IR 05000456/1986061

Safety Insp Repts 50-456/86-61 & 50-457/86-45 on 861120- 870129.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Resolution of Previous Insp findings,10CFR50.55(e) Deficiency Repts & Coolant Piping Radiographs

ML20210D214
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	02/04/1987
From:	Danielson D, Jeffrey Jacobson, David Jones NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20210D187	List: IR 05000456/1986061 ML20210D184
References
50-456-86-61, 50-457-86-45, IEB-81-01, IEB-81-1, NUDOCS 8702100039
Download: ML20210D214 (17)

Text

-

_

.

.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Reports No. 50-456/86061(DRS); 50-457/86045(DRS)

Docket Nos. 50-456; 50-457 Licenses No. NPF-59; CPPR-133 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Braidwood Site, Braidwood, Illinois Inspection Conducted: November 20, 25, 26; December 10, 12, 17, 18, 30, 31,

.

1986, and January 7, 8, 14, 29, 1987

,/ Wh^

Inspec or . cobson 7

.

I m ones c 2 // - 8 7 Date

}

Approved By: .

-

.k I

. Danielson, Chief b Materials and Processes Section Date Inspection Summary Inspection on November 20, 25 26; December 10, 12, 17, 18, 30, 31, 1986, and January 7, 8, 14, 29, 1987 (Reports No. 50-456/86061(DRS):'No. 50-457/86045(DRS))

Areas Inspected: Unannounced safety inspection,of the resolution of previous inspection findings (92701 and 92702), 50.55(e) deficiency-reports (99020),

IE Bulletins (92703), an allegation (99014), and coolant piping radiographs (57090).

Results: No violations or deviations were identifie PDR ADOCK 05000456 PDR _

.

b DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO)

T. E. Quaka, Site QA Superintendent M. J. Wallace, Project Manager G. F. Marcus, Assistant to Manager Quality Assurance

• P. L. Barnes, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor

• M. Takaki, Regulatory Assurance

• C. Bedford, Regulatory Assurance J. K. Jasnosz, Regulatory Assurance G. E. Groth, Assistant Construction Superintendent D. L. Shamblin, Project Construction Superintendent E. E. Fitzpatrick, Station Manager

• C. W. Schroeder, Services Superintendent E. R. Wendorf, PFE Mechanical Supervisor L. M. Kline, Regulatory Assurance P. A. Boyle, Regulatory Assurance The inspectors also contacted and interviewed other licensee and contractor employee * Denotes those attending the exit meeting at the Braidwood Station on January 14 and 29, 198 . Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Open Item (456/84008-04; 457/84008-04): The structural contractor claimed a "prequalified" status per the AWS D Structural Welding Code for all weld joints utilized at the Braidwood Station. Upon review by the licensee, it was found that some fillet and partial penetration weld joints utilized for the structural work required procedure qualification testing per AWS D In addition, the preheat requirement?, of AWS DI.1 were not met in some case CECO NCR No. 610 was issued to track and resolve the qualification discrepancy. S&L reviewed the issue and developed a qualification program to establish compliance with the AWS D1.1 provisions. The structural contractor proceeded to qualify the appropriate weld joints in accordance with the S&L recommendations. The qualification test coupons were welded at preheat temperatures not exceeding 57 F to simulate the lack of preheat required by the Cod The NRC inspector reviewed the results of the qualification testing and found it to comply with the AWS D1.1 Code requirements. The latitude inherent in the structural materials utilized at the Braidwood Station serve to minimize the effect of the lack of preheat. Although weld joint qualifications are to be completed prior to welding, the testing performed by the contractor serves to resolve the technical concern r

.

. (Closed) Open Item (456/84008-07; 457/84008-07): Electrical support welding details were being selected and documented by craft personnel. During the initial NRC inspection, six supports were inspected with two found to have welding detail / documentation deficiencie To ensure that correct welding details would be selected in future installations, L. K. Comstock (LKC) transferred the responsibility for detail selection to LKC engineering. LKC Welding Procedure

-

No. 4.3.3 was revised to required the engineer to specify the proper weld detai In order to assure the adequacy of past work, LKC performed a sample field inspection of 50 safety-related supports. All weld details from the sample were found to be correct; however, the basis for selecting 50 samples was not justifie Subsequent to this, in conjunction with CECO NCRs 708 and 709, the cable pan supports have been walked down by Sargent & Lundy (S&L)

and LKC QC to generate as-built individual cable pan support drawings which depict the actual weld details used. These as-builts were reviewed by S&L and any necessary rework will be performe The NRC inspector reviewed the above actions and considers this issue close . Licensee Action on 10 CFR 50.55(e) Items (Closed) 10 CFR 50.55(e) Item (456/82001-EE; 457/82001-EE):

Inadequate welding of HVAC duct components due to misinterpretation of AWS welding symbols. Duct components were supplied to the Braidwood Site by Pullman Sheet Metal (PSM) with inadequate weld deposition at corner connection CECO NCR No. 349 was issued to address the inadequate welding of HVAC Supports. The subsequent S&L review of installed supports resulted in the issuance of FCR 6412. This FCR directed that additional welding be performed on approximately 30 supports; the remainder of the supports being acceptable as-built. The work was completed and the discrepant supports brought into conformance with design requirement The S&L review of companion angle and stiffener welding resulted in 34 stiffeners and 69 companion angles requiring additional weldin Subsequently, a review was completed by S&L based on reducing loads by replacing the Type II registers with screens. Upon completion of this review 48 stiffeners and zero companion angles required additional work. CECO NCR 353 resulted in FCR 6413 and Drawing No. M-1261, Sheet 14 being issued to correct the stiffener deficiencies. Subsequently, duct accessory loads were further reduced by the use of Type I registers. As a result of this reduction in loading (ECN 25997), the stiffener rework was no longer require _ _ _ .._

.

.

To prevent recurrence of the weld symbol misinterpretation, PSM, conducted training sessions with all welders on AWS welding symbols. The NRC inspector reviewed the corrective actions taken by the licensee and found them adequate, (Closed) 10 CFR 50.55(e) Item (456/84007-EE; 457/84007-EE):

Incorrect embedment depth of concrete' expansion anchors (CEAs)

due to finish slab. placement. Sargent & Lundy (S&L) Specification BY/BR/CEA specifies that the required embedment be measured from the surface of the rough concrete slab, not from the surface of the finishing slab. Due to the misinterpretation of the S&L specification some contractors incorrectly measured embed depths and installed CEAs. CEA installations with incorrect embedment depth may not sustain design loads. The licensee issued NCR No. 617 on May 10, 1984, to resolve this issu In addition to the above, the S&L specification requires that CEA embedment depth be increased when CEAs are installed in certain concrete major repair areas. The licensee issued NCR No. 634 on June 5,1984, when it became apparent that some CEAs were incorrectly installed in concrete repair areas. Also, contrary to the specification, 1/4" anchors were installed in repaired area A walk-down of finish slab areas in Category I buildings was performed by S&L to map all CEA installations. An evaluation performed on the 317 assemblies involved showed that all were acceptable and would perform their design function. However, it was decided to revise 32 assemblies in order to restore design margin In order to ensure that the specification requirements would be carried out in the . future, contractors were issued color coded drawings to aid in identifying finish slab area location In addition, specification BY/BR/CEA was revised (Revision 20) to require that S&L review future CEA attachments in finish slab areas before installatio A review of NCRs was conducted by the contractor to locate all major concrete repair area In order to evaluate existing CEAs installed ,

in these repair areas, S&L reviewed existing industry test data and *

performed a test program at the Braidwood Site. Upon review of the

, test data, S&L concluded that the CEAs already installed in repaired areas were acceptable and would perform their design function.

!. Additionally, Specification BY/BR/CEA, Revision 23, was issued to

'

allow the installation of 1/4" diameter anchors in repaired areas.

! In order to ensure that the specification requirements with regard to concrete repair areas would be carried out in the future, a memo

'

to all contractors installing CEAs was issued on July 5, 1984. The memo informed the contractors that all major concrete repair areas would be identified by physically marking the area, and that the provisions of Specification BY/BR/CEA with regard to increased

[ embedment length should be adhered to.

!

l

! 4

l

- ,-m.__ n,_ ._.,___,,-_,,e ...-____-,..-,y_,,...,_m, , , _ . , , , , , , , . ~ , _ . , .

m

.

.

The NRC inspector reviewed the above actions and the disposition of NCR No. 617 and No. 634 and found the corrective measures to be acceptabl c. (Closed) 10 CFR 50.55(e) Item (456/84017-EE; 457/84017-EE):

Inadequate inspections of concrete expansion anchor (CEA)

installations by site contractors QC. As the result of a developing trend of CEA inspection rejections by Pittsburgh Testing Lab (PTL),

the QA Independent Inspection Agency, CECO instituted a review of contractor installation and inspection program Sargent & Lundy (S&L) provided CECO with a listing of attributes deemed significant to the quality of a CEA installation. As a result of the review, Ceco concluded that the contractor's programs were deficient in the areas of QC inspection and verification. To correct the programmatic deficiencies, all contractor's CEA procedures were revised to reflect those attributes outlined by S& As a further measure, CECO developed a generic CEA installation and inspection procedure (PCD-08) to ensure site consistency. This procedure was transmitted to all contractors for incorporation into their existing CEA program In an effort to evaluate past CEA installations, CECO developed Procedure No. PCD-30, " Evaluation of CEA Installations." This procedure provided for a sample inspection of each contractor's CEA installation and an engineering evaluation of any discrepancies note Of the discrepancies found, the S&L evaluation demonstrated that significant design margin remains in the as-built assembly; therefore, no design significant discrepancies were foun Additionally, the causes of the discrepancies were not related and were considered isolated case The NRC inspector reviewed the above actions and found the corrective measures to be adequat d. (Closed) 10 CFR 50.55(e) Item (456/86002-EE): Rejectable indications during preservice inspection on Loop 1 Steam Generator and Pressurizer. The licensee concluded that the indications found in the Steam Generators and Pressurizer were small subsurface slag inclusions formed during vessel fabrication and not cracks or lack of fusion. Based on fracture mechanics analysis, the licensee determined that the integrity of the vessels could be best preserved by not removing the indication NRR evaluated and accepted the licensee's position in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER), Supplement 1, Paragraph 5.2. The licensee has committed to perform inservice examinaticn on the areas containing the flaws and secondary side hydro and leak test e. (Closed) 10 CFR 50.55(e) Item (456/86006-EE; 457/86006-EE):

Deficiencies related to bolting material concerning unresolved technical questions and noncompliance with purchase order

_

.

.

requirements. Notification from the suppliar identified the following discrepancies related to certain shipments of fastener materials:

(1) Supporting documentation for the Certified Material Test Reports are not availabl (2) NDE required by the Material Specification was not performe (3) ASME program requirements were not verified by the supplie (4) Heat treatment practice did not comply with ASME Code requirement (5) Visual examination was not performed as required by the purchase orde (6) Charpy impact tests were not performed at the temperature required by the purchase orde CECO NCR No. 679, dated June 19, 1986, was issued to resolve the above deficiencie In addition to the above deficiencies, Ceco had purchased fastener materials identified as originating from this supplier, after the supplier had been removed from the ABL. These materials were received through another supplier on the ABL and accepted without a technical evaluatio The NRC inspector reviewed the disposition of NCR No. 679 and the licensee's final report on this notification, dated September 17, 1986, and found the corrective actions to be acceptable. In addition the CECO QA Manual QP No. 4051 has been revised to require a documented technical evaluation of any shipment from an approved vendor which may have originated from a vendor removed from the ABL for quality concerns. Ceco QA performed Surveillance No. 6229 on August 5,1986 to identify any such purchases of material. The results of the surveillance indicates that the purchase of the

fastener material in question was an isolated incidenc f. (Closed) 10 CFR 50.55(e) Item (457/84018-EE)

Unit 2 reactor inlet nozzle indication. In September 1984 Combustion Engineering performed a pre-service inspection ultrasonic (UT) examination of i the Braidwood Unit 2 Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) welds. An

! in vessel tool was used to perform the UT examination from inside the reactor vessel. This examination revealed an indication on the nozzle side of the inlet nozzle toward the vessel shell weld, WR-19 (No. 02-RV-011). The indication measured .79" in length,

.73" in width and was located near the 0.D. surface. The indication 1 was found to be unacceptable based upon ASME Section XI (1977 Edition thru Summer 1978 Addenda) Acceptance Standards.

i

. - .- - -

n

.

.

It was decided, by Commonwealth Edison, to excavate the rejectable indication by mechanical means. A detailed ASME Section III evaluation, was performed by General Electric (GE), to analyze the effect of an un-restored excavation on the structural integrity of the RPV nozzle. The analysis was submitted to NRC/NRR on April 2, 1986,.and August 1, 1986, and the results were discussed during subsequent conference call In mid November 1986 plans were made to remove the defect, at that time a CECO-inspector performed a UT examination from the surface to locate the defect. It was discovered that, instead of being located near the surface, the defect was actually located 1.25" below the surfac CECO presented the new data in a telecon with NRR and NRC Region III. During the telecon it was agreed that the subsurface defect mot the criteria of ASME Section XI (1977 Edition thru Summer 1978 Addenda) and was therefore acceptable. An NRC inspector reviewed previous radiographs of the inlet nozzle weld (No. WR-19)

and verified the length of the indicatio CECO committed to monitor the defect as a part of the Braidwood Inservice Inspection (ISI) program. If any measurable increase in the size of the defect is identified by the in-vessel tool examination method, a manual UT examination will be performed from the 0.D. surface and a thorough evaluation will be made of the-examination results. NRR has expressed agreement with Ceco's commitmen . Licensee Action on IE Bulletins (Closed) IE Bulletin (456/81001-BB; 456/81001-1B; 457/81001-B8; 457/81001-18): Development of a mechanical snubber surveillance program. The NRC inspector reviewed the Braidwood Units 1 and 2 FSAR Section 3/4.7.8. This section describes the station snubber surveillance i- requirements. The surveillance requires that each snubber be demonstrated

" operable" by performance of an augmented inservice inspection program as outlined in this section. This program fulfills the intent of IE Bulletin No. 81-0 . Licensee Action on SER Items

! (Closed) SER Item (456/86000-28; 457/86000-28): The Braidwood Station

'

Units 1 and 2 pressurizer power operated relief valves (PORVs) will be used as high point vents to mitigate steam generator tube ruptures and to achieve cold shutdown. Since this is considered a safety-related function, the licensee committed to upgrade the PORVs to operate following a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE).

'

Westinghouse has performed the evaluation following the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.48 insofar as practicable. The evaluation demonstrates that the valves can operate post SSE with minor hardware and

! accessory changes. Westinghouse letters, CBW-4875 and CBW-4998, document

'

the qualification of the limit switches and solenoid valve The air regulator was deleted by S&L Engineering Change Notice 25491 and 25492,

P

.

.

thus eliminating this concern. Field Change Orders, 1RY-7113 and 1RY-7114, were issued to replace the spring adjusting nuts from gray cast iron to ductile. iron per the Westinghouse recommendation. CECO Work Requests No. 9292 and No. 9293 were issued to address the Westinghouse concern related to the bolt torque for the frame mounting boltin The NRC inspector reviewed the documents discussed above and found the PORV upgrade to be acceptabl . Allegation Follow-up (RIII-84-A-0052) Allegation (Closed) This report documents the receipt of and followup on allegations made by a Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance company Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI) concerning the Braidwood Station. Since the allegations were related to piping installed at Braidwood Station under the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Region III requested that the licensee retain the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel-Inspectors to investigate the concern On April 18, 1984, members of the Region III staff met with the alleger to discuss his concerns relative to the Braidwood site. The alleger's concerns are summarized as follows:

(1) Lack of audits required by the ASME Cod (2) A vendor performed work on safety-related piping without a QA program and code required NDE of a weld prep was not performe (3) The alleger felt that he was fired as a result of contacting the NRC with his concern (4) The alleger felt that he was intimidated by Hartford Steam Boiler managemen (5) The alleger stated that he had received threatening phone calls from persons unknown because of voicing his concern (6) The alleger was told by a welder that water was dripping on a weld joint during the welding process, NRC Review As stated above, the National Board Audit Team was charged with the investigation of the alleger's concerns with the exception of six (6).

Region III evaluated activities as they progressed and concluded that the audit team was very thorough and that it conducted a comprehensive and complete audit of the allegations. The report issued by the National Board, dated December 4, 1986, is attached for reference. The NRC staff performed the inspection relating to

_

- _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

-

>

r Item No. (6) of the alleger's concerns. The alleger was told that Coolant Loop Welds M196-2-LP1, FW 3 and 4 were welded with water dripping on them during the proces From a technical viewpoint, the primary concern rests with the formation of steam, causing porosity in the weld. The secondary concern would be cracking of the weld due to the quenching effect of the water, although this would require a considerable flow of wate Both the cracking and porosity, if present, would be detected in the radiographs of the weld. The NRC inspector reviewed the radiographs of both welds in question and found them to be acceptabl Conclusion Based on the NRC review and the follow-up of the audit team's efforts, the staff is satisfied with the completeness of the Board's review and agrees with the conclusions reached. The Allegations could not be substantiated with the exception of Item (2) in par This concern however, was found to be properly documented and adequately resolved per the licensee's NCR progra . Radiograph Review The NRC inspector reviewed radiographs and reports of the following Unit 2 primary loop welds and found them to acceptable in accordance with ASME Section III, 1974 Edition through Summer 1975 Addenda:

M-196-2-LP1-FW12 M-196-2-LP2-FW2 M-196-2-LP3-FW12 M-196-2-LP1-FW10 M-196-2-LP2-FW4 M-196-2-LP3-FW2 The NRC inspector also reviewed the repair radiographs of LP1-FW12 and LP2-FW2 and found them acceptable. Ceco decided to repair these welds after finding indications near the heat affected zone of the weld No violations or deviations were identifie . Exit Interview The Region III inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 14 and 29, 1987. The inspector summarized the purpose and findings of the inspectio The licensee representatives ackncwledged this information. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regards to documents or processes reviewed during the inspectio The licensee representatives did not identify any such documents / processes as proprietar . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

r

.-

.

,.

.

'

.

' El le Nation:1 Daarb of Colle'r anb llIressure liessel Enspectors D. J McDoN ALD. Esecutive Directo'

WILLIAM CIMINO BOARD OF TRUSTEES ims cauPPla AVf Nuf ' # #

CO.UWEiJ5 OMIO 43229 U 5 A Ptee 614 W BM M L SNOW.JR Sa Lane Cats Uta* Teie. 240 E2S sta'e o' Termessee H J WRGHT

[t a c e; * *

th^?,

_

- f- '""T ' 7 Pic..r.u c,f Ontanc

, a os , 2.: u. c , ,1919 67:1- 1986,t u.: ,r wees.-

t

% ygasany e L wg2Lt,'

,, l.ii,,,c7,"na-c ,

December 4,1986 Mr. James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator United States Nuclear Regulntory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 SUBJECT: Allegations Listed in J. M. Hinds' Memo to D. W. Hayes Dated March 14, 1984 Concerning Intimidation of Author-ized Nuclear Inspectors and Improprieties on the Part of ANI Supervision--Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company

~

REFERENCES: 1) Memo to John Streeter (USNRC) from the National Board Audit Team; 8/31/8 ) John Streeter's (USNRC) letter to Commonwealth Edison Company; 2/5/8 NRC's Inspection Reports Nos. 50-454/84-88 (DRS) and 50-455/84/57 (DRS) BACKGROUND I

l The National Board, as a result of the subject memo, was requested to investigate certain allegations made to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This investigation was performed at the Byron Nuclear Power Plant. The results of the investigation were documented in a memo to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Reference 1).

As a result of this memo, a meeting was held at NRC's Region III head-quarters in Glen Ellyn, Illinois on November 8, 1984. In attendance at this meeting were members of the Region III staff, members of the National

' Board Audit Team, the allegator, and his attorne The purpose of the meeting was to inform the allegator of the results of the National Board investigation. At the conclusion of the meeting, the allegator indicated that he had other documentation which would substantiate his allegation Detailed specifics of this meeting are identified in Reference ::aufef partfes~and certain other Identf fying details have been renoved in order to prevent a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal p'rtvecy of the individuals involve .* .

v ,

.

.

Page 2 Mr. James G. Kappler United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission December 4,1986 I CURRENT STATUS The National Board is in the process of closing its audit of the Braidwood Nuclear Power Station. This audit was not related to the allegations referenced in the subject of this lette As a further attempt to either confirm or reject the subject allegations, however, the National Board Audit Team (Braidwood) investigated those which, in the opinion of the team, could be considered specific to the Braidwood Nuclear Power Statio The National Board Audit Team made several attempts to contact the allegator between February and July of 1986 before the team was successful in making contact with the allegator at his home. The National Board Audit Team con-ducted an interview with the allegator concerning his allegations against the Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Braidwood, Illinois. The subject interview lasted for three and one-half hours. The allegator failed to add any new information, or to provide any documentation that would substantiate his allegations concerning Braidwood Nuclear Power Statio This report will address only those allegations which are considered specifically related to Braidwood Nuclear Power Statio ALLEGATION NUMBER 1

"Before assigmment to the Braidwood site in 1980, he worked as a floater for Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company (HSB)

at Chicago Bridge & Iron (CBI), LaSalle, Illinois, and at the Braidwood Nuclear Power Station. He went to Braidwood one day per week. He stated that he asked to see Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI) audits of the Commonwealth Edison Company's Quality Assurance Manual; h'owever, no ANI audit records of Commonwealth Edison Company's Quality Assurance Manual could be provided."

NATIONAL BOARD AUDIT TEAM'S RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION NUMBER 1 Commonwealth Edison Company is not the ASME Certificate Holder respon-sible for the erection and installation of the Code items and systems being ins talled at the Braidwood Nuclear Power Station. These activities are the responsibility of Phillips, Getschow Compan The allegator's concern as to whether audits had been performed should have been directed to Phillips, Getschow Company, not Commonwealth Edison. Further investigation into this matter has disclosed that HSB has conducted the audits of both Phillips, Getschow Company and Commonwealth Edison Company as required by the ASME Code. In conclusion, the National Board Audit Team finds this allegation to be without merit or concer " amis *ef pat'tfes and etrtain other fdentffying ietails have been removed in order to prevent a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privecy of the Individuals involve _ _ , - - __ -

r~-

'

- '.

.

.

Page 3 Mr. James G. Keppler United States Nuclear Regulatory Connission December 4, 1986 ALLEGATION NUMBER 2

"A Commonwealth Edison Company QA person (name unknown) told him in 1980 that Power Cutting Company performed work in 1980 without benefit of a QA program as required by 10 CFR to Appendix B. Subsequently, Phillips, Getschow personnel welded the joints half-way up without performing a PT. The concern is tight lip grinding cracks which will not show on RT, but will eventually propagate. Subsequently a NCR was written and resolved accept-as-is, which is not proper, and never was to his knowledge accepted by the ANI or by an ASME Code Cas The allegator stated that he was contacted by telephone, at his home, to sign off this weld."

NATIONAL BOARD AUDIT TEAM'S RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION NUMBER 2 Thic allegation was thoroughly investigated by the National . Board Audit Tea The team found that the above-stated allegation was first docu-mented on NCR 272 dated December 12, 1980. The NCR in question does not simply state accept-as-is; it did give detailed information con-cerning the corrective action, which included:

1) Penetrant testing of the remaining surface of the join ) Ultrasonic examination of the partially completed weld from the insid ) Ultrasonic and radiographic examinations of the completed weld.

I The NCR in question has also been revised to incorporate Code Case N-340. Code Case N-340 has been accepted for use at the Braidwood

l l

Nuclear Power Station by both the NRC and the Division of Boiler and

'

Pressure Vessel Safety of the State of Illinois. Code Case N-340

provides for the use of ultrasonic examination of the subject area l in question (weld prep surface) to determine whether or not tight lip grinding cracks were present af ter the machining of the weld prep are Code Case N-340 has been implemented to the satisfaction of HSB's Braidwood si.te ANI's and their supervisor. The National Board Audit Team feels that this allegation has been resolved within the require-ments of the ASME Cod ALLEGATION NUMBER 3

"He feels that the reason for being fired is that he went to the NRC at Byro The day af ter being fired, Bob Rainy from HSB Branch Office called Dave Reynolds (ANI) at the Byron site to try and find out if he had talked to the NRC, and if he had what he may have told the NRC."

%mes"of partfes and certain other Identifytnp ictails have been removed in order to prevent a clearly unwarranted Invaston of the personal priyecy of the Individuals involve . . . - -

- _ - - _ - . _ __ ._

r

. .

,

.

Page 4 Mr. James G. Keppler United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission December 4,1986

-

NATIONAL BOARD AUDIT TEAM'S RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION NUMBER 3 The National Board Audit Team contacted Mr. C. M. Ducker, Regional Manager for Bartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company. Mr. Ducker was informed of the aforementioned allegation by the team. Mr. Ducker stated that the allegator was not fired because he had contacted the NR He further stated that the firing of any employee of the Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company because that employee had contacted the NRC is against, and would violate, company policy. For further details regarding the dismissal of the allegator, please review Attachment "A" to this repor Concerning the matter of Mr. Bob Rainy's (ANIS, Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company) calling Dave Reynolds (ANI Byron) to investigate exactly what the allegator had stated to the NRC, Mr. Ducker stated that as the allegator's supervisor Mr. Rainy was well within his rights to investigate any problem or concern that one of his employees might have. The National Board Audit Team feels that this allegation should be closed, based on the aforementioned information supplie ALLEGATION NUMBER 4

"He stated that he had been told (date unknown) by Ray Griffin of HSB that he needed to learn that you play the politics and accept things for Common-wealth Edison Company, CBI, and Lasco Boiler -- or you move on."

NATIONAL BOARD AUDIT TEAM'S RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION NUMBER 4 The National Board Audit Team informed Mr. C. M. Ducker of Allegation Mr. Ducker stated that, to his knowledge, no employee of Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company has ever been . instructed "to play the politics." Mr. Ducker further stated that playing politics with clients was a violation of company policy. Mr. Ray Griffin is no longer an employee of HSB. The National Board Audit Team was unable to locate Mr. Griffin, and the allegator was unable to substantiate his allegation during his interview with the National Board Audit Tea pTEATION NUMBER 5

"The allegator stated he has received threatening telephone calls of physical harm to himself because of his actions at the site. He also stated that he requested and received from the telephone company a tele-phone tap to monitor these threatening telephone calls."

NATIONAL BOARD AUDIT TEAM'S RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION NUMBER 5 During the interview, the allegator was questioned regarding the alleged threats of physical harm and threatening telephone calls he had receive The allegator stated that he could not document any of the threats he had received. When asked if the telephone company had documented any of the threatening phone calls, he stated that he could not remember any docu-mentation by the telephone company. :a005 of partfes and certaIn other IdentJfying detalls have been removed in order to prevent g' clearly unwarranted invasfon of the personal

privecy of the Individuals involve '. *

'

,

.

.

Page 5 Mr. James G. Keppler United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission December 4, 1986 III. CONCLUSION The National Board Audit Team feels that the aforementioned allegations are the outgrowth of a conflict between the allegator and his employer Additionally, it should be noted that the National Board Audit Team has previously reviewed similar types of allegations by the same allegator at the Byron Nuclear Power Station. (See References 1 and 2).

As a result of this investigation, the National Board Audit Team could not obtain the required or sufficient evidence to support the allegations. It is the opinion of the National Board Audit Team that this matter should be close Respectfully ubmitted,

'

D. J. Mcdonald Executive re,ctor

'

-

M. F. Sullivan National Board Audit Team Leader

?

0- A v C. S. Lindbeck National Board Audit Team Member f-DJMcD/MFS/CSL:jsb Attachment "A" (State of Illinois, Department of Employment Security Decision No. 85, Appeal Docket No. ABR. 84-7757, January 7, 1985)

Paraes of partles and certaIn other IdentJfying details have been removed In order to prevent a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal artvecy of the Individuals involve r J/

,

'

-

. . ,/ / 64 - ,_

.

. , ,

.

. .

STATE CF ILLINOIS w Thomas H. Geogh29tn.Es in... F488 , 520)

8 v DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 77 w. washington S L.o. 24 Ch.icago, Il 60602

'80ARD.0F REVIEW IN THE MATTER OF: . .

.

DECISION NO.: 85 BRD; K~ 47 -

CLAIMANT:

(Appellant) APPEAL DOCKET NO.: ABR- 84-7757 (AR.84D-4370lK (9 SOCIAL SECURITY NO.:

Hartford Steam Boiler TYPE OF APPEAL: Hisconduct EMPLOYER: Inspection & Insurance C (Respondent) 120 S. Riverside Plaza, Suite 416 -

Chicago, Il 60606 DEClStON

.

T'his is an appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Referee dated July 28, 1984, which set aside the determination of the Claims Adjudicator and held the claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with,his work and was subject to a disquG cation of benefits under the provisions of Section 602A of The Illinois Unemployuent Insurance Act from April 22, 1984, and thereafter until he has become reemployed and has had earnings equal to or in excess of his current weekly benefit amount in each of four calendar week We have carefully reviewed the record of the evidence in this matter, including the transcript of the testimony submitted before the Referee at a telephone hearing conducted on June 26, 1984, from Chicago, Illinois, at which the claimant and a witness for the employer appeared. We have also carefully considered the arguments and contentions set forth by the appellant in support of this appeal. The record adequat(

sets forth the evidence and the arguments of the parties so that no further evidentiary

.

proceedings are deemed necessary.

I The record discloses that the claimant worked for the employer as an in'spector f rom July 7, 1976, to April 13, 1984, at a final annual wage of 520,000. The employer's witness, an assistant chief inspector, testified that~ theHeclaimant was discharr said that several because he was not at work dur,ing times he was supposed to wor customers complained of the claimant's absence from the work site. The witness contendef that the claimant was present at work for "an hour and a half to three hours a day",

while he agreed to be there for seven hours per day. He added that several other inspece worked eight hours per day. The witness also said that the claimant was warned about his conduct, but continued to behave in this manne The claimant testified that he was laid off. He disputed the witness'

testimony and asserted that he never agreed to work seven hours per day. Rather, he contended that his work agreement allowed him three hours per day for travel to work and home after work. He added that other workers were also paid for commuting tim The claimant also submitted a letter from his employer, which is dated April 13, 1984, and reads, in part, that:

t: anes of parties and certain other identifyins details have been rermved in order to prevent a clearly unwarranted Invasion of the perso ' ' '

-

c.rivtcy of the Individuals involve [7jdch NM l

G___/__*W

bs  %

,

-

-2

."...Since your home was a three hour drive from the (work site), you were...to stay at a motel in the...

. area...to eliminate the...non-productive hours spent

• 1rifi'nDolnd from (the work site)...at the plant...

^Accordingly, your employment is'being terminated effective

.

April 16, 1984..."

In addition, the employer's witness denied that the claimant was laid of He said that recent staffing chan~ges may have resulted in the claimant's reassign-ment, but not his discharg Counsel for.the claimant submitted an " employee personal interview statem3 which was given to the U.S. Department of Labo Councel contends that the claimant believes he was discharges because he reported safety violations at the plant to this governroent agenc The attorney al.o t equests a :mw hioring and argues that his. client was not permitted to be physically present at the hearing. We note for the record that at a point during the hearing, the clatmant requested permission to continue the telephons proceedings until he could physically appear at the hearing location. The claimant said he coul'd appear "in about 40 minutes."

Prior to considering the issue presented herein, we must consider counselC request'for a new hearin Upon a review of the transcript of the heairng, we conclude that the parties were afforded a fair and adequate opportunity to present testimony regard the claimant's separation from work. Further, the claimant had an opportunity to present the documents in question to the Referee prior to the hearing, or request a continuance, but chose to participate in the proceedings. The claimant's attorney has not shown that his client was denied a fair, adequate and complete hearing or,that the Referee could not have made a fair decision without reviewing the documents presented to us. ThereforG the attroney's request for a new hearing is denie The issue presented by this appeal is whether the claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with the work under Section 602A of the Ac . The primary purpose of the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act is to provide benefits to individuals who are involuntarily unemployed due to the lack of suitam

,

work and for no other reason. Accordingly, theActdisqualifiesfrombenefitsanindividh l who is discharged for misconducy connected with the. work. In such cases the individual-is unemployed because of.his violation.of some reasonable rule of conduct which the emplog has the right to control and not because of the lack of suitable wor The evidence in this case established that the clainant was, discharged because he failed to remain at work for the number of hours required by the employe The claimant's contentions that he,was laid off, discharged bncauon he reported safety violations to a federal agency, or that he was not required to be at work for su'ch a number of hours, are not supported by the evidence.

l ca tes of parties and certain other ident.lfyin- oq l

' de.o11s havo been removed in order to prevent T /r a clearly unwarranted invasion of the per;c.- MN rivacy of the it.v! 'd z.ir. Involve .- . . _ _ _ _ _ -

f '

.

. . . *

. ; ~,

'

• .

h

.

-3-

.

.

The claisiant's failure to remain at work for the required number of huure evidenced a

. wilful and wanton disregard of the duites he owed to his employer. His. contention that others workers behaved similarly is also not supported by the evidenc In light of the nature of his actions, the claimant should have reasonably forseen that his conduct could result in his discharg Accordingly, we conclude that the claimant was discharged for mtsconduct connected with the work, and, therefore, was subject to a disqualtfication of benefits from April 22, 1984, and thereafter until he regualifies, under the provisions of Section 602A of The Illinois Unemployment Insurance Ac ,

The decision of the Referee is af firrned accordingl ..

..

BOARD OF RE" Ogii OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY

..

A A_ j. m a R RN ' HA s ....

EDWARfMC BROOM, MEMBE naY V PtTElW1\ MKEIA, ME5HitR A "

DATED AND MAILED AT CHICAGO, ILLINOIS y jg

-

l

!

l

.

• *

. .

,

.

.

.

.

n a jgc dM v. ef pe.-ties and certain other ida'et;Tyir;.

I g37y :h, hav., been recoved in order to prav.snt

_Nr'y enwarranted Invas ten of the persenal

'

cy of the Individoals involve _ _ _

- _ _ - . _ - .