IR 05000298/1981016
| ML20032C263 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1981 |
| From: | Driskill D, Gagliardo J, Kerr R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032C253 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-298-81-16, NUDOCS 8111090566 | |
| Download: ML20032C263 (9) | |
Text
,
.
.
.
.
.
L'.1
"# LEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Investigation Report:
50-298/81-16 Docket: 50-298 Licensee:
Net.'aska Public Power District P. O. Box 499 Columbus, Nebraska 68601 Facility:
Cooper Nuclear Statica Contractor Involved:
Marshall Maintenance Company 529 S. Clinton Ave.
Trenton, New Jersey Investigation at:
Trenton, Naw Jersey (surrounding area)
Investigation Conducted:
August 11-Septemeber 30, 1981 Investigator:
4,
/ /J & f/ P f /
R. K. Herr, Senior Investigator Date Investigation and Enforcement Staff-NcYh scf % ?t S
D. D. Oriskill, Investigator Date Investigation and Enforcement Staff
' II Approved by:
f b
'
J. E. Gagl iardo, Director Cate Investigation and Enforcemer,t Staff Summary Investigation conducted on August 11-September 30, 1981 (Report 50-298/81-16)
Area Investigated:
Alleged intimidation by a Marshall Maintenance Company supervisor in that employess were instructed to record lower radiation readings from their individual dosimeters then actually received, while working in 0$bh0h;g PDR
,
--
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
,
.
.
enclosed areas where radiation was present.
This investigation involved 40 investigative manhours by two NRC investigators.
Results Investigation disclosed no evidence that would support the above allegation.
t
- -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
- - -
- -
-
-
-
-
,
.
.
3 SUMMARY Investigation resulted in the alleger identifying fcur individuals who he claimed had knowledge of intimidation wherein a supervisor of the Marshall Maintenance Company instructed the alleger and four other employees to record lower radiation readings than they actually received, thereby falsifying records at the Cooper Nuclear Station.
Interview of the four individuals in
>
question resulted in them emphasizing that the supervisor in question did not instruct, order, or suggest that they record lower radiation readings. Two of the four individuals stated they were terminated by the supervisor in question; however, their termination was for other personal reasons not associated with radiation records.
One of the individuals explained that he voluntarily resigned from the Marshall Maintenance Company due to a personal
family situation. All of the four individuals described the supervisor in question as a demanding foreman; however, none indictated they were intimidated or encouraged to record lower radiation reading.
Interview of the supervisor in question and the president of the Marshall Maintenance Company
'
resulted in each emphasizing his concern for safety and pointing out that the company has been involved in working in the area of nuclear (radiation)
activities since 1973 and no complaints of a similar nature to this allegation have ever been received.
..
_
-
BACKGROUND On July 13, 1981, Individual A sent a typewritten letter to NRC Headquarters, Washington, DC, indicating that he deliberately falsified the levels of radiation that he received at Cooper Nuclear Station during the spring of 1981, upon the direction of his supervisor. On August 8, 1981, Individual A responded to a Region IV letter dated August 4, 1981, requesting that a meeting be arranged to discuss his allegation in more detail.
Individual A agreed to meet with NRC investigators on August 12, 198,.
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Contractor, Marshall Maintenance Personnel Richard Marshall, President Loretta Waite, Executive '. ce President Other Individuals Individuals A througi. G 2.
Investigation of Allegation Allegation That Individual F told Individuals A, B, C, D, and E to record lower radiation readings than their dosimeters indicated, thereby falsifying radiation records.
Investigative Findings Interview of Individual A resulted in his executing a signed sworn statement, Attachment 1, wherein he stated that he worked for the Marshall Maintenance Company at the Cooper Nuclear Station as a teider from April 5-May 16, 1981.
Individual A remarked that during this time Individual F, his supervisor, told him and the men that he worked with that the daily radiation exposure readings they were recording were too high.
Individual A stated that Individual F commented to him and the men present, "If you continue recording high radiation readings, I am going to send you home on a bus."
Individual A explained that Individual F never actually said " falsify your readings," but accused the men of recording high radiation readings.
Individual A remarked that he felt intimidated by Individual F and recorded lower radiation readings on a daily log.
Individual A maintained that Individuals 8, C, D, and E could confirm Individual F's actions.
Individual A pointed out that Individual C quit because Individual F accused him of recording higher radiation readings than he supposedly received.
-
- - - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
,.
.-
.
.
Interview of Individual B On September 23, 1981, Individual B was interviewed at his residence and stated he worked for the Marshall Maintenance Company at the Cooper Nuclear Station during April and May of 1981.
Individual B identified his supervisor as Individual F.
Individual B stated that he recorded his daily radiation readings from his dosimeter correctly and commented he was satisfied with the TLD recordings that he received later and believed them to be accurate.
Individual 8 described Individual F as a competent foreman who never made any comments indicating that men sho"1d record lower radiation readings.
Individual B stated that he enjoyed working for Individual F and knew of.no irregular activity on the.part of Individual F.
Individual B pointed out that even though he was terminated by the Marshall Maintenance Company for reasons unrelated to the onsite work, he still considered Individual F to be a good supervisor.
Interview of Individual C On September 22, 1981, Individual C was interviewed at his residence and stated that he worked for the Marshali Maintenance Company at the Cooper Nuclear Station for 3 weeks in April cf 19R1.
Individual C stated that he recorded his daily radiation readings from his dosimeter correctly.
Individual C explained that he wore two dosimeters and one TLD badge during the time he worked and whenever there was a difference in the dosimeter readings he always recorded the higher readings.
Individual C remarked he was satisfied that the amount of radiation recorded by his TLD was accurate to the best of his knowledge.
Individual C stated his supervisor was Individual F and described Individual F as a good man to have as a supervisor.
Individual C remarked that he did not know of any comment made by Individual F indicating that the men in the crew should record lower readings than actually received.
Individuul C emphasized that to the best of his knowledge most of the men were satisfied with the Marshall Maintenance Company and Individual F, with the expection of one individual whom he identifie?,s Individual A.
According to Individual C, Individual A was discoverea.,
1dividual F lying on a " hot pipe" in order to increase his radiation reauing.
Individual C explained that he believed that Individual A wanted to receive a higher radiation reading in order that he coult be transferred to a more desira' ale work location.
Individual C described Individual A as the only " troublemaker" on the job.
Individual C stated he resigned from the Marshall Maintenance Company for personal family reasons and that he knew of no irregularities on the part of Individual F or the Marshall Maintenance Company.
I
.
.
.
,.
.-
.
.
Interview of Individual D On September 30, 1981, Individual D was interviewed telephonically and stated that he worked for the Marshall Maintenance Company and the Cooper Nuclear Station from May to June of 1981.
Individual D stated that he wore two dosimeters and a TLD badge and each day recorded the highest radiation readings of the two dosimeters.
Individual D advised that Individual F was his supervisor and that Individual F never indicated or suggested that he record any readings except as indicated on his dosimeter.
Individual D remarked that he did not know of anyone who was instructed to record false readings either higher or lower.
Individual D stated that he did not particularly like Individual F because Individual F terminated him for sleeping on the job, explaining that he was sick and Individual F did not fully appreciate his condition.
Individual D concluded that he knew of no irregularities on the part of Marshall Maintenance Company and/or Individual F concerning radiation reading; however, he did feel that the Marshall Maintenance Company should have developed a more understanding position concerning his brief illness.
Interview of Individual E Un September 23, 1981, Individual E was interviewed at his residence and stated he has worked for Marshall Maintenance Company for approximately 10 years.
Individual E advised that he presently holds a supervisory position with the company and worked at the Cooper Nuclear Station during the spring of 1981.
Individual E advised that employees are encouraged to accurately report their daily radiation levels based on their individual dosimeter readings.
Individual E pointed out that while working at the Cooper Nuclear Station this past spring the men were provided two dosimeters and one TLD badge.
Individual E explained that the one dosimeter recorded radiation readings from 0 to 100 mR, and the second dosimeter recorded readings from 0 to 1,000 mR.
Individual E stated that the Marshall Maintenance Company's position was to instruct the crews to read the higher radiation if the two dosimeters disagreed.
Individual E remarked that he is acquainted and has worked with Individual F; however, Individual F is not considered by him to be a personal friend.
Individual E described Individual F as a hard working, demanding person who is professionally competent.
Individual E remarked that he has heard no complaints about Individual F concerning false radiation readings, adding that complaints of this nature would seem to be out of character with Individual F.
Individual E explained it is the company's position that any time an individual receives a maximum amount of radiation he is immediately transferred to
- -
.
-
- - - -
- -
-
.
- -
-
- -
-
.
-
-
-
.
- - -
-.
.
-
-
-
-
-
- -
.
.
..
.
.
another job location where radiation is not present.
Individual E explained that he personally received 2,200 mR in 2 weeks at the Cooper Nuclear Station which is considered " burn-out level" and he was immediately transferred to another job location.
Individual E concluded that he knew of no irregularities on the part of the Marshall Maintenance Company and/or Individual F concerning the recording of radiation levels.
Interview of Individual F
,
On September 24, 1981, Individual F, a supervisor of Marshall Maintenance Company, was interviewed in an office of the Marshall Maintenance Company.
Individual F, when questioned reoarding the allegation that he encouraged the men in his work crews to record lower radiation readings than actually received, denied making a statement to that effect.
Individual F quickly pointed out that on a number of occasions he has stated, "If I catch you intentionally overexposing yourself, you will be heading.
home on a bus because I will fire you."
Individual F stated that over the year he has caught a number of former employees intentionally overexposing themselves by standing or leaning up against a " hot pipe" and has fired them.
Individual F advised that an incident of this nature occurred during the spring of 1981 at the Cooper Nuclear Station, wherein he discovered Individual A leaning on a " hot pipe" and he had him transferred to another area.
Individual F remarked that subsequently he believed that Individual A was given the opportunty to resign.
Individual-F pointed out that the area in which Individual A was working is not a desirable area and it is common knowledge that the quic6est way to get transferred to more desirable area would be to have a high radiation level.
Individual F advised that he closely monitored the radiation level that his men received, even to the point of checking their recorded readings two or three times a day.
Individual F remarked that the Marshall Maintenance Company kept qualified welder /
workers out of the radiation area while working at the Cooper Nuclear Station, just in case someone did receive an excess amount of radiation they could switch jobs immediately with no loss of production.
Interview of Individual G On September 24, 1981, Individual G, President of the Marshall Maintenance Company, was interviewed in his office.
Individual G stated he is unaware of any irregularities concerning false radiation readings or the encouragement by Individual F to have, or require, his men to record false radiation levels.
Individual G advised that Individual F is one of his experienced supervisors and is familiar with the company's position
-
.
-
.
,
B
.
that anyone who receives the maximum level of radiation is immediately transferred to another job location within the company.
Individual G emphasized that to the best of his knowledge no one has been terminated for receiving too much radiation in the course of their duties.
Individual ( quickly pointed out that since 1972, when the company began working on or around nuclear related projects, a number of men have been terminated because they deliberately exposed themselves to radiation for one reason or another.
Individual G stated that those exposures were not excessive.
Individual G explained that anyone who intentionally exposed himself for some personal gain will not remain employed with the Marshall Maintenance Company.
Individual G advised that the company's position on transfering
- employees to another job within the company is not a written policy, however, a written policy on this subject matter will be developed amd promulgated throughout the company in the near future.
Individual G remarked that any possible misunderstanding or misconception on the part of any employee on this subject will be clarified.
e
..
..
.
.
.
CAPTIONED DOCUMENTS A copy of the document identified herein relating to this allegation will be maintained 'n the NRC Region IV office.
1.
Signed sworn statement of alleger, dated 09/12/81 i
_ _ _ _ _... _., _ _
_, _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _
__. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _