ML20238A615
| ML20238A615 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1985 |
| From: | Griffin H, Hayes B, Herr R NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20238A433 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-378 4-84-050, 4-84-50, NUDOCS 8709090368 | |
| Download: ML20238A615 (16) | |
Text
- - _ - - _ - - - -
j,, jfdl
-Title: COMAliCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION:
ALLEGED INTIMIDATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY (TUGCO)
QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDITORS BY TUGC0 QC MANAGEMENT 1
-Licensee: Case Number: 4-84-050 Texas Utilities Generating Company Report Date: October 15, 1985 2001 Brian Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Control Office: 01:RIV Docket No.: 50-445/446 Status: CLOSED l
l I
Reported by: Reviewed by:
d' Rictiar'd K. He'rf A
H. Brooks Griffin Investigator, 01:RIV /// Director, 01:RIV 7
Appr e iy:
l y kfB. HayesT D1 or
~
Office of Inves tion P
WARNING The attached document / report has not been reviewed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.79(a) exemptions nor has any exempt material been deleted.
Do not disseminate or discuss its contents outside NRC. Treat as "0FFICIAL USE ONLY."
c,7 o
~
ykW SYNOPSIS In early 1983, a confrontation occurred at the Comanche Peak Steam 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 OC 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 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 Fad 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.
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 auditot only. The site QC supervisor said his reference to physical harm was an unfortunate statement and was unintentional. The
\
d l k - Case No. 4-84-050 1
_ U
7 /'
3 .,. ^1 !:u t 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 i findings) to his QA supervisors if necessary.
{l l
l I
l l
I 1
j l
1 I
l l
l l
l l
l I
l l
l l
)
L i
l
[
l l
Case No. 4-84-050 2
y 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SYN 0PSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................... 3 APPLICABLE. REGULATIONS ...................... 5 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Purpose of Investigation ................... 7 o nd ....... ................. 7
.................. 8 nterview wi obert SPANGLER ................ 9 l
]h rview with Gilbert S. EY ...............
9 10
................ 10 I4 10 nofA
/H
................ 11
................ 11 eview of Ron TOLSON's CPSES ASLB Deposition ......... 11 Interview with Billy Ray CLEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 W111 fulness / Intent Section .................. 12 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Status of Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 LIST OF EXHIBITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IS l
J' information in this record was deleted in accordance with the Fpedqm of Information Act, exemptions ~7 ( h 1'
@j,,bTR. .-
l s t. l
.. 1 l
Case No. 4-84-050 3
ii
- 1. a 1 . i
- i. }
l l 1
I1 Ii A
s .
1
\
l-l Case No. 4-84-050 4
. . l' ,
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Allegation: Intimidation of Employees by Upper Management
'10 CFR'50, Appendix B,. Criterion I: Authority and Organizational Freedom to Identify Quality Problems. .f 10 CFR 50.7: Employee Protection- .
s Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. Section 210(a): Employee Protection ;
i i
4 i
1 l
1 I
i
- I t
l Case No. 4-84-050 5
e J
Case No. 4-84-050 6
i l'
f
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION purpose of Investigation
. This investigation was initiated to determine if certain statements made by the Texas Utilities Generating Co. (TUGCO) site Quality Control (QC) supervisor at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) to the corporate Quality Assurance (QA) auditors performing site audits in 1983 were intended tial quality to influence the auditors to refrain from reporting poten-discrepancies.
whether the incident involving the conflict between the QC supervis the QA auditors changes resulted in their work in any discrimination against the auditors or conditions.
Background <
During theaudits performing early part at theofCPSES.
1983, two TUGC0 corporate audit groups were One of the groups was auditing Class V pipe supports, and their audit activities included field verifications.
The leadmight believed auditorbefor the pipe support audit identified a weld which he deficient.
craft and QC employees. This lead auditor discu: sed the weld with Notice (IRW) was issued on the weld. Subsequent to these discussions, an Item Remova This IRN was not issued by the auditor or at his direction. The IRN caught the attention of a senior EBASCO Services Inc. (EBASCO) QC supervisor who investigated and deter-mined that a corporate QA auditor was involved. The EBASCO QC supervisor in turn informed the TUGC0 site QC supervisor. These two QC supervisors mistakenly believed the auditor had directed the craft employees to rework the the weld, and they went to the site QA audit office and confronted auditors. At one point during the exchange between at least one auditor and the QC supervisors, the site QC supervisor was elleged to have said auditors could get hurt physically or politically.
On August 8,1983, in response to rumors of intimidation and cover-up on the part of Dallas QA management, William CLEMENTS, TUGC0 Vice President Nuclear, ordered that an internal investigation be performed by two TUGC0 staff supervisors.
An investigation ensued, and the results were reported in an August 19, 1983 TUGC0 investigative report. This report addressed the above described incident as an allegation of intimidation.
The utility's investigators concluded that in spite of the intimidating manner in which the site QC supervisor conducted discussions, there was no evidence to support an allegation of intimidation. l On November 28, 1984, a former TUGC0 QA auditor who had been involved in the above described incident made an allegation to the NRC Re Technical Review Team (TRT) and Office of Investigations (01)gion IV representa-tives that the TUGC0 site QC supervicor had attempted to intimidate the corporate QA auditors through his actions and statements related to this
. incident.
the utility's investigative report.The fomer auditor provided the NRC with an ex 1
On January 31, 1985, a complete copy of the TUGC0 investigative report was requested and received by the reporting investigator from TUGC0 QA :
Case No. 4-84-050 7 '
1
i management. Following a review of the report , en O! investigation was initiated.
/
INVESTIGATOR'S N0E: CONFIDENTIALITY: In an attempt to preserve the confidentiality granted to certain witnesses during the course of this investigation and in consideration of the limited number of witnesses interviewed, the testimony of all of the witnesses involved in the incident in the QA office in 1983 will be treated as confidential, with .
the exception of the site QC supervisor accused of the intimidation.
Also, special attention was given to any evidence that suggested that employees may have been subjected to discrimination as fallout from this incident.
Interview with lh On November 28, 1984, a former Texas Utilities Generating i Co. (TUGCO) Quality Assurance auditor, was interviewed by Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) Technical Review Team (TRT) Project Manager, Vince N00NA RR r esentative n ZUDANS, Investigator H. Brooks GRIFFIN in Exhibit 1 id tha .
Mh a TUGC nior de a number of~technYaT audito intimidation of QA auditors, described an incident which occurred while his audit group was egations which included an l
l con u n-site audit a PSES which includ d field verifica-tion.
gq reca e h bout a we whic aid he leved had insuffic d-up. aid he remembere n r hat I personne her den ied) agreed wit inding.
said tha ad discussed the condition the wel with ei er craft or ontrol (QC) personnel, and an Item Removal Notice was written on the weld.
aid that the IRN a C pervisor, and tha quently transferred uestioned toj%r eithe craft person e to find o t why the weld w go to be removed aid he learned that hen went to Ron TOLSON, the site QA supervisor, aid the auditors we on s te in an office preparing their audit fin ngs, when TOLSON an into the office and asked, "Who's the team lea on t is a itt" aid that at t ime, he was unaware that ad found d icient weld, said he identi-fied himself eam leader, and TOLSON told auditor will ever request a weld be removed from the field." sai e plained to TOLSON that he did not know what he was talki a , said that TOLSON said something to the effect, "You liste ou wor at it hard eno h and ;omeone is going to get hurt el er ph sically or politi-
.cally." lyou have been here long enough to know what I'm talking
- about." d that TOLSON further stated to him, "You are having , p them rem e e weld just like you did in the rad-waste audit." ,f ase o. 4-M-MO 8
INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: )hadenteredthe room prior to TOLSON ma ng the statement re erencing physical or political harm.
said tha told TOLSON he was the one that had found the
[Teric'entweld, aid that TOLSON mething effact.
"Wely M 1 kn i s you." aid tha sroceeded to e $ lain to TOLSON and tion of the i icient build-up of the weld, and that TO ON a con left the office.
ktatedthatTOLSON'sstatementsregardingpoliticalandphysical am constituted intimidation, and said the inc n adversely affected the auditors as related to their audit duties, said that he did not interpret TOLSON's statements as meaning that (TOLSON) was planning physical ham against the auditors, but rather that TOLSON was indicating there had been conflict between auditors and QC personnel before.
(th lso stated that during the time he worked for TUGCO, he d continu-ing difficulties before and after this incident with TOLSON. said that during the time he worked at TUGCO, he received satisfac ry erform-ance ratings for his work.
said that he had an expurgated copy of the internal investigation MetedbyTUGC0ss sors into the alleged intimidation of the auditorsbyTOLSON.(mig that craft pl yees saidthe hurt theauditors report documented TOLSON's if they disagreed explanation over audit findings. said that it was his opinion that this was something that TOLSON made up ater as an ex '
on for his statement, and said he did not believe that it was true. [said it was also his opinion that craft employees could thr him olitically, regardless of their scheduling pressures, aid he believed that TOLSON's statements were intended as int dat on of the corporate auditors as related to their audit duties, the QA auditors, as well as the site QC personnel ately reported to the same individual, David CHAPMAN (supra). said that CHAPMAN invariably sided with TOLSON and the QC group over QA audit group in disagreements, because of the close friendship between TOLSON and CHAPMA$!.
Interview with' Robert G. SPANGLER
$PANGLER, TUGC0 QA Supervisor, was interviewed on February 27, 1985 l (Exhibit 3), by NRC Investigator H. Brooks Griffin in Dallas, Texas. '
SPANGLER said that Gilbert KEELEY, a TUGC0 engineer, and he conducted an investigation which included the 1983 incident involving TOLSON and the QA audit group (Exhibit 2). SPANGLER,said their investigat,tve report concluded that TOLSON had not intimidated the QA auditors. SPANGLER said they destroyed the notes taken during their interviews with the auditors in consideration of keeping their testimony confidential.
When questioned about TOLSON's reference to political ham. SPANGLER said
- some of the auditors said they did not know what TOLSON hao intended.
SPANGLER said some of the auditors indicated that TOLSON was referring to the professional embarrassment auditors could suffer for reporting invalid f- I findings. SPANGLEk said his interview with QA management determined that / I Case No. <-,<-050 9
JP ip i i
they did not believe TOLSON's statements were intended to intimidate the auditors. j Interview with.311bert S. KEELEY .
KEELEY,'a TUGC0 Principal Engineer, was interviewed on February 27, 1985 (Exhibit 4), by the reporting investigator in Dallas, Texas. KEELEY said he had participated with SPANGLER in the August 1983 investigation of the incident involving TOLS0h and the QA auditors. KEELEY Aaid TOLSON believed QA auditors should be accompanied on field veHfications by QC personnel. KEELEY said that the auditors he interviewed interpreted TOLSON's statement regarding political harm as referring to QA management potentially questioning an auditor's professional abilities if he reported invalid findings. KEELEY taid he concluded that TOLSON had not intended to intimidate the auditors nor had any of the auditors been intimidated.
Interview FIDENTIALITYGRANTED) or TUGCO, was i rvie d on April 10, 1985, by the reporti nyes t the CPSES. provi
! sworn statement (Exhibit 5) :estified 98 id he recalled an incident e
, repor that been issued as the result of a QA audit. OLSON to the QA audit office, and said T ON explained to the audit rs that he had an agreement with Tony VEGA, the QA supervisor, that auditors would not direct craft activities.
sa so to , ut t at another a l interjected himself into the conversation. no recol ection of TOLSON making nt regar ng po itical or physical harm to the auditors. aid he was aware that TOLSON disagreed in some ways with th nner n which the QA audit program was being implemented at that time, but aid TO SON was in no position to I " politically harm" the QA auditors. xpressed the opinion that TOLSON had r.ot intimidated the audi rs.
l Interview wit l was intervie ch 13, 1985, by the report nyesti ided a sworn statement (Exhibit 6)g .
said it was s op on th ad not attempted to int e e auditcrs .
by his statements aid he believed the incident re accurately reflected a conti g pers ality conflict between TOLSON Interview with .
l was inter ewed o rch 7,
- 1985, by the report ng investi tor in Te rovide a sworn statement (Exhibit 7). I.
Case No. 050 g
over the two QA audit s involved in the incident at PSES with TOLSON in 1983. aid one of udi s calle e site QA audit office nresponsetotheinc%'1 dent, s ard TOLSON's statement regarding physical or poli cal ha , aid interpreted TOLSON's statement to mean auditors could be d cra e cyees if they 2 ont them with audit findings.
sai id not know wha eant by political harm, b tha TOL ON ha contro ver e auditors' job situation.
concluded that d not believe TOLSON was attempting to timidate anyone, nor di elieve the auditors could have interpreted TOLSON's statement as in ation.
Interview wi h) was interviewe the reporting investigator on Marc , . Da as, Texas. provided a sworn statement (Exhibit 8). estified th erpreted TOLSON's statements to an a di rs ight be physically harmed for reporting deficiencies. aid he believed ~TOLSON's statement that auditors could be harmed 1ca ly me audi rs could lose their jobs if they reported too many cies. said h beli ed TOLSON was attempting to intimida a s d be believe l job was adversely affected by the i cide . baid he al eved nther auditors were adversely affected by t e incicent.
INVESTIGAT 'SNOTE:/ statement also contained testimony related to of commitme toqua'ppinonsandconcernsregardingQAmanagement' ity assurance, slack was interviewe til 2, 1985, by the
\ reporting in r in Dallas, Texas, rovidea a sworn statement (Exhibit 9). aid he remembered th LSON had made the statement that the QA au tor could be politically or physically harmed.
said he interpreted TOLSON's statements as intending to conve auditors that they should be less aggressive in their audits. aid he believed TOLSON's statements were improper, and that TOL50 intended ely influence the QA auditors' freedom to report findings. aid he told the TUGC0 investigator's that TOLSON's statement h d no intimidated him, g
Review of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) Deposition [Ron j TOLSON
- INVESTIGATOR's NOTE: On April 8, 1985, TOLSON was telephonically contacted by the reporting investigator, but declined to be interviewed citing his previous testimony on the subject before the CPSES ASLB as the reason.
. TOLSON's deposition was reviewed (Exhibit 10) by the ing investigator.
TOLSON confirmed that he had mistakenly believed th ad directed craft emp'ayees to perfom rework. TOLSON said it w his opinion that auditors should be required to work through QC when performing field verifications. TOLSON said his remarks made in the QA audit office were * ,)
Case No. 4-84-050 11 Qy
meant fo Snly. TOLSON said his reference to physical harm was unintendeo and unfortunate. TOLSON aid hat in his reference to political 4 harm, his intention was to convey t hat wa prepared to refer his audit nce (invalid findings) to .
supervisor. TOLSON said that William CLEMENTS, TUGC0 Vice Presi-ent-Nuclear, had indicated to him that his conduct in this matter was improper.
Interview with Billy Ray CLEMfNTS CLEMENTS, TUGC0 Vice President-Nuclear, was interviewed on April 12, 1985 4 (Exhibit 11), by the reporting investigator at the CPSES. CLEMENTS said that in August 1983, he requested that an investigation be perfomed by members of his staff related to rumors which included intimidation of QA auditors. CLEMENTS said the resulting investigative report determined that TOLSON had not intimidated the QA auditors. CLEMENTS concluded that TOLSON could not have " politically" harmed the auditors, but conceded that TOLSON's behavior in the matter was improper. CLEMENTS said he instructed TOLSON to work through QA management in the future if he had problems with QA audit activities.
Willfulness / Intent _Section The testimony taken during the course of this inve nation el arly identified a misunderstanding on the part of TOLSO elated to their belief that auditors had directed craft activ tes. The incident that resulted illustrated this misunderstanding. However, the particular statement made by TOLSON regarding physical iti 1 ham was made after TOLSON had received an explanation fr f the circumstances of how the IRN had been issued. Although th exact w ding TOLSON uted to express his concern was not quoted the same by each of the interviewees, the r erence to physical or political ham was acknowledged by everyone exce Three of the auditors, including the alleger, interpreted TOLSON's statement as an attempt to intimidate the auditors or at least impron rl influe e what ditors re ed as deficiencies. On the other handq and th id not believe TOLSON had intended to L ntimi te or i. er y ence the auditors. Many of the interviewees expressed lief that the well known personality conflict between TOLSON an was a contributing factor. None of the QA auditors indicated had suffered a change in their work conditions, nor had they been the subject of any discrimination as a result of this incident.
The TUGC0 inves ators KEELEY an NGLER) concluded, after taking the testimony from1 that the allegation of intimida-tion was not su ) ported. The investig rs reported this conclusion to CLEMENTS in the fom of an investigative report. CLEMENTS concluded I there was no intimidation, but determined that TOLSON's conduct had been l
. . improper. ,~ j l
TOLSON's deposition for the CPSES ASLB documented his testimony as - l related to his intent in, telling the auditors they might be hamed !
politically. TOLSON explained that he was prepared at the time to inform /y Ag Case No. 050
~
y l
QA management of what he believed to be instances of invalio audit I findings. The implication was that such complaints would damage the f; individual auditor's reputation with their QA management if the QA ,
management concurred with his (TOLSON's) opinion. TOLSON's statement was ;
calculated to influence the auditors into not reporting findings which might be construed as being in the " grey area."
Conclusions TOLSON had a history of conflict and disagreement with the manner in ic the QA audit program was being implemented in 1983. TOLSON and also had an ongoing personality conflict. TOLSON had previously questioned the qualifications of some of the auditors to perform field verifications and indicated he believed B ey should be accompanied by QC -
inspectors. TOLSON seemed particularly incensed by audit findings which he believed were invalid. The incident which was the subject of this investigation seemed to be the result of these accumulated concerns, TOLSON indicated he was prepared to take action and make complaints to QA management about a particular auditor if he believed his findings were invalid. Most of the interviewees indicated that TOLSON's statement regarding physical or political harm was directed to all the auditors.
None of the auditors indicated they had suffered any discrimination or change in their work conditions as a result of this incident. In that a portion of the auditor's duties involved reviewing work that TOLSON's QC groups had already accepted, and in consideration of the fact that the audit program had been set up with the intention of providing the auditors with sufficient independence to conduct their audits I conclude that TOLSON's statement was improper, was intended to influence audit findings, and was in contravention of the intended independence of the QA audit program.
Status of Investigation This investigation is closed.
[
v
~
4
)
Case No. 4-84-050 13
b d
Case No. 4-84-050 14
LIST Of EXHIBITS Exhibit N_o . Description
- 1. Transcript o'g ated November 28, 1984
- 2. Report of Investigation of Intimidation and Cover-up on the part of Dallas QA Management dated August 23, 1983
- 3. Report of Interview with Robert G. SPANGLER, February 27, 1985
- 4. Report of Interview with Gilbert S. KEELEY. February 27, 1985
- 5. tatement dated April 10, 1985
- 6. tatement dated March 13, 1985
- 7. htatementdatedMarch7,1985
- 8. tatement dated March 11, 1985
)
- 9. tatement dated April 2, 1985
- 10. Report of Telephonic Interview with Ron TOLSON ril 8, 1985), l Review of Ron TOLSON's CPSES ASLB Deposition (J y 13, 1984) l
- 11. Report of Interview with Billy Ray CLEMENTS, i,p 11 12, 1985 4
t I
1 i
~ -
f Case No. 4-84-050 15