | Burch R, Fortuna R, Hayes B, William Ward, Williamson E NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 2-83-005, 2-83-5, NUDOCS 8509200228 | |
| Download: ML20205C280 (182) | |
Text
4 p*** "6 U:;;1TED STATES NUCLEAR RE2ULATORY COMMISSION y
.: j OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGloN 11
,[
A A.
EOR LA Date: October 26, 1983 REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 4
TITLE:
V0GTLE NUCLEAR PLANT ALLEGED INTIMIDATION / HARASSMENT OF QC WELDING INSPECTORS AND POSSIBLE FALSIFICATION OF QC INSPECTION RECORDS BY PULLMAN POWER PRODUCTS, INC.
SUF PLEMENT:
50-424 CASE NUM3ER:
2-83-005 CONTROL OFFICE:
01: Region II STATUS:
CLOSED REPORTING OFFICE:
01: Region II PERIOD OF INVESTIGATION:
May 19 - July 9, 1983 REPORTING INVESTIGATOR:
IW R be t H. Bu k Investigator Office of Investig tions Field Office, Region II i,///AV-M REVIEWED BY:
y E. L. Williamse, Acting Director Office of Investiptions Field Of ice, Region II lbv/ bffi 1026 W1111amJ. Ward [ Director eso,2ggg2e g3,om424 DESIGUM,,o31oru a cE pDR Division of Field Operations POR
/LAli!U)
~
" ~'
Office of Investigations g 37 l';
Ecoq
2 r
l
. ["
6 %,
IA m w Roger oftuna,'DeputyD e tor Of of Inve ati i
APPROVED BY:
b i
N B. Hayes, h tor Office of Investig,ati s
f d
i k
e J
)
i s
t
,s.
v b
b b
l 4
-a".
e i
e E
D f
O SWMARY 69 9
e O. S f
1 9
]
i 1
t'~
Summary N
This investigation was initiated to identify and document alleged intimidation and harassment of Pullman Power Products, Inc. (PPP) Quality Control (QC) welding inspectors by the company's construction management personnel.
PPP, head-quartered in Williamsport, PA, is under contract to install all piping and piping supports associated with the construction of the Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant (VNP), in Wdynesboro, GA, a licensed facility rif the Georgia Power Company.
Additionally, it was reported to the NRC that the intimidation and harassment experienced by the QC welding inspectors may have resulted in possible improprieties regarding inspection records prepared and maintained by these individuals.
The allegation pertaining to intimidation and harassment of QC welding inspectors by the Project Manager at the VNP was first reported to the Senior Resident Inspector (SRI), NRC at the facility.
This initial allegation was substantiated by the SRI'd0 ring the subsequent interviews of four additional QC welding inspectors employed by PPP.
Additionally, a Confidential Source alleged vast PPP material storage problems, records improprieties and incidents of intimidation by the Project Manager and his construction superintendents. The SRI obtained information that QC inspectors were being manipulated by the Project Manager through threats relating to adverse personnel actions affecting employment and salary matters. Additionally, the Project Manager allegedly interfered with the utilization of QC welding inspectors and attempted to influence the reassignments of inspectors whose work histories did not favor production and scheduling.
An
~
onsite incident of assault in August 1982 upon a QC welding inspector by a
'donstruction superintendent, both employees of PPP, was also reported to the SRI.
A review of pertinent regulatory documents, standards, procedures and contract requirements was conducted pursuant to the investigation.
It was disclosed that PPP committed to cooperate with the licensee to ensure QC standards for the VNP are enforced at all times.
Further, this review disclosed that the line of authority regarding administrative matters for the QA/QC manager at the field office site of PPP is through the Project Manager.
It was determined that PPP or J
l 2
{[
a subsidiary company was the subject of previous inquiries regarding intimidation
\\
and harassment of QC inspectors at the Seabrook Nuclear Plant, Seabrook, New Hampshire and at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, Avila Beach, California. A licensee initiated self evaluation in late 1982, utilizing Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) criteria, identified that the QA/QC administrative reporting to the Project Manager is an area of weakness in ths PPP field organi-Zation.
During the investigation, nineteen field level QC welding inspectors in PPP's field office at the VNP were interviewed regarding intimidation and harassment, interference by the Project Manager and inspection records improprieties.
Five of these individuals confirmed vast material storage deficiencies which are compounded by the overt refusals on the part of construction management to divert craft efforts to correct the problems.
These inspectors viewed the construction superintendent's negative attitude toward Storage Inspection Report deficiencies as a form of intimidation.
Some of these inspectors also related instances of interference and intervention into QC inspector assignment matters by construc-tion management to favor scheduling and the production effort. All except one of the QC inspectors interviewed reported variously that the Project Manager has attempted to influence the utilization of, and decisions rendered by, inspectors; that the salary administration and other benefits for QA/QC personnel controlled by the project Manager is unfair and inequitable; that he arbitrarily adjusts recommended salary increases based upon subjective criteria; that he is frequently publicly non-supportive and negative towards the QC function; that he and construction superintendents publicly chastise and embarass inspectors and that he employs remarks which threaten job security as a means of intimidation
'and harassment.
The lone dissenting QC inspector was determined to be a personal friend of the Project Manager and bad been the_ recipient of preferential treat-ment regarding a job assignment on site.
Those inspectors with knowledge of an onsite altercation, in August 1982, between a former PPP Construction Super-intendent and a QC Welding Inspector indicated that the superintendent disagreed with the inspector's perception of the non-conforming item being discussed.
One inspector reported an offsite altercation in December 1982 between a Construction Superintendent and a QC Inspector Supervisor during which the superintendent held an open knife on the QC supervisor.
a
l
/j Two current and one former QC supervisory personnel were interviewed and each
~
substantiated the claims and perceptions of field inspectors regarding incidents i
and acts of QC negativism by construction managers, intimidation, harassment, adverse interference, verbal threats, embarassment and chastisement'of these individuals by the Project Manager and his subordinates.
All of these individuals indicated that production and scheduling appear to take precedence over the quality functions, an attitude nurtured by the Project Manager and his' construction staff.
Authorized Nuclear Inspe'ctors at the VNP also confirmed l
intimidation and harassment of QC welding inspectors by PPP construction manage-
]
ment.
Inquiries were also conducted among the QC inspection parsonnel who allegedly engaged in visual inspection practices which were not in accordance with existing procedures or who signed inspection reports without assuring corrective actions had bean-co;apleted.
One QC welding inspector admitted that he occasionally failed to conduct visual inspections within the distance requirements as specified iW PPP and ANSI /ASME precedures.
Except for this one procedural violation, all inspection personnel who were interviewed regarding record preparation and maintenance improprieties advised forthrightly that they had never signed or initialed an inspection document without first performing the actions in the manner prescribed by the applicable procedures. Ten welders or pipefitters employed by PPP were interviewed and, except for one reporting that a QC inspector had occasionally failed to visually inspect within the distance i
requirement set forth in the PPP and ASME procedures, none were aware of record improprieties by QC welding inspectors.
f The Project Manager and two construction superintendents were interviewed and all categorically denied any form of intentional intimidation and harassment of QC welding inspectors.
The Project Manager and one Superintendent admitted actions which could be interpreted as interference into matters which are purely QA/QC functions. The Project Manager denied any improprieties regarding the adminis-tration of QA/QC personnel matters. All claimed to be' supportive of the QA/QC function but acknowledged that they had failed to do so openly in a public manner.
8 4
r' Eight licensee management officials and QC ' inspection personnel at the VNP were interviewed regarding their knowledge of intimidation and harassment of QC welding inspectors employed by PPP.
No disclosures pertinent to the investi-gation were revealed during these interviews. Observations of PPP material storage areas tended to support remarks reported by QC inspectors regarding the general disarray of materials and common utilization of these areas by several major contractors onsite. A review of QC welding inspector salary data disclosed that there does not appear to be a specific correlation between the amounts of recent weekly increases received and longevity, related experience and education levels of these individuals.
at I
5 l
A..