ML042180174

Report of Investigation, Case No. 3-2002-031, Perry Nuclear Power Station

ML042180174
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	10/06/2003
From:	Franz W, Paul R NRC/OI, NRC/RGN-III
To:
References
3-2002-031, FOIA/PA-2004-0187
Download: ML042180174 (28)

Text

. 9 t.IRCr iU,4.a-v4- I I ,

United States q-4F Nuclear ..,."

~ t..0j~

Regulatory A-d.

Co

.1

'.Rep8>rtofXofflv3'tlgatl-n. 9.

.- PERRYNUCYLEAR NTATION v

Deliberate"1 Vilato..'n fTehIca 6frcIfcatiomn1

cI o

...' ~ .I.~ .' -'i:

1 ,I'. e ;ft.. " " : , ,

• ,aa*'-

• II Office of Investigations I Reported by 01:R11

.ntornation in this record was delwed Inaccordance SIth lb~freedom of Inh tUon Act, exemptions 7 I z'qi FOIA_ 21V0 5?:2?

Title:

PERRY NUCLEAR POWER STATION DELIBERATE VIOLATION OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS REGARDING OVERTIME, AND DELIBERATE FALSIFICATION OF OVERTIME RECORDS Licensee: Case No.: 3-2002-031 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Report Date: October 6. 2003 76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 Control Office: OI:RIII Docket No.: 50-440 Status: CLOSED Reported by: Reviewed and Approved by:

William C. Franz, Special Richard C. Paul, Director Office of Investigations Office of Investigations Field Office, Region m Field Office, Region III WARNING DO NOT DISSE TE, PLACE IN THE PUB'I' DOCUMENT ROOM OR DISCUSS THE CO NT OF THIS REPORT 0 TESTIGATION OUTSIDE NRC WITHOUT AUTHOIIY OF THE FFICIAL OF THIS REPORT. UNAUTHORIZED ISCLOSIJRE MAY RES T IN ADVERSE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ANDOR CRIMINAL PROSEUTION.

SYNOPSIS This investigation was initiated on October 23, 2002, by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Investigations, Region mI, to determine whether Atlantic Group (AG) contractors and/or Perry Nuclear Power Station (Perry) supervisors deliberately violatedechnical specification requirements regarding overtime and deliberately falsified overtime records in violation of 10 CFR 50.5, 10 CFR 50.9 and Perry Technical Specification 5.2.2.e.

Based upon the evidence developed, this investigation did substantiate that AG contractors and Perry supervisors deliberately violated overtime technical specification requirements regarding overtime and deliberately falsified'overtime records.

NOT FO IC APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DMREAR, OFFICE OF INVES I4ONS, REGION II Cas N. 320-3 Case No. 3-2002-031 1

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOR ŽPLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREdT4 R, OFICE 0 TIGATIONS, REGION m Case No. 3-2002-031 2 \

TABLE OF CONTENTS Paoe SYNOPSIS ............................................ 1 lIST OF INTERVIEWEES. 5 DETAILSOFINVESTIGATION. 7 Applicable Regulations .7 Purpose of Investigation .7 Background .................. . ...... 7 10 Interview oill ...... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 7 Coordination with Regional Staff .. 9 Coordination with the Regional Counsel .9... ...... 9 ReviewofDocumentation .. 9 Evidence .. 11

-1C,interview .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . IX 11 7- Interviewo .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 12 cInterviewo -. 13 le.sInterview w.. .. ... .......... .. ... ... ... 13 1 ,.Interviewo ... 15 e- Interview o. . ... 16 Inter.ew o.. .. 17 tlPInter vew o g g.. . . . . . .. . .. ... . . . .. . .. . .. 17

- Interview o f _M : .. . .. . .. . .. . ........................... , 18 Agent's Analysis .20 Conclusion .21 SUJPPLEIMvENTAL INFOR.MATION .23 IIST OF EXHIBrIS .!.............................*..25 NOT FOR P IC DISCLOSURE VITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OMICE DIRE R OFFICE OF TIGATIONS, REGION IlI Case No0. i-ZAUY-V1I 3

THIS PAGE LEF BLANK RNTENTIONALLY NOT FOR FIELD OFFICE DREC C DISCLOSURE `ITHOUT OFICE OF APPROVAL OF Case No. 3-2002-031 TGATIONS, REGION Ill 4

UIST OF INTERVIEWEES Exhibit No.

Zl9SEPlt o- ** *. ............................................. . -.. 20

............................................................... 1 1 aR __v _M -- -------............... . .. . . . . .. .17 1

N CD .........................

1 = ..........................

..... .....................,,.19 FIELD OFFICE DIRE , FFCE OF'N TIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2002-031 5

TIRS PAGE LEFr BLANK INTENTIONAJ.Y NOT F PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE D CTOR, OFFICE ON17STIGATIONS, REGION M 6

Case No. *-023 CaeN.

3-2002-031 6

DETA]LS OF INVESTIGATION Applicable Regulations 10 CFR 50.5: Deliberate Misconduct (2001 Edition) _

10 CFER 50.9: Completeness and Accuracy of Information (2001 Edition)

Perry Technical Specification 5.2.2.e Purpose of Investigation This investigation was initiated on October 23, 2002, by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Investigations (01), Region m A ), to determine whether Atlantic Group (AG) contractors and/or Perry Nuclear Power Station (Perry) supervisors deliberately violated technical specification requirements regarding overtime and deliberately falsified overtime records in violation of 10 CFR 50.5, 10 CFR 50.9 and Perry Technical Specification 5.2.2.e.

Background (Exhibit l) 17, 2002, Doug SIMPKINS, Resident Inspector at Davis-Besse, was contacted by ho was employed by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) at 7 Davii-Besse ~indicated that in March 2001, he visited Perry as a peer coordinatorin c the MOV Program ary contracted with AG to perform maintenance and an overhaul of the valves. AG utilized workers from Adecco/Tad (a laborp A_

endor) to g personnel. According t one of these stated at a

___*._ .,:L L__ ~L- .,. .. 1 a_- _ +:_ -e .. _ -_ J:- L:L.._-

morning meeuing wiul Lie ugminrs that he would CLnunu Lu WorK uma C,(CUlL Ur[ UnLu Mnr next week, thereby ec i e overtime limits for safety related work. i 7 dhe expressed concern t and the others sent that this could not be don aid a e was present as a witness to the incident

" Pater asked for the time sheets frbm the contract workers and found they had worked the excessive overtime and then falsified the time s n the issue, but when this CR was also classified as a failure to file an overtime deviation, d the CR was reopened. -l indicated that FENOC counseled the AG employees sue, but ey also stated, fying time cards is not that serious of an is s u.'

John WOOD Site Vice President, and informed him of the situation. The issue was eventually dropped af _ hibit 1). 7 Int "ryew o

__-_Hatat time, he overheard a NOT FOR> BPZJIC DISCLOSURE VVTTHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRE OR, OFFICE OF I GATIONS, REGION m f..?' t

%_UQFCINVU.

1an A'sfl1 W-V

'7I

rX .rts et -

conversation between e Mlt week, and they wanted to get in as many hours that week as possible. They also dis ssed Fat they would like cause the plant was very strin ent about giving overtime deviations dng outage not to worry abbq t c overtime and that they would be "administratively creative" with their time keeping. At this time, a d nTe nil __ 00 Ed~nt - thata qm kean foun not turned in an overtime deviation for 7c.

Agent's Note: According to Perry Technical Specification 5.2.2.e, overtime deviations are required to allow employees or contractors to exceed 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in a 7-day period rule and are usually approved and/or disapproved at the Outage Director level. This rule was designed to ensure that personnel conducting work on nuclear related equipment were not mentally fatigued and were capable of performing their tasks safely and effectively.

The next day, camein andalso 7C worked on his T h ey had 1 X enough people to do the test already set up for that shift c overtime deviation, but he did not. March 19 200 d told hiim that he had concerns about what indicas well as ove dio reviewing their time thatincorrectly submitted the cards and that hesent tem back to Adecco/Tad's Lead Contractor ro ct ionn. , '

_hclardsa th tm ttal to -s-k-rt the overtime devition. On arch 22, lindicating that they failed to get the deviations, but that there was no problem with the submittal of the time cards. w- who stated that his conscience had been 7c bothering him, reopened the CR and entered the facts as they actually happened (Exhibit 2, pp. 6-9, 11-12).

Gostatement. tate,,..,

_U _ _oweev w as not in trairwen tatement was made. The time was approximately 6:30 p.m., during shift turnover.

during a discussion with Perry supervisors, stated that since the outage was ending and he had to travel on a certain day, he would not get 40 h t week and would not receive a full per diem check. The conversation then led t saying that he could work on his day off, and the supervisors would not have worry aani ijpe deviation, since it d be admi rtively taken care of. _  ;.-r

_a kd out of the trailer. After the shift turnover meeting, NOT FOVUBLIC DISCLOSURE1 WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE D)ECTOR, OFFICE O STIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2002-031 8

ireturn thgL e trailer and that was 3Khq iMMPIM Id came loon the d ir of ays fis 1 c.

was Uluevrt r had ALdyp ed 1 c that they had enough people, even wi .

adjusted the time cards by putting the 1 hours1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> worked on off to anothe y ich showed no indication of working more than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> that w ee it was the supervisor's responsibility to ensure that the 72-hour rule was not exceeded, and if so, to submit an overtime deviation request to plant management for authorization (Exhibit 2, pp. 18-26).

Ut VWbu

-?a i'icr.

l 7C' 4'

o falsify his overtneX s0 believed tha w *tew~sh the facts by justifying t He was n6t aware of any kind of favortism betwq a except for previously working at Perry as a contractors have d'usted e time cards on his own unless instructed b h(Exhibit 2, pp. 29, 31-36).

Coordination with Reaional Staff On October 7, an Allegation Review Board (ARB) was held on this matter, but the NRC staff did not have all of the relevant information for OI to make a decision on accepting this issue for investigation. This information was subsequently provided to OI on October 23, 2002. At this ARB, it was determined tha Actions potentially violated Perry Technical Specification 5.2.2.e and 10 CFR 50.5 (Exhibit 3).

Coordination with the Regional Counsel This investigation was initiated with the concurrence of NRC:RElJ Counsel Bruce A. BERSON, M-___I I Review of Documentation The lice ce vided OI:Rf with a copy of prepared on The report indicated tha _ their day off, exceeding 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in a 7-day period, without an overtime deviation. The Corrective Action Block indicated that the time cards submitted for the week of Accattly 11 C:

reflected the hours worked by tho dividuals (Exhibit 4).

NOT FOR>PLJBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE D CTOR, OFFICE OF T ESIGATIONS, REGION m Case No. 3-2002-031 9

ewith a copy 13pe report revealed that on March 19, 2001, at the same time the time cardb for the contractors for the week of - were submitted for the week inqusin ____ 1 eyeed 1c4 the time sheets for the days in question, found them to be incorrect, and returned them to the al h U_ w h o corrected and submitted the time sheets for processing IC (Exhibit 5).

_S~a-_= puruant to a -

meeting involving RFOS personne meeting, errors made during these events, management expectations, and ways to prevent recurrence were discussed (Exhibit 6).

The liesee urnished i copies o cards c

'_4me card showd he vokd 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> on Hond mecards were the corrected versions of actual hours worked by _on teir days off 7 -

(Exhibit 7).-

Agent's N T cards showed tha t 1id not work on jrespectively, whic were their designated days off that week3The licensee claimed all attempts to locate the original time cards were unsuccessful.

IiiI 1*n giVewj Ip=Z 'W7 raUi ith a copy of a policy regarding falsification of records signed by 7o WOOD. The policy notification, effective October 1998, stated that any employee who falsified records, reports or forms, or who knowingly signed any document known to contain false material, would be subject to immediate discharge (Exhibit 10).

On August 12, 2003, FENOC provided OI:IR with a response letter pursuant to a request for overtime deviation and time card record information. The letter indicated that after FENOC's review of the overtime deviation database and microfiche files, no approved overtime deviations fo rfIA u - ing RF08 were found. Furthermore, a review was also conducted I C l __

NOT FOR WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE f4NVESTIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2002-031 10

of the time cards submitted b lurng that period. FENOC acknowledged that no other time ca ated, except for those previously provided to OQERE covering the week iExhibit 11).

Evidence The testimony provided during the interviews was reviewed regarding the allegations involved in this investigation. In addition, documents related to the allegation, which are listed in the Review ofiDocumentation section of this report, were also reviewed. Copies of the interviews and documents obtained by OI:RM are attached as exhibits to this report.

IntirJiew tated that he was at Perry d RF08 for valve testin . WhiUworkl n EaMonday morning day shift, he ov raking to Jo about time cards. At this time, ade the statement that he would be trave ig to the AG that week and was going to indicate time worked on his time card, even though he would not be on site for the entire week. He could not remember the supervisor, bu a nd the supervisor went back and forth over issue.

ended up working the entire shift thday. He did not hear hoW and the supervisor decided to do the a erwork believed the conversation took Dlace on a Monday at approxirat s also thought there were~ resent when made the statement, but could

• not remember who they were (Es urther stated that wha ctually meant by his statement was that since he was traveling at the end of the week, it should not matter on his time card that he would come in and work on his day off. However, to s knowledge violated the 72-hour window at the other end of the shift. The 72-hour window meantore than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> could not be worked within a 7-day period without a waiver. Tkknowledge, Perry did not grant any waivers (known as overtime deviations) because they felt they had adequate man ower. It was his understanding that nO one was allowed to work a 7-day pe ri o d s 7a, belLeved it was w h o told eindthere wde nse ( overtime pg deviati2, that outage. In fa t was pretty sure it w because he said they were going to do the outage with a 6-day window:.-no dvain(Ehbt 12, pp. 8-11).

also stated that he was surprised to s o e in that day, because it was talked about the day before that he was going to off. assumed they had an overtime deviation since the job they were working on carried on for. ew days from shift to shift. He just thought that they wanted to get the ne and wante do it. was not a part of the conversation betwee and the supervisor, butall about traveling, not being there for the rest of the week, and time cards, mad wonder what NOT FO<kIUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DMRCTOR, OFFICE OF IfTIGATIONS, REGION III Caseo. * - _20201-1

5. _vv v_- .,

they were doing. There may have been deviations in other groups for people working 7 days a week of which he was not aware (Exhibit 12, pp. 15-17).

Interview off

__ _ _ dl ld a s beivdto have work~ead ontheir days off, exceeding the overtime limits. Furthermore, Pey management did not get an overtime deviation fdr Fet atcs t how wn. 1

,cince thes was somenth at took place on shift, it was broughttth to attend isthe tri u

_-Xc overtime devi ain how we do busmiess here." However l id not put n much credenc i_,tatement and took it just as a jolting comment. He never saw (gExhibit _i13, pp. 1346). Die ~cards or schedules that week because Mhey were on the ft ?c toi.Hoeeeaaesblee belevuld that they should have havetakeunh comment wihoro w probably ee time3 their seriotsl sinc

_ _t hy shuld ave taken steps in the trailer to turn the conversation wior ensure that Perry expectations were being met. -At the time on l e e y Statement to be a flippant comment and did not respond -7C to it. Gevere later bel l oe should httehave takcen the comment more seriously since they had alIready proce ssed at least three overtime deviations during the course of the outage (Exhibit 13, pp. 13-16).

_ecause that week J no ty were ramping down their contract force to the point of having minimal staffing available to do an on any Vein=day_.

!_ Myfriendship or personal relationship with either k'He stated h ad worked for Perry during fourth outages devauscntaor vtte they had a .very high regard Ifox_

abilities, organizationally and work-wise, and had a lot of confidence in him. From a contract ethtvri It was not until a we or two n-hat e~w~tha~toverzt~imedeviavti~ocnps-werenotsubmnitted f _e 1 he found out Even though n pe overtime and time card isswa NOT FORIPFUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITH APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE LECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIG REGION III Case No. 3-2002-031 12

I-Ic.

EON-( - bit 13, pp. 17-22, 26).

Interview o ta tated that e 7C wsnt res nil o vr hours because he was on a different s owever,  ? c neJ notrecall mco gorning iiand 7C exceeding the 72-hour rule by working on Tuesday, I He was not responsible for mbutbelieved it was the denied hearin a

ake the statement of "administratively correcting or adjusting' overtime. He knew a discussion in the volving time sheets and overtime, but did not take part in that discussion (Exhibit 14, pp. 4-8).

further stated that while he was standing in th he did hear parts of a conversation about somebody exceeding the required or allowed amount of work time.

Nonetheless, he did not talk with anyone directly about time card issues. He did remember out th mwith the time cards and that someone came 7C in on what was suposedly their day off. Did not recall signing any time ars, UVhe L usual y left that up to Perry Administration.

believed that there were oetme deviations submitted during the outage, but was unaware of how many. He submitted at least one, but could not remember who it was for. According to the 72-hour rule prohibited anyone working on safety related equipment to work more than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in a 7-day period without having a deviation in effect. He was unaware of 7c any personal relationships betwee _xeptfor cordial business relationships (Exhibit 14, pp. 15-19).

Interview o stated that he knew b7 remembered a group of supervisors, consisting o theC Shtalking about the valves during shift turnover.. He recalland take about having to work overtime in order to fix valve, but none of th qu ed about it at that time. He did he use the term "innovative timekeeping" instead of "administratively corrected," regarding overtime. He took that to mean that someone was comm in on their day off and agreed that it meant to submit a time card that was false.

Hostatement as a serious concern at the time, because things are said in th hat are known to be unintentional. He questioned the fact that if someone was going to do something like that, why would they verbalize it (Exhibit 15, pp. 3-8).

NOT FOR Pi)BI1- DISCLOSURE3/4E'THOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO6RQFICE OF IN STIGTIONS, REGION III nAP~

1-U0% A NWa.

2JAA~n

- VL nl2J 12-

.L-F

7c had no intention of signing an illegal time sheet. He emphasized that he would not havesiIgned off on a falsification if it were his kid's report card, and certainly nt e nuclear indusry. He was not aware of wh anvrtie deviation was not submitted fo. nd since he was 7c unaware that it was , ha y off, he never questioned him about it. Accor t although It would not have been hard to get an overtime deviation f could have had someone else do the valve wor hsteadys acknowle at even after signing off o. e card, It was really unclear to whvas supposed to be working ceeded his hours. However assumed that e put in an overtime deviation f(Exhibit 15, pp. 8-14).

lso stated that it was discussed among the supervisors that something was wrong and -7C-they needed to put in an after-the-fact deviation. They also needed t rite a CR and correct.the time sheets because no one would sign an incorrect time sheet.Itime card did accurately reflect him working ove eon those days and they did put in a 7o deviation after-the-fact. However, was not sure why the deviati ever took effect, but believed it could have been an oversight. He recalled tallcing t about doing the deviation accurately to reflect the time and making sure thaey rybody suffered through the consequences of so ehntatwas not right. He an vrldy a onzing over the matte who took was really more th~d mitted, resulting in the internal investigation, that they screwed up and that-the overtime issue should not have happened (Exhibit 15, pp. 14-18, 23).

acknowledged tha me card for the weekoas no changed or altered and accurately reflected the hours worked b and that there was an after-the- act deviation put in effect. For record purposes, after-the-fact deviations can be done.

lieved that he would he had more responsii to put in an overtime eviation fo but expected cithe ookwhg norm yakes the lead to step u Problem was thateas g for someone else to take the responsibility. vas unaware whethe had an overtime deviation, but if anyone's time card reflected overtime a deviation was 7o done. He acknowledged that there should be' docmentation showi ldeviation.

Furthermore, he reiterated that none o overtime cards were falsified and reflected the hours worked (Exhibit 15, pp. 24-28, 32-33).

Agent's Note: On July 30, 2003, Tim MATTHEWS of Morgan Lewis (FENOC law firm) sent OI:Rf a letter indicating tha w s being reresented by counsel after his interview on June 19, 2003. The letter stated tha ad not prepared for the interview and ave inaccurate and incomplete information. After having refreshed his recollection equested an opportunity to clear up any potentially incorrect NOT FORMLIC DISCLOSURE wflI9-UT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE D CTOR, OFFICE OF AVEStLGATIONS, REGION m Case No. 3-2002-031 14

information. MATTHEWS was advised tha ould provide additional 7C information to OI regarding this issue. To date, nothing has been received by OI.

Interview -C stated that he kne 7C thorHe MOV r7 C

. =Z U l m~~e ievelBdsge During e turnover meetin d remember ersation about working a seventh day, which usually was the day off. He never hear se the term "administratively creative," but something more like "creative timekeeping. At that time, he thought the term was m e but realized that being silent after a statement like that was the wrong thing to do.& . elt that if any one of the

_ r present had tol at they would something like that, then the C issue would have been resolved. Furthermore, whe was talking about doing the overtime, someone should have proposed processing an overtime deviation (Exhibit 16, pp. 3-9).

>tated that he an - were the but he was c-ultimately responsible foAlthough he held himse o onsibe for what occurred, any e ftculd have challen ged statment.

According to riginal eC were C incorrect. the issue was raised by.ah statement 1cS'ICf at the time, they imnmediately pulled the time cards and ha ore back in and change the times. Once the time oards were corrected, showed himself working over 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />' for that week. i did not believe thaan overtme deviation was submitted after the hours were corrected. ame in and worked ov rtime on his day off, o OWNe in and worked overtime on his 1 ng e umber talking with_

WFbout the fact that the trme cards were turned in incorrectly (Exhibit 16, pp. 10-16).

A also stated that as in the wing shift turnover, but did 7c not know whether he heard statement. However a part of pulling the time sheets and reviewig I them.__

Ii- I ought that c and changed notonly no_

&nwwhetsubmitted his own original time card or if it was done bC tated that everybody was working different hours and had different days off, and since a lot of things were going on, the monitoring of horo e of those things that he put a lot of time into. As a result of the overtime issue slaas not reprimanded, but instead attended a meeting wherl ked to th bout what the had done and about not meeting management's expectations. He later admitte that he 01 maintain control of things like he should have (Exhibit 16, pp. 18, 20-23).

NOT FORMIC DISCL EWITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTQ, OFFICE OFGIONS, REGION M Case No. 3-2002-031 15

- druitted that the time card issue, was not handled right and there should have been an overtime deviation in effect. He remembered hearing a statement de by an Assistant Outage Director that overtime deviations would not be easy to get. ontended that the level of difficulty in getting overtime deviations depended on the need of the person involved and the cZticality of the job. However, he also implied that options did exist other than having ome in without the overtime deviation. They could have either not perfohned the tests or used other people instea -. emphasized that annot let schedule pressures allow them o Iake those kinds of bad judgements. He did not know of any personal friends b hi upervisor resulting in favoritism towards eved as a hard worker who was only soo-oti

• tahn ls Tuy na s _tt 61--l sow ;n: -r U1s HartU sLw;1

.n 1U;1MLUJL U C I1l LULIr U1C JUU IUJLl-. enb JU I LU r1~11 JLUUL UUW.&L l11l W1IUL4I

'7c-lieved was not done very we (Ehibit 16, pp. 28 Interview o--

stated that he knewas one of the 7-participants in thee He believed that dung RFOi as made aware of the fact that d overtime on M which violated the 72-hourn7-day rule. -I'C ie&d nobeie there was an overtime deviation in place at the-tim.aae in on his day o expected each Project Manager to. know what type of work resources they had, and to a imster all of the required working hours and any other company functions that took place. He acknowledged that a falsification of overtime records would not have been taken lightly by the company. However, he was not aware of any time cds being falsely submitted It:

and had not seen a time card until prior to being interviewed, did not know anything about the time cards being returned f o correct (Exhibit 17, pp. 6-11).

.QAAU I4 also stated that based on a review of the CR documents, Ihe believed that a correction was made as to an after-the-fact overtime deviation f'R  ! After-the-fact deviations are C.

not customary, but they do happen based on exigent circumstance *s.He knew that it was Perry policy to have overtime deviations approved in advance; and if th were not, then a CR and investigation was required as to why it did not happen. Vwas not counsele r reprimanded b ut the iIq ati was sent to his emp]loyer to handle. l did not think that the situati vas handled p11but by the time he was made aware eoosi s gone. levertheless,(1id work at Perry during RF09. not rceive any information on the overtime I imatter from the p ci ants or super ui after the CR was written. EBe did have one coun selin session wi and told him that the results of their meeting would be documenet -d enoers nnel record as an indicator of performance (Exhibit 17, pp. 12.-16).

ther stated that if it was determined that a deliberate fi ilsification occurred due to incorrect time cards, then termination would result. However, if aafalsification occurred and it APPROVAL OF OFFICE OF ;ATIONS, REGION I Case No. 3-2002-031 16

was aetermined to be est mistake, then there probably would be some form of minor disciplinary action. . serted that Perry does n t tolerate the falsifigon of documents, which have resulted in terminations before. orked 1 C j-I ~L he never ad any instances of impr ritis i r ate behavior. As the I' hlbhd _ H ngS X 1 ~recalled 24- 6) adby W O ODwho ker vho ran th When he replied that 7s

_X l vae that he kne but never heard him mak the statement "administratively crepe" or anything of that nature. He believed that heyM UM wark in tha o~bSnt that..e a o aware oa n d remember r whether he was suosed to b

__He did have thefauthoit to me sheets, but could not recall any concerns expressed b about working on I )r having exceeded the overtime rulefExhibit 18, pp. 5-10).

enied ever stating or indicating to somebody that there would be no overtime deviations at Perry during RF08. The information regarding the time sheet issue was only second hand information anore did not deal with time sheets, excppt ford the oth _ iyer dealt wxcept during shift turnovers and did not have any discussions wi orking overtime. Additionally he never e rd about any discussions or concerns among"W erI regarding overtime issues. However, the need to a e to the rule of working over a 7-da period was discussed during the outage. _ ad no knowled e of , the

),eing involved in submitting else time cards. Althou ved th he never made the statement about no overtime deviations, he knew that their policy discouraged the use of overtime deviations. However, there was a process by which it could be entered and approved (Exhibit 18, pp. 10-12, 15-16, 18-21).

Interview -f w _ ?9 ~t he worked as a AtiEtame, NOT FOR PUB DISCLOS THOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECT ,OFICE OF TESTIGATIONS, REGION m Case No. 3-2002-031 17

not recall if he worked overtime on his day v i 7 r i lid off o. Hwevet, if he did,e made lure that it was not over the 72-hour rule lii.b eer wo over 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in one w eas not aware o fS ever te2-oroetme rule ad voai I~ld not rcl _ orked overtime on his day el at with him '7C since he w o The reason ne~ver got wplv ersations was that he always reported to the

_ g ME.(xib it 19).

he knew nothing about overtime deviations or how th.He was responsible for preparing his ow sheets, but - .

turwed them into ho he believed signed off on them. ev r ea any comment about being "administratively creative" with his timekeeping, nor dtell him to make adjustments to his time sheets concerning overtime. In fact, he could not recall being a part of any discussion involving overtime or changing of ti heet.

as unaware of any changes made to his time sheet for the week o _`c since it was the last week of the REO and As far as he recalled, no Qne from Perry ever contacted mr;egarding his work schedule or time sheets after leaving.

was unsure who really worked for at Perry, and found it very difficult to track who was supposed to be working for who during so many shift changes (Exhibit 19).

Intervigw of stated that in March of 200 be

'as nt s but l _He believed that a.

wlened ever making the stateiment "administratively creative" or any similar statement of any type. He comprehended the statement to mean marking up time sheets in some incorrect manner to skirt policies that were in place. kn ew the statement as "creative timekeeping," and first heard it used by his Jim McCOY, who was on the night shift during RFO8 (Exhibit 20, pp. 7-13).

further explained that since McCOY resided out-of-State, Adecco/Tad had rules about workin at least 32 hours3.703704e-4 days <br />0.00889 hours <br />5.291005e-5 weeks <br />1.2176e-5 months <br /> per week in order to et per die time, McCOY told iat he brouhtup the idea toth *1-!a bout working his day off and indicating it on the shortened week's time sheet to make sure he had the 32 hours3.703704e-4 days <br />0.00889 hours <br />5.291005e-5 weeks <br />1.2176e-5 months <br /> who was also present, said that he would do it as well since he was in the same situa At that point, ,*hen thought NOT FOR PU C DISCLOSURETHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECT -IOFFICE OF TIGATIONS, REGION III Case o. 32002-31 1 Case No. 3-2002-031 is

that if the subject was broached to Perry supervisors during the turnover and nothing was said, then either the 72-hour rule or their approach must not be a big deal. He also thought that whether his hours showed up as straight time or overtime, it did not make any differenc his pay, because straight time rates were cheaper to the client than overtime rates7C tat when he came in on Monday or Tuesday, he worked 7 days straight and exceeded they 72-hour limit. The reason he came in on his day off was because he believ Mat Pery needed him tnd nobody else was available. Nonethelessknew that Sk1 he bent the 72-hour overtime policy and was not trying to justify it (Exhibi2, pp. 14-20).

Agent's Note: According to Perry personnel, McCOY was not employed by the AG during RF08, but worked as an independent contractor. Attempts to find McCOY have been unsuccessful at this time. Perry is in the process of checking database records to determine McCOY's employment status on the MOV Project during RFO8.

stated that getting an overtime deviation would not have been as big of a deal as he thought, and if he would have asked for a deviation, he would have definitely gotten one. After the outage was over, he found out t.t Perry approved hundreds of deviations in the past, and very seldom disapproved any. had overtime deviations written for him at other ower plants and realized that he had made a mistake at Perry. To the best ofJhis kslQ eA1Mk ewthatbothh c were coming in on their days off. They were also aware that working on Monday, he would have exceeded the 72-hour overtime rule. During that week4 out in en 12-hour di s, which added up to 84 hou rs knew for aac

,were aware of the hours worked by him an - -bause of the original time sheets. Althou h Perry supervisors insinuated that they made a mistake regarding the overtime hoursndicated that he knew better (Exhibit 22, pp. 22-27, 29-30).

W ialso stated that while denying ever using the term"creativedml in he did not want to indicate that he never used it in ajoking way. W he _ _ _&nd McCOY submitted their original time sheets, they showed ha o hours worked on their days off and moved those hours to a different day of the week. who collected the incorrect time sheets originally turned them int but he refused to sign them. However, was willing to sign the time sheets a they were incorrectly submitted. After bout the incorrect time sheets being turned inall Sathome and told himthat the time sheets needed to besorrected and that an after-the-fact overtime -deviation needed to be written. ediately came in and

&becaushe werere unavailable to correct the errors. After resubmitn the ne time sheetsj t~u~ags~SIeel 10MMINWN eved that, who was t 11 h wa y%Wr-unaware of the time sheet changes. Nonetheles - -

not get rerimanded by FENOC for exceeding the overtime limits, but did attend a meeting led b;

, , WM NOT FO LIC DISCLOSURE OUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE D SRFFlCE OF TJGIONS, REGION m Case No. 3-2002-031 19

considered a coaching session. also received no formal reprimands from the AG, but had apologized profusely to everyone involved for the wrongness of his actions (Exhibit 20, pp. 32-33, 35-38, 42-43,49-51).

AMent's Analysis As a result of the evidence developed throughout thinvestigation, it can be concluded that As_apWoderately violated technical specification requirements regarding overtime and delibera ly falsified rtime records at Perry. According to the documentatio personnel exceeded overtime lims without an overtime deviation su mitte orked on their days off during their week of work, exceeding 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in a 7-day penr o7 disclosed that inap priate oversight and supervision of the job and contract employees were ors ma d i eseevents, management e.xpectations, and ways to -I 0 prevent recurrence were discussed. discussed management expectations and ways to prevent recurrence, but no disciplinary action was implemented.

Perry Consultant Em I eTfne Cards Sheets, specificall drnthe en'o0i X

-- _~~ = , X shdehowed, mited-an ia Da -off worked.. -In suporto The the 7c_

e-mall le it a ead more knowledge 1 regarding the overtime isiseis it Pe indicated; The e-mail also i~e§.

soe concern on the part o egarding these matters. The e-mail f W ?C '

tcinjpointed out concerns about the integrity of Perry supervision and covering She falsification of overtime records. Periy policy notification letter, signed by FENOC Vice President WOOD, clearly established the company's position in relation to the falsification of records. It indicated, "Any employee who falsifies records or knowingly signs a document known to contain false material, shall be subject to immediate discharge."

The Perry response letter, pursuant to a request for overtime deviation and time card record information, showed that no overtime deviations were in effect at that time. It also aclkowledged hat after searching for any additional time cards (orginaljnshe none could be located. After interviewinr vC t could be derned that they lacked culpabilit i s matter. Although ay have been in th at the time of ornment, there was no 7c testimonial or documentary evidence supporting that he actually participated in the falsification of overtime records. Furthermore, since he did not supervise either of the contractors, he would NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2002-031 20

not have been ultimately res n ible for submitting the overtime deviations. Although according to the e-mail it appeared that e ore than he actually indicated, there was no 7c evidence supporting a nexus betwn the false overtime records.i R~%1 as not, 7 aware of the overtime matter until the CR. wa sw itn. ould not have artici ated in the events that occurred in th and wond have expected his to supervise the required working hours as well as any other company cons that to place.

Althou= /f dneofte outa! akowledged being present ink th g f-

_uringttemet but disiiss t as a joking comment. However7 did tha wor ikow r days off without having a overtime deviation in effect. According towas also involved in the changes to the original time sheets. According to it was not necessary to have both work overtime o their a n d co. d, ave either not performed sp other lsed eople instead. Bo admitted to knowing that W n 1W vor vorked on their days off without an overtime deviation. They also c admitted that the pverbme issue was not right and there should have been a deviation in place.

haeging the original time cards and admitted that

- asiahiinv 1 ol ,li6however, denied that any of the time sheets were si e ithey reflcted the actu ours worked, and there was an after-the-fact deviation put into eect Jacked credibility since other testimonial evidence proves the existence of original time sheets. The OC database search also verified that no after-the-fact deviation was submitted. Whiled having any knowledge or involvement in this matter,

-o esse o e cI onic overtime records an implicate Conclusion Based ugon the evidence developed, this investigati did substantiate tha deliberately violated tec0iniS specificaio requirements regarding overtime and deliberately falsified overtime records.

NOT FOR pLIC DISCLOS THOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF frWESTIGATIONS, REGION m Case No. 3-2002-031 21

TEIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOLR P C DISCLOSlREIOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC 0I FFICE OF YNV IONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2002-031 22

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMAflON On September 23, 2003, William P. SELLERS, Special Counsel for Regulatory Enforcement, Fraud Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., advised that in his view, the case did not warrant prosecution and rendered an oral declination. =

During the course of this investigation, interviews conducted disclosed potential allegations of fitness-for-duty violations. Based on the information obtained, it was discovered that an altercation occurred between two contractors during RF08 atPerry. This information was forwarded to the RIE[ staff for review of any potential safety or technical concerns and is not included in this Report of Investigation.

4 A..

OR OF CCE inI 23

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONAILY NOT FOR PaI DSCLOSURE ŽElOT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFMICE DIRECGAFICE OF VG , REGION M

. -- - I hi- q mrnn nq i MA base fed . J-,kUI-vj I Z.lt

LIST OF EXHIBTS Exhibit No Description Investigation Status Record, OI Case No. 3-2002-031, dated October 23, 2002 (1 page).

Id 2 Transcript of Interview of _a-urED 7 pages).

3 ARB Allegation Action Plan, Allegation No. RM-02-A-0 171, dated October 2, 2002 (5 pages).

17c- 4 (2 pages).

prepared _won £ (3 pages).

IdC,6 liM(2 pages).

P Consultant Employee Time Card Sheets sho.

-- o ours worked for the weeks o1j q,8 pages).

lQCtslC!A 8

,-4.

• h Ai9 E-mail fro m_ _ _ _P- (1 page).

10 Perry Policy Notification Letter regarding falsification of records, endorsed by WOOD, effective October 1998 (1 page).

11 FENOC response letter pursuant to a request for overtime deviation and time card record information, dated August 12, 2003 (ipage).

t)(,12 Transcript of Interview S I U N ( 25-F pages).

r) ,13 Transcript of Interview of1Aj 33 pages).

• .,; -rc S a f r

'\ c,.14 Transcript of Interview o J 5 pages).

'e. 15 Transcript of Interview 0 5 pages).

NOT FORB PYLTCDISCLOSUL1 THOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO OFFICE OF INSTIONS, REGION m 3-2002 03No1 2 Case No. Case 3-2002-031 25

16 Transcript of Interview 38 pages). T7c 17 Transcript of Interview oj . 4I5 pages).

18 Transcript of Interview o l(22 pages).

19 Interview Report ofl2 z _ l I page).

20 Transcript of Interview I60pe(60 pages). Is NOT FOR PUB A LOSURE WITH APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO CE OF INETTG N III Aren 'kLIn 2 ommn

%OaaC LO4U. -VUJ

-2ni or TVW