ML20212M800

Forwards Summary of Ofc of Investigations (OI) Inquiry Repts Identified in 860113 Board Notification 86-01,per Request. NRC Position Re Relevance,As Defined in Board Notification Procedure Included.Related Correspondence

ML20212M800
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	08/25/1986
From:	Bachmann R NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Bloch P, Jordan W, Mccollom K Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#386-477 LBP-84-48, OL, NUDOCS 8608270172
Download: ML20212M800 (8)

Text

1

^

a vta WW WW.UN*LfN;k

[s 'o UNITED STATES 8 y 3 c. ( [',,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00gETEO pC

g. '^ ' :y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

% .~.Q. . 4,$ . . iis aus 26 e3s9 0FFICE OF SEDW a August 25, 1986 00CXLTjN:j j;.y! v!G.

U R.u :%

Peter B. Bloch, Esq. , Chairman Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1107 West Knapp U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Washington DC 20555 Elizabeth B. Johnson Administrative Judge Dr. Walter H. Jordan Oak Ridge National Laboratory Administrative Judge P. O. Box, Building 3500 881 W. Outer Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 In the Matter of Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al.

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Uiiftli 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 -O C

Dear Administrative Judges:

Pursuant to the Licensing Board's Memorandum (Request for Staff Analysis), LBP-84-48, 20 NRC 1455 (1984), the Staff hereby submits ig analysis of reports generated by the Office of Investigations (OI) . -

The Staff previously advised the Board as to the relevance and materiality of other OI reports by letters dated November 27, 1984 and April 19, 1985. The OI reports discussed in this submittal were identified in Board Notification No. 86-01 of January 13,1986 (Attached).

Of those reports two (4-84-039 and 4-84-050) have been identified by the Staff as " relevant to certain instances of intimidation and harassment at Comanche Peak" in Board Notification No. 86-14 of April 4, 1986, with synopses of the reports provided. Therefore, the two reports are not included in this submittal.

-1/ Consistent with the Board's Memorandum the OI reports discussed in the attachment complete the Staff's review of all OI reports at issue as of that date as well as in-process on that date. The Staff will address subsequent O! reports by Board Notification rather than by

a separate evaluation.

I 86082%{Uh g hhh o

y

• One additional report Q4-85-002, identified in Board Notification No.85-047 of ' April 23, 1985, has been included, since its analysis by the Staff has not been previously submitted. As was done in the Staff's April 19, 1985 letter, an index containing a summary of each of the OI reports and the Staff's position regarding its relevance is attached as an Appendix to this letter.

Sincerely, n

~

Richard G. Bachmann Counsel for NRC Staff

Attachment:

As stated cc w/

Attachment:

Service List i

i i

i 4

- - - , - - - - - - , - - . _ _ . - , . , ,vr._,.,-- -,..,,__--,,.,..,_m---.,-.---,-.vm.---,- , - - . - - - - - . , - , , . - - - - , , - - - - - - - - _ - . , - - _ _

F

~

APPENDIX SECOND INDEX OF OI REPORTS RELATING TO CPSES

1. OI Report of Inquiry Q4-85-002 (2/28/85)

Re: Potential Harassment of QA Auditor This report concerns threatening notes and other potential harassment of a former QA auditor at CPSES. When interviewed in a hospital, the auditor provided details of the notes and opined that the hospitalization might have been caused by an unidentifled substance in the auditor's coffee cup. OI had analyses run on notes and two coffee cups provided by the auditor. No leads were developed from the notes in identifying the author. One of the coffee cups contained a clear liquid which is poisonous to humans. The cup containing coffee residue showed 3

no trace of that substance. OI reported that it could not establish a link between the threatening notes and the auditor's audit activities. The auditor voluntarily left the job at CPSES, and declined to file a complaint with any local Isw enforcement agency. OI considers t In the Staff's view, report Q4-85-002 is " relevant" ipe to inquiry closed.

the issues of intimidation and harassment in this proceeding. The OI report does not contain sufficient information to support or refute the legation.

Accordingly, we conclude that the OI report is not " material" 2[to issues in this proceeding.

2. 01 Report of Inquiry Q4-84-013 (6/12/85) 3_/

- Re: Alleged Falsification of a Weld Data Card and Intimidation of Pipefitters This report began as an earlier OI investigation regarding intimidation at CPSES, which had not been completed when the TRT assumed the lead for technical inquiries into certain pending 01 cases, including this one. The basic allegation was made by a pipefitter and 1

concerned a lost weld data card (WDC) which was reconstructed.

According to the alleger, the foreman told the crew to keep quiet about 1/ The Staff uses the term " relevant" as defined in the Board Notification Procedure contained in NRR Office Letter No. 19, Revision 3 -

Staff Policy and Procedures for Notifications to ,

Adjudicatory Tribunals, to wit: bearing upon, connected with or relating to an issue.

2/ The term " material" is used as defined in the Board Notification Procedure cited in n.1, to wit: tending to influence or having the capability to affect the outcome on an issue. .

3/ Listed in Board Notification 86-01 as Report of Investigation 4

4-84-013.

1

iy the lost'~ card. The TRT investigated the technical aspects of the -

allegation "(SSER 'No.10, AW-63, pp N-75 through N-77), and concluded ..

that the lost WDC was properly reconstructed. OI concluded that, based in large part on the TRT's findings, the words of the foreman did not constitute intimidation. OI determined there was no wrongdoing. The Staff believes report Q4-84-013 is relevant and material to this proceeding in the area of construction adequacy as well as intimidation.

3. OI Report of Investigation 4-84-025 (5/17/85)

Re: Alleged Improprieties in the Brown & Root, Inc. Document Control Center.

In April 1984, the NRC R.egion IV Office of Investigations initiated an investigation into document control allegations following a request by the Region IV Regional Administrator. Testimony was taken from two former Brown & Root , Inc. (B&R) document control employees at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) which contained allegations l

of suspected wrongdoing related to the improper release of documents, 1; the improper alteration of the computer data base , and the willful circumvention of the established document control procedures.

Forty-five present and former employees at the CPSES were interviewed regarding their knowledge of the allegations. During these interviews , new concerns were raised regarding potential violations of document control procedures or abuses of the document control system which are addressed in this report.

The following 13 allegations purported to establish evidence of a willful breakdown in the document control system at the CPSES:

1. Craft and Quality Control (QC) employees attempted to obtain individual documents or incomplete drawing packages in violation of procedures.

2. Individual documents or incomplete drawing packages were released in violation of procedures as a result of verbal or i

l written instructions by Document Control Center (DCC) supervisors to the DCC personnel.

f

! 3. Improper deletions were made from the DCC data base.

4. Relevant design changes were removed from drawing packages by DCC clerks because of an incorrect or incomplete data base or because of improper supervisory instructions.

5. Traveler requests were used by craft and QC employees to I circumvent procedures requiring complete drawing packages. ,,

6. Paperflow (document control task forces for individual buildings) and QC groups possessed document control stmnps in j violation of procedures.

4, ___ __ _ _ _ _._ _ _ .___ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

- e

7. ~ Satellite 307's manual electrical logs were copied and substituted -

l In ~ place of the DCC manual electrical logs to achieve -

"matchability" in advance of the July 1983 CYGNA audit.

8. Craft employees improperly returned satellite drawing packages

to the paperflow groups and vice versa, resulting in lost documentation.

9. Document control clerks requesting documents through the DCC l phone bank were not notifying the DCC CRT (computer terminal) group, which resulted in the documentation not being updated or revised.

f

10. Computer print-outs for the drawing packages in the paperflow i

groups were not updated on a regular basis or in a timely

! manner.

11. Design changes critical to ongoing inspections and construction i listed as "not to be incorporated" (NI) on the drawings were deleted from the open change logs and not included in the drawing packages.

12. After the FSE-159 (generic cable . tray hanger drawing) j drawings were placed in document control, they were not updated or revised in the paperflow groups or in the field.

13. Site engineers introduced uncontrolled documents into the field in Start Work Authorization (SWA) packages.

! In this report, O! did not reach a conclusion based on the allega-I tions and notes that the results of the interviews were provided to the TRT, which was pursuing the technical implications of the allegations.

l The TRT ultimately produced SSER No. 11, dealing with quality

assurance / quality control allegations and which included the onen j investigated by OI. This report is both relevant and material to matters relating to the adequacy of the document control aspects of the QA/QC program.

t j 4. OI Report of Inquiry Q4-84-027 (5/14/84) and Supplement (6/13/84) [

Re: Alleged Discriminatory Action by TUGCO and Brown & Root On April 20, 1984, Charles Atchison filed a discrimination complaint with the Department of Labor alleging discriminatory practices by Brown j

& Root /TUGCO, in that their poor references caused him to lose a job

< offer. DOL found no evidence to show poor references were provided by Brown 6 Root, and dismissed the complaint. OI has not reported further

in this matter. While the DOL information may be relevant to the issues '

j in this proceeding, the OI report would only be redundant, and has no independent materiality.

l l

\

e e

5. OI Report of Inquiry Q4-84-029 (10/4/84)

Re: Alleged Use of Nonconforming Materials A former QC inspector at CPSES alleged that design change documentation had been discarded to conceal unauthorized work and to disposition an NCR so that a defective pipe would be acceptable for use in a safety system. The technical aspects of the allegations were addressed by the TRT (SSER No.10, AQP-2 and AQP-1). The missing documentation was located, but a piece of pipe was installed in a nonconforming condition. Based on the TRT's findings, the inquiry was '

closed by OI. Since the OI report contains no relevant information other than the reference to the conclusions of the TRT, it has no independent materiality.

6. 01 Report of Inquiry Q4-84-030 (7/10/85) O Re: Alleged Improper Upgrading of Material This report concerns the alleged improper upgrading of nonsafety-grade material to safety-grade material by iron fabrication shop personnel. The allegation was made by a former QC inspector assigned to the iron fab shop. The TRT assumed the lead in determining the technical merits of the allegation, which had begun as an OI investiga-tion. The TRT found that tha procedures used to upgrade material were in fact proper. (SSER No.11, AQ-115, pp. 0-181 through O-183).

OI also interviewed a witness identified by the alleger. The witness refuted the allegation, and was unaware of improper upgrading. Based on the TRT's findings and lack of any other evidence, OI concluded that the upgrading was proper and no falsification was involved. OI based its conclusion primarily on the detailed TRT findings and found no evidence of wrongdoing. The Staff believes report Q4-84-830 is relevant to thle proceeding in the area of construction adequacy.

7. O! Report of Inquiry Q4-84-038 (9/12/84)

Re: Alleged Intimidation of QC Inspector l

A former QC inspector at CPSES made a number of allegations which the inspector characterized as intimidation. These allegations concerned:

(1) a " downgrade," with subsequent reinstatement, because of finding too

, many errors; (2) a dislike by CPSES supervisors because of doing the job correctly; (3) a statement by a supervisor that the inspector was working

' too slowly, despite the inspector's health problems; (4) a request to improperly sign a WDC, which the inspector refused; (5) a request to disposition an NCR, which was also refused. O! found that the 4/ Listed in Board Notification 86-01 as Report of Investigation 4-84-030.

i

e

. inspector's characterizations of these incidents do not meet the criteria to initiate an' investigation of harassment and/or intimidation, and therefore ,

closed the inquiry. The Staff believes that report Q4-84-038 is relevant to this proceeding in the area of intimidation. Since OI did not find that the allegations warranted an investigation of intimidation, the Staff concludes that the report does not contain material information.

8. OI Report of Inquiry Q4-84-041 (7/15/85)

' Re: Alleged Falsification of Iron Fabrication Shop Paperwork An iron fabrication shop employee at CPSES made allegations concerning falsification of shop documentation by postdating. The technical aspects of the allegations were addressed by the TRT and the results reported in SSER No.11 AQ-138, pp. 0-143 through 0-153. OI also interviewed a former welder in the fab shop. Based on the interviews and the TRT findings. OI concluded that the allegation that documentation was falsified is unsupported and closed the inquiry. In the Staff's view, although all relevant information as to plant construction in this report is found in greater detail in the TRT's evaluation, report Q4-84-041 is relevant and material to this proceeding in the construction adequacy area.

i

9. 01 Report of Inquiry Q4-84-045 (12/3/85)

Re: Alleged Falsification of Coatings QC Training Records This report was initiated by a referral from the TRT. The TRT had found (SSER No. 9, p.N-124) that, while inspector recertification forms had been signed, there was no evidence the exams had actually been given. OI was to determine whether there had been falsification of QC training records. OI interviewed the personnel involved and concluded that the records had not been falsified, but rather the QC supervisor had erred in documenting his evaluation. The TRT has addressed this

problem in detail. The Staff believes that report Q4-84-045 is relevant and material to this proceeding.

l i

10. 01 Report of Inquiry Q4-85-003 (11/22/85)

Re: Alleged Intimidation of Pipe Crew by Foreman A former fitter's helper at CPSES made a number of allegations concerning procedural violations in the area of pipe hanger fabrication and construction. It was alleged that the foreman directed these violations, and that employees faced termination if they refused to violate procedures. Ol's assistance was requested by the TRT, which retained responsibility for investigating technical matters. In addition to the

, alleger, 01 interviewed the foreman who admitted to certain procedural

! violations. However, the foreman stated that he never threatened

! employees with termination for not following instructions which violate

i 0 -

l procedures. OI determined that the alleged threat of termination was not supported.- _The TRT informed OI that the alleger's technical allegations ,

were discounted and unverifiable. In the Staff's view, report Q4-85-003 is relevant and material to issues of construction adequacy amd intimidation.

11. OI Assist to Inspection Report A4-85-820 (10/16/85 Re: Assessment of SAFETEAM Program This report was done in response to a request for assistance by the NRC's Director of the Comanche Peak Project. Because the Comanche Peak Safeteam Progam is not at issue in this proceeding, in the Staff's view report A4-85-020 is neither relevant nor material.

e 5

_ _