ML20215L083
| ML20215L083 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1986 |
| From: | Johnson E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Counsil W TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8610280458 | |
| Download: ML20215L083 (3) | |
Text
,.
OCT 151986 In Reply Refer To:
Dockets: 50-445/86-29 50-446/86-24 Texas Utilities Generating Company ATTN: Mr. W. G. Counsil Executive Vice President 400 North Olive, L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Gentlemen:
This refers to the investigation (Case Number 4-84-012) conducted by Mr. H.
Brooks Griffin of the NRC Office of Investigations, Region IV Field Office, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Pennits CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.
This investigation was initiated by the Office of Investigations as the result of NRC Investigation Case Number 4-84-006.
Both investigations were based on allegations by a former Brown & Root ironworker at Comanche Peak regarding intimidation and harassment. The NRC Intimidation Panel considered these allegations during their review of Comanche Peak related cases as described in
" Report of the Review and Evaluation of Allegations of Intimidation and Harassment of Employees at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2,"
which was transmitted to you on November 4, 1985.
Enforcement action relative to the NRC Intimidation Panel findings has been handled previously.
Should you have any questions concerning this investigation, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, Oeiginal Signed By C. H. Jchnson E. H. Johnson, Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects
Enclosure:
Appendix - NRC Investigation Report Cover Page and Synopsis (Case Number 4-84-012) cc:
(seenextpage)
RIV:CPRTfd' RSB k ACk E0 DRSP Y IBarnes:gb TFWesterman MEMerson DPowers EHJohnson g /9 /86
/$/86
$ /A /86
/ o /fo /86 10/14/86 mamat 28@
I 1
G
Texas Utilities Generating Company 2
cc:
Texas Utilities Electric Company ATTN:
G. S. Keeley, Manager Licensing Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Juanita Ellis President - CASE i
l 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, Texas 75224 Renea Hicks Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division P. O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711 - 2548 Administrative Judge Peter Bloch U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Elizabeth B. Johnson Administrative Judge Oak Ridge National Laboratory P. O. Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 1107 West Knapp Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Anthony Roisman, Esq.
Executive Director Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 2000 P. Street, N.W., Suite 611 Washington, D. C. 20036 Texas Radiation Control Program Director
DISTRIBUTION:
bec to DMB (IE01) bec distrib. by RIV:
- RPB
- MIS System
- RRI-0PS
- RSTS Operator
- RRI-CONST
- R&SPB
- RSB
- RIV File J. Taylor, IE
- D. Weiss, LFMB (AR-2015)
J. Konklin, IE
- I. Barnes, CPTG M. Emerson
- w/766 D. Powers 1
.(
UNITED STATES
- f, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGION IV NINWON, TE S
1 REPORT OF II. VEST! CATION
Title:
Case Number: 4-84-012 COMMCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION:
ALLEGED INTIMIDATION OF BROWN & ROOT, INC.
Date of Report: 8/14/84
~~STRLCTINIEl. WEl. DING CREWS Control Office:
OIF0:RIV Status:
CLOSED Licensee / Vendor /Other:
Supplemental Information:
Tens Utilities Generating Company O!FO:RIY Report of Investigation Number 4-84-006 4
Docket No. 50-445/446 Basis of Investigation:
Curing a related investigation conducted by the Region IV Office of Investigations FieldOffice(4-84-006), a former Prewn /, Root ironworker at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station near Glen Rose, Texas, was interviewed regarding his kr,owledge of intimidation and harassment.
The former employee alleged that in 4
December 1981, a Brown & Root ironworker superintencent. ordered his subordinates, under threat of temination, to perf orn, work which might have adversely affected other Quality work being performed at the same location. The former employee also alleged that sometime in the winter of 1981 this sarne ironworker superintendent threatened to terininate subordinates who did not treet production quotas he arbitrarily set, and that deficient work resulted.
Ofstribution:
Reported by:
M. eA L_//yL-H. Brooks Griffin Investigator, DIF0:RIV Approved by:
A
$4 t
Rii.hard K. Fierr '
Director, OIF0:RIV Approved by: (
Participating Personnel:
4l
~
- }
N C~
6 t
/
ik W h
M O'en't.f Hayes Direct'or, Office of Investig,akions i
R ert Humber: 4-84-012 SYNOPSIS On August 29, 1983, during a related NRC investigation (4-84-006), a former Brown & Root, Inc. (Brown & Root) ironworker at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) alleged that a Brown & Root ironworker superintendent regularly threatened and intimidated his subordinates and had, on two occasicns in the winter of 1981, instructed employees to perform work which resulted, or could have resulted, in substandard work.
The alleger testified that in December 1981, this superintendent specifically ordered, under threat of termination, crews under his supervision to arrange for concrete to be chipped in a room where welding was being perforned on a safety system by a pipe crew.
The alleger related that the superintendent's improper order and threat were made after he (the alleger) had explained to the superintendent the potential adverse affects of dust on the welding in progress.
The alleger stated that the superintendent's orders were obeyed and the concrete was chipped until a quality control (QC) inspector stopped the concrete chipping.
The alleger also purported that during a production meeting in the winter of 1981, this same ironworker superintendent set a daily quota of 200 welding reds for each welder on his crew and threatened to terminate employees not meeting his production demands.
The alleger said much of the welding performed by the crews subsequent to this quota being established was rejected by QC and balance of plant (BOP) inspectors, and required rework.
Fifteen present and former Brown & Root employees who were believed to have knowledge of these allegations were interviewed.
Regarding the concrete chipping incident, two of the fifteen interviewees furnished pertinent information. One ironworker recalled having heard the alleger explain the dust problem to the superintendent and the superintendent's orders to have the concrete chipped anyway.
Although this f ronworker did not hear the super-intendent threaten to terminate anyone, he allowed that the superintendent normally discussed differences with employees in private. A pipe welder performing welding in the room on the day of the chipping incident testified that he complained about the concrete chipping tn the QC inspector.
The pipe welder said the QC inspector made him stop his welding until the superin-tendent's crew had stopped the concrete chipping and the dust had settled.
(2)
-_.~
F art humber: 4-84-012 i,
The QC inspector who was alleged to have stopped the welding and concrete chipping, said he did not recall the incident although he may have been i
involved.
Four other ironworkers, two ironworker foremen, a pipefitter, two l
pipe foremen, a pipe general foreman, and two BOP inspectors all said they l
were either not present or did not recall the concrete chipping incident. fio I
information was developed to indicate that this incident resulted in deficient v,e l d s.
I ine ironworker superintendent who was alleged to have threatened the alleger 1
with termination if he did not follow his instructions regarding the concrete chipping, testified that he neither recalled the incident nor recalled threatening the alleger during such an incident.
Regarding the second allegation, the same fifteen present and former Brown &
Root employees were interviewed regarding the superintendent's statements i
during a production meeting.
Eight of these provided pertinent information.
Four of the five ironworkers interviewed said they attended the meeting.
Two of these four ironworkers testified that the ironworker superintendent told the wei ers he expected them to use 200 rods a day, or they would be terminated.
The otr.ar two ironworkers in attendance testified they did not recall the t
j superintendent setting any quota or threatening to fire anyone.
Two Brcwn &
l 1
Root ironworker foremen were interviewed.
One foreman said he attended the meeting and heard the superintendent threaten to terminate welders who did not meet his expectations, but said he did not recall the superintendent setting a l
quota. The other ironworker foreman sold he was not present at the meeting l
although he later heard about the superintendent's quota of 200 rods a day from i
other employees.
Two BOP inspectors were interviewed.
One inspector said he had been the primary inspector for the switch gear in Unit I, which was the j
I area the superintendent's crews were welding during the period in question.
This 80P inspector said he had heard talk among the superintendent's crew i
I mer.bers about the 200 rod a day quota.
This inspector said he rejected a large i
number of welds on the switch gear subsequent to the meeting, and it was his opinion that much of the rework was necessitated by the superintendent's l
pressure for production.
The other B0P inspector said he was not aware of the j
superintendent's production meeting, but said he recalled the large number of (3)
R
.rt liumber: 4-84-012 welds the other BOP inspector had rejected cn the switch gear.
The QC inspector (supra) and the five pipe crew employees (supra) said they were unaware of the ironworker superintendent's production meeting.
The ironworker superintendent who was alleged to have set the 200 rod a day quota and reportedly threatened to terminate those employees not meeting the quota, denied setting any quota for the welders.
The superintendent said he had identified two welders during the meeting who had used in excess of 200 rods on a particular day as examples of good production.
The superintendent said he told the crew members that low producers would have to increase production or he (the superintendent) would have to take " corrective action."
The superintendent explained that by " corrective action," he meant termination.
The fifteen interviewees were questioned regarding their knowledge of the ironworker superintendent's record and reputation regarding the threatening or termination of employees.
Seven ironworkers who worked under the superin-tendent were interviewed.
Four ironworkers, including two foremen, said they had personal knowledge that this superintendent regularly threatened employees with termination and had a reputation as an intimidator.
The other three ironworkers denied knowledge of the superintendent ever threatening anyone's job.
Eight pipe, QC, and B0P employees were interviewed.
Three said the superintendent had a reputation on site as an intimidator, and five said they were not aware of the superintendent's reputation. With the exception of the reported increase in deficient welds which required rework, no information was surfaced to indicate that the alleged acts of harassment and intimidation adversely affected the ability of personnel to properly perform their duties.
(4)