ML20213A677

Insp Repts 50-424/87-22 & 50-425/87-16 on 870217-20.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Quality Concern Program (Qcp),Including Qualifications of Qcp Employees & Adequacy of Corrective Actions

ML20213A677
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	04/10/1987
From:	Brownlee V, Livermore H, Sinkule M, Uryc B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20213A658	List: ML20213A657 ML20213A677
References
50-424-87-22-01, 50-424-87-22-1, 50-425-87-16, NUDOCS 8704280165
Download: ML20213A677 (9)

See also: IR 05000424/1987022

Text

1 . .

'

~

' ~

,.

ka *taCug - UNIT E*) STATES l

'S o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

[*

-

y REGION 11

$'" j 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.

~t ATLANTA. GEORGI A 30323

.....

Report Nos.: 50-424/87-22 and 50-425/87-16

Licensee: -Georgia Power Company

P. 0. Box 4545

Atlanta, GA 30302

Docket Nos.: 50-424 and 50-425 License Nos.: NPF-61 and CPPR-109

Facility Name: Vegtle 1 and 2

Inspection Conduc d: February 17-20 1987

Inspectors: 2/_ - /O 57

Marvin'V. Sinkule,- Chief, Projects Section 2C Da'te Sigp6d

Reactor Projects Branch 2

Division of Reactor Proj &ects

C Get a/We 7

Her rt H. Livermo e, Senior Resident Inspector Date Signed

/Bruno

struction

EnforUryc,

mentRegional

nd

W

Allegatid

n Coordinator

tigation Co rdination Staff

4Date9/87

~

Signed

Approved by: M, 'l I h

Virgil 14, Brownlee, Chief Date Signed

Reactor Projects Branch 2

Division of Reactor Projects

SUMMARY

Scope: This announced special on-site inspection was to conduct a programmatic

review of the Georgia Power Company's Quality Concern Program (QCP) at the

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) with special emphasis on the review of

the licensee's actions on matters relating to discrimination, harassment and

intimidation which have been reported to the VEGP QCP. Areas inspected

included qualifications of the QCP employees, review of selected QCP case

files, adequacy of ~ QCP procedures, adequacy of documentation relative to the

QCP case' files, and adequacy of corrective actions and investigativa results.

Results: No violations or deviations were identified.

8704200165 870413 4

ADOCK 0500

gDR

_ -

.

.

.

REPORT DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted

Licensee Employees

• R. H. Pinson, Vice-President for Construction

• C. W. Hayes, Vogtle Quality Assurance Manager

• E. D. Groover, Quality Assurance Manager - Construction

• C. W. Whitney, General Manager - Project Support

• L. B. Glenn, Quality Concerns Program ~ Manager

• W. C. Gabbard, Senior Regulatory Specialist

• R. W. Gerson, Counsel - Quality Concerns Program

• Attended exit interview.

2. Exit Interview

G

The inspection scope and findings were summarized during an exit interview

on February 20, 1987. The inspectors related observations on the conduct

of the Quality Concerns Program. The licensee indicated that no

proprietary information was reviewed or discussed during this meeting.

i

3. Approach

The inspection team focused inspection efforts on a review of QCP case

<

files in order to develop an overall programmatic evaluation of the QCP,

to gain insight relative to QCP procedures, and to determine the

effectiveness of the QCP. Specific emphasis was placed on the review of

QCP files regarding discrimination, harassment and intimidation.

The review of the QCP files focused on the nature of the specific

complaint; the thoroughness of the documentation regarding the initial

complaint; the completeness of followup and documentation; the adequacy of

resolution actions; and QCP followup with the complainant.

l

1

i It should be recognized at this point that there is no regulatory

requirement for a licensee to maintain a quality concern program. The

licensee recognized the value of such a program and initiated the program

to address concerns raised by employees. The VEGP QCP, with the support

of senior management, has developed and matured into a significant program

to address concerns raised by employees. The QCP represents a successful

program to deal with employee concerns at VEGP.

l

. _ ~ . _ _ _ _ _. __ -

. ._-

__-

.

.

.

2

4. Team Inspection Activities

a. Overview of Quality Concern Program

The QCP was initiated in January 1984 to provide a means for project

employees to report concerns relative to the construction activities

at the project and to enable project management to address those

emplayee concerns relative to safety and quality of work at the

project. QCP is based on several premises designed to provide a

means for individual employees involved or interested in the project

- to raise safety related- concerns outside the normal supervisory

channels; to provide a means to investigate and resolve those

concerns independent of normal supervisory channels; and, to ensure

that employees understand they have a responsibility to report

problems free of fear of retaliation.

The QCP has the support of the highest levels of licensee management

and this was evidenced by several documents signed by senior managers

which discussed the QCP. One document in particular, an open letter

to project employees dated February 12, 1985, and signed by a senior

vice president, discussed the QCP and urged project employees to

utilize the program. The open letter stated in part: " Georgia Power

Company is committed to constructing and operating Vogtle in

compliance with all safety and quality requirements. Since you are

involved with Vogtle, it is your responsibility and obligation to

assist Georgia Power in meeting that commitment by informing us of

any and all conditions which might prevent such complianc'e." The

document also provided instructions on who to contact regarding a

concern and urged that concerns be reported in the interest of safety

and quality. Other means were also used to advertise the QCP such as

annual orientation meetings, new employee orientations, site employee

information meetings, paycheck flyers, QCP boxes at various locations

throughout the project, and project newspaper articles. This program

was well advertised throughout the project.

QCP receives concerns in numerous ways which include in person

reports, by mail, via QCP drop boxes at the site, by telephone, and

from various public forums such as the media. The concerns are

reviewed by the QCP staff to: determine their relationship to the

quality of work or the ability to safely operate the plant; to select

an appropriate investigative organization on the project; and, to

perform various other administrative functions. The concern is then

reviewed by the QCP Screening Committee which is comprised of the

Project Quality Assurance Manager, Legal Counsel and the QCP Manager.

The Screening Committee verifies staff determinations, particularly

in the areas of quality and investigation selection.

QCP also initiates contact with the submitter of the concern to

ensure that there is a full understanding of the concern. This

initial contact also serves to ensure that proper resolution strategy

is developed and pursued. Concerns received from individuals who

choose to remain anonymous are pursued even though the benefits of a

personal interview are not available.

j

~

.

.

.

'

3

QCP personnel have access to all areas of the. project from which they

can obtain:necessary expertise. This includes the resources of.GPC,

Southern Company Services, Bechtel Power Corporation, Westinghouse

and other contractors at the project. Within GPC, these resources

include significant expertise in the areas of Quality Assurance,

Quality Control, Maintenance, Construction Engineering, Document

Control and Operations. QCP management insists on independence in

reviewing concerns and that independence is supported by project

management.

The review of selected QCP investigative files reflected that the

files were thoroughly documented. QCP files are stored in locked

filing cabinets within the QCP facility with access restricted to QCP

personnel.

Upon conclusion of an investigation and submittal of a report, the

results of the investigation are provided to the concerned employee

either in writing . or verbally. This closure action with the

concerned employee serves to provide an opportunity to the concerned

employee to correct any misunderstandings of the concern by the QCP

investigator responsible for the action and to assure the concerned

employee that QCP properly resolved the concern. In addition, there

is additional review of the file following closure by QCP management

and legal counsel. Additional review is also performed by the QCP

Steering Committee on significant concerns. The Steering Committee

is comprised of senior level project managers.

b. GPC Nonretaliation Policy

GPC has publicly committed to a nonretaliation policy with regards to

employees who participate in the QCP or otherwise report safety

concerns. This policy has been publicly supported by the highest

levels of project management and GPC management. Senior project

management has ensured that contractor and project managers are aware

of the nonretaliation policy and numerous internal memorandums have

addressed this policy. This pledge is that retaliation against an

individual for raising quality or safety issues will not be tolerated

at the project. This nonretaliation policy has continued to receive

strong support from the highest levels of GPC management. It should

also be noted that GPC, during new employee orientations, advises new

employees of their rights regarding the reporting of concerns whether

it be to supervisors, the QCP, GPC senior management or the NRC. New

employees are provided the telephone numbers of the QCP and the NRC

during these orientation briefings,

c. Review of Investigative Files

The NRC Inspection Team focused on a review of QCP investigative

files which contained concerns related to alleged harassment and

intimidation. These particular files primarily involved concerns

which were reported to QCP by concerned individuals who did not

.)

i

l

~

!

.

.

4

choose to exercise their prerogative to file a complaint with either

the NRC or the Department of Labor. The Inspection Team reviewed

these files to ' determine the course of action taken by QCP with

regards to complaints of harassment and intimidation.

The QCP Manager was asked to provide a computer listing of all QCP

cases involving concerns related to harassment, intimidation or

discrimination. The QCP computer contained 190 case files which were

categorized as containing some element of harassment, intimidation,

retaliation or discrimination. The Inspection Team reviewed 138 of

the 190 case files. This review was to determine the nature of the

complaint, the actions taken to resolve the complaint and corrective

action. This review indicated that all complaints related to alleged

harassment-type concerns were properly addressed and satisfactorily

resolved with corrective action taken as appropriate.

d. Discussion of Harassment-Type Conce:r.s

QCP appears to be adequately following-up harassment-type concerns

received from employees at the project. Many of the cases reviewed

by the Inspection Team contained extensive follow-up efforts on the

concerns. In most case files reviewed there appeared to be

legitimate justification for personnel action being taken against

individuals who subsequently reported those actions as retaliatory.

!!arassment-type allegations represent a very difficult case to

substantiate. Harassment can take many subtle forms and often the

extent and degree of harassment is an individual perception. What

may be perceived as harassment to one individual may not necessarily

be seen as harassment by another individual subjected to the same

action. This subjective element is present in almost every case.

Many problems related to harassment-type concerns are the result of

either a lack of mid-level and/or first-level management expertise in

personnel management and communications. These problems often become

aggravated by personality conflicts or by moments of heated emotional

exchanges between individuals involved.

A serious consequence of harassment-type concerns is the " appearance"

of harassment and intimidation and the effect this " appearance" could

have on other individuals who may be peripherally associated with the

parties involved in such incidents. Again, perceptions take on a key

role in these matters and management must act quickly to insure that

such incidents do not create a " chilling effect" which would serve to

discourage other individuals from reporting concerns. Progressive

management recognizes this phenomenon and acts to defuse these

situations in a positive manner. Typically, a prompt response

involving interviews and investigative fact gathering serve to assure

employees that management will not tolerate any harrassment-type

activity. This, followed by positive corrective action, if required,

will usually control the " chilling effect." The Inspection Team

found that QCP was responsive to harassment-type concerns and

..

9

.

.

.

5

initiated prompt action to address those concerns. In some cases,

although harassment or retaliation was not substantiated, the

licensee took action to address and correct "the appearance of a

problem." Harassment-type activity very often involves claims and

counter-claims, accusations and denials, charges and counter-charges,

all of which are replete with emotion, individual perceptions and

personal feelings. These factors often can not be disentangled

because of the human element. The corrective action in these cases

should not be construed as an indicator that harassment was

substantiated, but rather as an attempt at compromise in the interest

of fairness. These salutary actions serve to contain the " chilling

effect" and encourage the continued participation of employees in the

concerns program. Available QCP reporting statistics support the

contention that such compromise actions have had a beneficial effect

at the project as long term reporting statistics do not show a

decline in the use of the program.

It was evident during this inspection that the QCP is a dynamic

program which evolved through various stages of development and

steadily matured. This development was encouraged with the public

support of senior management and the corporate position that concerns

would be addressed and resolved in a fair and equitable manner, and

that employees have a responsibility to support the program.

In many cases, the alleged harassment-type activity, such as a

lay-off or dismissal, was found through investigation, to be

technically sound and defensible. On the other hand, there were also

some cases in which a suspicion was created by the allegation which

served to weaken the defensibility of the action and raise the

possibility that the allegation "just might be true." In these

cases, the licensee took the conservative approach in favor of the

individual involved, prudently giving the benefit of the doubt to the

complainant. This appeared to be an employee-oriented approach. In

some of these cases, it was evident that the supervisors did not

follow accepted management principals in dealing with problem

.

employees. For example, there were cases were progressive discipline

'

techniques supported by detailed documentation had not been applied

! and although disciplinary action was technically correct, it also was

deficient from the standpoint that completed actions and documenta-

tion could not adequately defend against a claim of the disciplinary

action being harassment. Some investigative files reflected the

considerable effort that had gone into justifying an employee's

. termination after an allegation of retaliation became an issue.

No one can deny that construction work is physically demanding, and

at times dangerous and difficult. These men and women are experts at

working with their hands as craftsmen and some are close to being

artisans in their particular skills. Many do not possess the finer

skills of tact and diplomacy and their tendency is to be direct and

,- _

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

.

.

.

.

6

to the point. Consequently, when these individuals advance into

management . positions such as foremen and supervisors, they have

difficulty in managing people because they never learned how.

Although their intentions are honest, their ability to effectively

communicate those intentions often result in frustration and the

consequences can be dramatic at times. Most harassment-type activity

involves the first-line supervisor or manager who has had no formal

management training. The licensee has recognized this problem and

has instituted training classes for these first-line managers. This

will be further addressed in inspection report Section (g).

e. Discussions with QCP Personnel

Interviews were conducted with several members of the QCP Staff and

the credentials of all QCP staff members were reviewed. Overall, all

members of the QCP staff were found to be well qualified for their

positions. All but one staff member had a four year college degree.

Several held degrees in engineering disciplines. All had several

years experience in construction and all had been with GPC for at

least two years or more. The Inspection Team found the QCP staff

well qualified for their position.

It should be pointed out that one intangible factor was evident among

all the staff members. It is the impression of the Inspection Team

that all the QCP staff believed in what they were doing. They took

significant pride in the fact that they were an independent group and

that their responsibility was to conduct a fair and impartial review

of all concerns brought to their attention. Senior project managers

encouraged the group and provided support which enhanced their

independence. This combination significantly contributed to the

success of this group.

f. Discussions with Senior Project Management

Discussions with senior project managers affirmed their commitment to

the QCP. A vital factor in the success of the program is recognition

by senior management that the QCP is an integral part of the project

team and they are committed to sustaining their support for the

program team. The QCP Manager has routine access to project manage-

ment and receives any support requested. Senior managers are

involved in the QCP Steering Committee and are kept informed of

trends and significant issues developed in the QCP.

Senior management is aware of the possible " chilling effect" that

harassment-type concerns could exert on the project employees. It

was pointed out to the Inspection Team that the QCP " numbers" have

remained relatively constant and over time an increase in reports to

and contacts with QCP have been developing. A representative of

)

- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

.

.

7

.. .

senior management stated that they have a high degree of confidence

that there has been no " chilling effect" on project employees with

regards to their. utilization of the QCP, nor do they have any

information to indicate that a " chilling effect" has ever gripped the

project.

g. Discussions with Licensee Contractor

During the inspection, it was learned that the licensee engaged the

services of an independent contractor to provide professional

consulting services to the project relative to training in management

and operations. The consulting firm was represented by two

l individuals who held doctoral degrees in Industrial Engineering

Applications and Psychology. In the Fall of 1984, these consultants

were requested to assist in the resolution of a developing problem

involving Quality Control (QC) Inspectors. Extensive interviews were

conducted by the consultants with QC Inspectors and training was

provided to assist in the development of writing skills and

interpersonal relationships for the QC Inspectors and supervisors.

Following this, the consultants were asked to remain available at the

project to provide assistance in the development of team work

strategies and to provide individual counselling as needed. The

consultants were subsequently interviewed as part of this inspection.

They stated that they visited the project at least twice a week and

that they had free access to the project and personnel. They often

provided counsellf ag to employees on request of the employees and

they were generally available to anyone desiring to speak to them.

They were provided counselling facilities on the project and often

times would conduct spontaneous sessions with individuals in the work

place. The consultants stated that senior project management

supported them and that management was responsive to problems. The

consultants also conducted counselling sessions with various

first-line supervisors and foremen who were experiencing difficulty

with interpersonal skills. Several of these foremen had been

identified for focused attention because of indicators that they were

lacking in the ability to deal effectively with their employees. The

consultants stated that over a period of time there was an increase

in their utilization and they felt that they were able to make some

positive contributions to the project.

Although they were under contract by the licensee, they stated they

felt they had considerable freedom and support from management to

identify human relations problems and assist in the resolution of

those problems. They stated that they had extensive contact with

senior project managers and their advice was frequently solicited by

project management. They stated that they had no indication that

there was any chilling effect at the project and that

miscommunication and misunderstanding was primarily responsible for  ;

the majority of harassment-type problems at the project. They stated I

that they also provided management assistance to various contractor

managers at the project and assisted in resolution of problems being

experienced within the various contractor organizations.

-

- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ )

-

!

.

.

8

l

S. Conclusions

The inspection team found that the VEGP QCP is a viable and dynamic

program which serves an integral function at the project. QCP files which

were reviewed were found to be complete and detailed the resolution of the

concern to include closure with the concerned employee. The QCP Staff was

found to be professional in all aspects and dedicated to the QCP

principles and goals.

Since the inception of the QCP, the NRC Resident Inspector has had

unfettered access to the program and has conducted selected reviews of

case files on a periodic basis to determine the adequacy of the program.

This program has steadily matured and evolved into an effective

organizational structure serving an important function at the project.

In those instances where harassment was alleged, the licensee conducted

appropriate reviews of the allegations and took corrective action where

indicated. We previously discussed harassment type concerns in

paragraph 4, supra, and concluded there was no indication of a chilling

effect based on the statistical evidence showing no decline in the number

of employee contacts with the QCP. There is also strong evidence that the

licensee is aware of the possible chilling effect and that actions have

been taken to address the phenomenon.

>