ML062790480

Report of Investigation, Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant: Deliberate Failure by Contractors to Follow Fitness for Duty Regulations and Deliberate False Statements

ML062790480
Person / Time
Site:	Kewaunee
Issue date:	11/29/2002
From:	Fahey M, Paul R NRC/OI/RGN-III/FO
To:
References
3-2002-004, FOIA/PA-2006-0113
Download: ML062790480 (43)

Text

-.1

.1.

%OMJL-I'IJu Q-t UUZ--UU't I

I I

. I

ý V SNft REQ&Z.

I..

I

ýýp

.-q,ý I

I.

I

., +

O f2 I -,

t.

,tu

, :1..

1..

ý

.... 1.

I I- "

in

ý

., z :. ýL I

I

.ý

. 0

. I....

I

ý,:..% :..!

ý_.'L, -

I

' L (A

L

':, L U n ite d S ta t

..... I. -.

.. 0,

.. -V e s I.1.

1... ý

.I., :. %;-

.:. MI

....ý.....,.

.... L...

... I.L.:......... 1....m.0

.15; V11,4

.ýý

_0

"' * '.' : : -.-.ý,

.. -., ý. 4-.. ý,....

.,7,.,p Nuclear Reaulatbry.Com m is

... .. : !.;.: ý,-.-.

ý-.. **,*,*-ý1:- -

L

. r, :

,. L,.. -....,.-.,ýý!P n.ý ý.,::. ý. ý.,

I.._,:,.

, ý

.ýý.s_ ý. _.:.,...

-1..

, -.. - ý..

I I ý., - -

..... 11

..,...

,._m,. -

., :'e.

.1..,ý,..

ý,ý-... '

-L

, -ý,. -':

I,, '...,

..:.:.ý,:

.ý I

- 1.

.L'

,....ý.._..:- -, - ý. ý...: L':

'L

... :: ý-... 0.ý a _... : I.....

1,..

-ý

ýý

ý

_. -I.,

.. -:.. ý,. ý 1...:, L... '., !....... V,..:.ý,_ :, ý,_...,,ý ý. -,

• ý, - ý,- I,.

- 1 L

ý ý

.. --. ý.

. ' - ý,, rý

. ý'..':

I I.

...... ý I :.

d,.,

ý

ý I, ý.

L

,.....z...". : -....

_ 1.. q - " "

, ý,

I.

I :

ý 1,.

t. -

-` ý

, ý :

I.

... -.1

.:..: -;ý!:- ::ý:-,.

-- ý:.

...... ý ý.-

.ý...

.i : I

.1

.1..

ý.. -

I

1..

I

...1. -..

.I

. ý

ý.ý -

-1 I

....1

,. I.

. ý I.

. :. ý - ý.

. -, W,.,.:.

, L

,.. :, ý....

... ý.. ",. _

.ý w

ý..

ý- -

- I I -

1.

. I L

.ý.

. I.,

m w -.-

ý

- ý

...,.L

. ý: :

. -1

ý-, :,

1.

- ý - ý -.:. ":,.ý,

.m,.....

I.. :.

ý

. ý,. I.

L.'

.. ' ".'.' '.ý.'.

.1 *.-..

.1 I...:

..' L '.

ý.,

.t

,. f w I ", ",

I 0 -ý, -,...

I......,.,

.... I...

.. I _

....: :.... :..,..r,

L

. ý -. t : - : ý -

.ý.

...ý,..

.- I... -..; ;.

ý

ý_ R e"I nv ttt twon...'...,:,.,- L.

....... -.., -.,_,ý :- _...

ýý.

.-.; ý -...........

. L. L

.....-,,. :....L.._.,: ' '. !.:,.

..' ' :..... ý L : -ý. ' ' L....,

ý...:..

...... I : I.... I..'.....i. :ý _ -.L....:. ý..

..-.........I..,....

. I.... -..1.....,..,..

......L

._...ý..

S...m..-ý..:.,,ý.L:.,.ý,.,..ý,ý.:.:,..:.,..

.I.-,,,,%--,m,,.

,ý: ý...

. 2 _.....:.,-

.: ---- -ý..

...ý 6:.Z ý,,ý:

.....: ýj -_......,

., '. ý..

1: : :.'L. -,..,.,. _..:..

!,:L:

. _".%j

ý.-..,:,

.. L ý- ::,.-

....ý L.. m

-,ý-

,-ý-.-,...

L,....:.-::,,,,.!

....,....I I I....... '.....

ý,.

...ý. -L.. 1. -'.....-.

1....... %-.ý-. 1.-:.,:ý.

!ý:-

_;... ý :-,....-.ý -: ý....

.:.-,......-....1.......:,, -, ::,ý.

ý ý....., -_-.L _*

ý...

L.

.,F........'.

...... 11

.. d ý%,.

...:ý

,. ýý,

I.: : ý;... ý

.. I.....

.I,...ý...I : --.-

m..,...

....:..ý :..... ý_.........ý.....,:.. --I.. :..

ý,..,.. : L :!,

.. :.. ý.-.....:

..:,..,.ý,.

-_-.L

-I...

..' : L L.. _-..,-:,.... ---"..... -".ý....

.. _:,.-.,.-:m-

ý..

....I..

-, ý...., 1. -

I..

...1 -.

.,.. :- -,. -w.

ý,

I.L.ý -ý -.ý:,:.

.. :...".7 ý.::

-:I:.

_-,ý.,.

ý ý.-

... -.:... -...w......L.

.-,1.

'.... I L..:

..ý.ý.-

... I I I I I :,.: "..,

-ý :. ý.. -ý.._..-. L.".,, -,-ý.

, : -,...: I,.,

.-m'

'.. -.' ' -....,., I i, -

,...".. ý.

-.:- -ý-

,ýý

.ý,...

...E A R -P.O W E.R.P L A N T :*.,.:,....

..',:,ý:, - :..,.,.;,....-.....,."..:::.,

..... L,

,-,, ;..!L-. ý- %:_,,;... -...,,. :._,,,.,i:::,,,:, :-- :, ". -1 q..

.1..... L ý ::...

I I..-

...",- _ I....%,

m,. - -

- :, :..: '-' ': : ::' -. - ý:,--,!.ý!Lý L.

, --:.L--,

-ý

%.ý:

-- ý `

---,,- !--- '" -- ---ýý.ý.--.,,*

__. ý.vý.-

_'k-,....

.1..

.ý. a..,..-

%.)

ý,"ý.-::..,...._

-.. _ý:_ ;_%;_,ý-;.:ý.

-L.. -

ý:.. ::-,:,-,.;-,.---... " ' -, - -ý

4. -1..., " -.: ý-.:

- -ýý -_.

... ý,

.:.,.1,... -_:-...

. :.,,,-.k

.., I.

ý,.

-- _,ý.:...ý,ý.

.I. - 'I.:

ýý I

' '. ý.

,:::ý....

ý.*-..-...:ýý

.. `:::! -:ý;

..... L....:..

r..,1

.. `,, 1_ I _.

ý -.,. ý:-ý.:-.:-

""ýL.;"..ý..-.ý'.ý*.z..."ý',..--ý

*."L:.-.::'--.'....:

..::. ý:.

.. -,-ý

ý -.1:1 7.....

1. I

..ý._ :..

........... -...., - -: --ý -

.ý.-:_-ý,-

,11ý.,

_- ý.., ý...:. ý ý_.-,.

., ý-.:

..:.L.I...I.." -i...."... : -,....... 1...,;....... ;-

-..-. --"...,!ý-..ý;,

--.,-,,-ý:-;::,r:.-........ _ - -I. L'.ý.

..m.;.

..... ;,... _.ý.,

ý _...

.:.:I.!

, -I "..., ý.I

...... --j- 'ý- ';_-

-_ ýý,._ ý:_:-tz-. ý.,

L.. - 1

' C " t '

L:,,'----',

-ý-

, -b c ors 6T 6116W Tith'

ý!§':,-;.,

-ý-:-::

.Mibbraio Failure.

t, I

-,,._.:-:ý.!ý:"_-.

-.ý ;._ :i,,,

...... ý...

L,, ý,..

. ;ý _".;

-..ý':

-L' !.,-....,._'

...

--k

",ý,- ý,. -,,'-.:-:L

. !;..y. o n r.:,,.,L,.

.r.,,; I:.

. w. ;,.

-.. I ý,

I.,.

I

...., -. 1r

.`1i '... -, ý.,

.1

.ý,.- -

"i.

.-......4 1 -. ý

.2. ;......

ý..

.... L I

ý -:-::ýý,_

_-ý:.,L-

ý.,

., :- m;

.1.

1. m,...I

.. -.ý.

...... foT Duty". Re'gul6tions` and. 'm.

-..:.. erat6."Fýil§,d!-.,.StEitem ents:....,:.,..-,..,... -

-,...: I

..:.....".. " -,,.,.:,.1 -I'.,.. -.-

.-. L,-:

ý.-ý.;.. -..

...- ". ý _,

- -,_ :'...ý-

,!%1-

.1...

..... -L - _.

ý.... -

L

ýý - -

7

ý

. :.- 4 7- -

.1.. _. _

.. _ -.... ý..

_-_.__:=_,,,,,-

,ýý-.ý._,

-ý:,.-

.:...'. - --:.-%,.T.-.

m

. I I

ý, "

1

, ý. -,, ý :.

1. I. _

I -. -..-.

I -

1.

.: I : I -

e

ý L

ý I

..1 :

. : ý I

. ý ý I w,

I.

' ;.?..-

I.

, :, %:.,. I.. ý ý., ý ý.,..

, '_ -I "...

ý I

ý.

L.'

,' : ý.

' ' I ý ý I -

ý...

L L.:: : ; ý w. :,,.,

... ;":I:. L., :'.

-.1

'ý, '..,..

I.

a, ;

I

-1.1.

- ý,.

ý ;

I

. ý..

.. I

ý I

I :.

-; ý,. % ',

. I.

ý I

'. ý ý, I

ý.

. -. L

-, :, ý -,,,..-. ý "..

: : :., ý.

ý: ' L -

ý ".,

ý. t.

.1

.. J. i

,ý I.,..

.... L.

I t I

... :.Lý

,, ý ý.

mrý

1.

L I.

, I.

-_ ý -

I

1.

,. 1.

ý

ý -

_ _:. L '.. I - *

.. I

ý,. ý.

ý

,: - :..., i, ý -

" -. I ::.m...

-ý-. ". : :.

....ý....

I i : ý :

,.7,

,, " ý,,

ý :.

ý - -. ý, -

,..- ý,.

'L I

L '

, t,

L..

- - ý :

,ý

.1 I

I I

I

ý j. -, :.

.. ý..1..

• ý

. I. w, ".1.

'. ' : W

. ' L..-".'..*' '

-ý. - :,..

I...

...--.ý --. :; ý_',:; L" -ýý._,

ý. - -.

... : -ý : -, -. :

I

. I.

i.

I ý

.ý

, - ý:

1.,_ -.

"' ý I.

ý,-., -.- -,.

j.. : - :

-ý ý :

: - ". -:

• L

ý

...... ".'..L : ' ;ýý : '.' ý' -i :,ý.'.- :. ;

, ý ý:ý_

. I :. ý -..:

.1,:. t : :, ý :

, ý

ý

.. - " r

:.; I L

ý: '.. _,ý.: -

, -.. ý -,;,

, ý d.

I

ý.

,ý I

.., -ý - - : :.

1.

ý

.. i. I

ý q.. I,

..,, I.1..

ý,.. _.

ý..,. - -

%.., I,

, ý,

L.. '..:

.1.

I :.,%.. ý ýý -.

.. 1 ýt,.,

ý..,.

ý...

.-ý.

.. ý.. I

-. :ý, -;.,,.. z --.-

ý, `

, ýý

ý m

.. --:..,,, :...:.,. :. c ':: ý

ý.

.ý ý.-.,."

, ; ý ý

-,,-, ý,, ý, 7 ! ; - _v I I

.,ý

-. 1 -

-1.

7 - ! ý r.,.

: L.

, :ý,, - -,

`

!,.; - r 0:

I I

I

1.

" L

. I ý..

- n i, -

• 1

-7 ; -, : ý.- : ý; ý -,,,, 1

ý-.

L

. -_ z, : -.ý.. 1....

.,.::. 'L,.

L.-.

-I,. -

ý -

. f.

ý L

. I.. r.. ý,

w,,

" : ý,- -, ý % : 1. : - "..

i..

-I -

ý I 1,.1 - I

.1,

ý -, :,I " -; -, '..

, - - -I -

.ý :,..;.,r i..

ý L il I.

c ý,!,

m

. ý. :...,. I ý -

.. ý :..

,ý

. - - - m..... -

-ý f... :ý:., ý:

ý ý z '

,ý.:

_ý,: :. ' :

1 I.

L

- -ý - -

m

. ý.

. W..

ý :.:..

ý

. ý ý

.I

ý.., ýý

.;ý ý....

_ý.

7..

. 7

.1.

ý,

1 w -.....

- ",.---....; ý:` % ý. !ýý *

.1 L

m I

I

_ý_.,

.... L, "

-..,.. --,.:1. ý-..,;....

.. a.

.ý.

--.:.. -.: ý-:.. -ý

, ý, _..

. -,,.. -:ý i.. !..::*,.:.:, ý,. ý -

1,

.1

,: ý

. m : ý.... ':........:...I. :...

I

ý.1.

ý..

..ý I... '...

, ý

", ` -

-1.

.: " - :."i ' * :

". ý 'L.,.,

.M

. I :..: ý..,ý :.- L.. '.ý ' '.'.' L, ; I.!...." : ý. "' ; : ;. ' ý ! * ý. -,- : ý.: ý : - --- ý,,,

I, ý

. - L'..

.ý

.. - m, -

, -..ý..,...

I-I.

L : ý, ý.... - 1..., -.;,

-., - I.. -

..4ý ý ý, ý :."

1.

... - ý L -

ý - ý ý -, -,.. _...

-,,.,.., 7 -

-1.. I 1.

I

.ý.

, a :.

. ' 1..' !

.,.. I Lý

, 1.-..

.. ý L. ý..:

.:. : ý.

1ý, : * ý,-. ý 1.

.,. ý.

..

L ý'.

ý.

,.,.... I :,.

,.:., - -.....: : ý,.

L.

., L I -

I

,ý,. ;._. -

I - -ýý -..., a ý,. ý - ý,..,..

ý

_ 11

.1.

.. ý _:

..,. L:..

ý.

..,,.1 :.., L,....,..,.,.,.

ý- ý

.'., -.', : ý ý* '.,,! I -, I.,... -....-

. ý A -. -

.ý: - ý ý

" ý ',

L...' :

.'. -,ý '. -,

1.

-:ý - -

ý

- : : ý

.ý. -

-,, 1, -.ý, -: ý, : :,, :',

-, : -.L.'. j _ " ý '. ý

.. I.

. Z ;

- -1..

I. :.,.

ý,....,

:,..'.'... I I., ' -,. -

- -:.,

• I, :...,...:...1,

, :,. ý. ý ý.

,, ý...., ý (,,.-, ý

.. : : ý

-.1,.*,.!,.,.

.:. :1.

. ý *7.

..,r..

!.,.-.1 --.

.,,ý

ý.;.,ý.,., ; -,.. '. m ý ý,,.:. -ý,.

.ý..ý.

.ý.

..,,7.,.ý.;

,., ý

ý,.ý.1, --.,..

ý ý. - -,

,, f -,

- - -, - j ýL I

..., ý..., L.,.. :.,.. :.' ' ' - L - ý ý..

., '. -ý,....... - ' '

-,. -,'.-.. ý ;.,.-,

ý ý-.,. -.- -. :, : ý

. -.,, ý ýý

• ,,,. "

i"

-..-.r t,* : ;',.,-,:ý, ý

.ý'. ' '.',.'.". "_' 'I '. - L "

,.;., ý.-..-,* ;-.._., ;,;-..,.!,. t.. ;,:.-..

.,., e.,, :..Z _... ý ý. ý ý I L.-:-..

.. I - I. - I

-I I -

-.__.: _1..

......., !:.4;,. : :.-.- ! -ý; !. ý,-. -

.. ý*ý...",, :." %

I

-: _. : :.. :L-,:

"'.., :ý, -,, 4....... -, ý.Lý

,, `.

.,. %... ý...i ý:.,, - ý : :

.. -O ft dbf nV6.i§*Ugaflpns -ý.--'-_----.-";.

,:_. : I.,.. ý,

.ý

..ýý,--'.:

L

%-ý.!_,.

,,, -ý._-.

_tý,._-.-__i....,

-* " --, " -ý ".._.",

ý.,

. ý.` -.-Z.:,-,.ý,,

-, ý..: -!. - -.4. 7..L.._ ý _:, -_,,,._ -ý ! ý ",

-, " ý, :: ý.

ý -,

.-,. ý ýý:- -

,.4 k.l...ýý " I

,-ý.

..1.1 I -_-ý_

., I..

a_.ýý. ".::

-ýý-,

,,.",.-t 7_,.

ý :.t ý,;ý,.,...:

1..,::.. m ", ý:-ý.j:.-,,- -:ý.-...,.-..:-ý,,ýý:.ý..-.:-..-,...fý:.

,.. C _ _ ý.ý,

-.ý.............,*-ýý,--.-

.ý.. _ý:%

...!.ý

-.:ý'

.il.-,ý.,-..

.ýý,,,ý,-.

'...... _ý "

._,,. - -,ý-ýý.,

--;.--.-_-ý.,

1,

........ -ý.,

_ ý..

.,.ý..

"...... I I

, - I

.. I."

. L ý.

. L....,ý -ý-"

,f.. 1,.... - 'ýý::- -ý t- -".: ý"-

...... ý

ý.ý_,: ---. 1. ý,....

L., .' ' - '*'; -:- ý:,;

-ý -, -

..., L

,:'ý: '. _ý......

Lj..%*:ý:

• I

.!.- '..". ý...'ý:_ý-l;_.-

-.'-:_-'e1::.ý'."

_.ý:

L --rý

, -ý

.1.,

ý "

.ý.. ý.

-. -, : I - -.

,ýý : 4.;. %

ý

. ; 1 :ý7 : - I.

`

ý '

I

, '. ý -

' -1 L

,,., ý. :,:.

ý ý,

.ýl

ý, 1

' ` ' !

ý;,

, ý

.,..,.ý :, ;.- 6ý, :Tý

-,, f ý ý :, -.,'

'I..

.'. :.. L.".

..-..ý. ý: "ýý.

",, ` `

.,ý.. 1,

-, -,,ý., -, "

..- ", -t t

?- I

..- __.1.. ý I - - ý,..,..., ý,,. ;ý- -., ".,ý..,

, -, I... -

ý - '. * :,, ý.. ý...,. W_

,..1.:

11, -. ý.ý m:

F -

'., L

..,,:,..... ". L -

.. ý -

, 1.-

-.-.... -.3

, ",.,,*ý..L :.; I I I "'. :.,.

., : 4.: ý 11ý;7

ý ý,:ý 11 z.- _-.;.7.

I _. -ýý.....ý.'. ý -- -

.r...,.,

.ý - ý,,,.

-.ý,. : '. -y,, -, :-, -ý.. -

.:ý,*.'.

ý ý-.",-

ý:.R d 1j6 rted -bV b li e.ýý

ý-:.-,- " _ ý:,,

- -ýý-,_: ý,,

_. ý

. ' ",.7. % :.. :.,;Lý :,..

. : :.:- t'- ý,L.ý...LL 1-:,

- "..'..".ýv'..

..-L'"..". %;:.,..,..--,;:.'.'.",,...,-:.:..",..,.:,....ý'......,....,ý,,.!,ý,-ý--`. --,.,.'.,.-,,.,,ý;,

, ý...

ý -.1 ý

,ý -- -:ý -, - m

, ý;,,,.;,

fZ ý

. r....ý

_,!;,ý

,ý..,.,..

-,...-,! -- I

`%'.,ý-

j, 4 I...;....

_..-,.-.:-.:--.1

ý--

, ýý%,

..ý,._. ý. -,

-.-,- -,ýý.:;.

','-,t ý4., 1.

....-'-,.'.ý..-.ýý-1"ýý..:.L.'....ý-,- "_

.:mý;,,, -.,..ý.

-,ý...

.: ýý.ý

". c ;,.. -

..ý:ý__

.ý......,.,_.-:,ý,.;

": _,.:ýý 1..,.::..,...

.ýý`.::ý"':ý',,'.:',ý"

.'ý.'.'ýý'_.:

L

, -1

,'.:.'-.:ýý:.%.,...:,Iý;ý.I..,-"..,:ý:*-,,. -...

,,,ý.,..

-, ;ý.

_... 1..

ý,, ;ý,!!,,,,

-,.ý,---.,-,--

ý`-*ý....';,..

ý.,..!.,.,,.ý..,.,-;.ýý'ý'ýý.ý,.:.";"**"."

_ý::,,,

.:....I. -.

I... - z! ý,

ý:_,..- m.--,.,*-,;,,ýý:,ý-

, ý.!

- ý,,;..,. -

.I

-ý -: -i"'ný.'.

-,ý,-

-'-.,,,,;.,...:ý.,

_ý.

, - __ ý ::.:;:_'M.'.;ý.-._ 'ý;..,

,:.,i,. b"

! -ýý:;,,,,.-.-,

, -,ý.-.,..,ý.-.-,ýý,,,,,.4:ý,ý,--',

Lý

..,... ý,",ý-,;;:"j,ý::-,

L:

ý....

?. -

ý. 1

. 7_::ýý*-:::,.

-,ý.!ý

" -ý.;,

ý

ý

... --ý, -,.-.::ý

,; ý... : I ý m a

- -I.,

.1, I. J -...., ý :

ý.ýý.

1,."

- ý : '. I'. _-_-"-__--__ý

-,.,.. -.- j -? I....

I

ý,,ý 7 _! -

I ' '.-.ý :,". :: -7... ;ý.ý I : '; : ýL

'.- :ýý

-,:ý.., 7',,-.ý ý.,,.,ý -ý,ý ;,,. v :,.ý;,

.,ý-,

ý, -ý-,,,ý,

ýý ý -,... 1,

....".-i",,,,..

ý

_ý

, I

ý

ý.

ý,

.. 4 r,. ý '-. ý ---,ý, " - - -

.., ý. :.-.

,ý :.) i.....

ý,, "

. ý,.!..

. - --,ý

. ý -

t. ;..

I,.

.. ý..

.. m. -.:.

. 1,.,.,.,.. I I.

'.. ý.

ý ' ' ý. L -,

ý..

.ý.. I I

I

- ^

r'..

1..

2 !.

.w :

ý. -I : :,

ý,.

I

..ý I. ý :I! ý.

I I

-,ý,ý 1

, *,, I, 11 -1

,. : " ý ;.

- -_--%,_ý,--_-_ý---_--_

11

-...." '_ -.1.., ý -_,

ý ý.. -

ý..

-ý -_. -...11

... ý -; :.. ;....

ý-

I

ý L.

I ý - I..

,. ý,

.. ý.".,

,.ý I

,.., ý - -

. -I --

i

- I.' '..m q

- f

ý -,.;I... -, ;_.---

I

ý

-1

- I f.:

'ý

. I.

L ý,. ',

ý'_ - : ' '. ý

. I 'L,

r,

.. -. ý I : : -..

%ý

.. '. L ' '. ý '.._

.ý

_. 7.-,

ý

. WL

ý

1. :. :

ý.

,'m

ý,

,ý'.',. 1ý: ý.

., --'ý "..'-,.: ;.-ý---.-..,-1._,w_,-.

ý, :ý:ý-, :.-,.-, : -:..':

-ý ý-,`,

--'.'.',ý,--

.". :i, '..'--. _-ý i...--. -.., --I..."'..k,.,`%-,--

.: -ý..-

. ý....,...

L

.. w.

.._7 -,. " :.,-

... ý 5,.

... ý.

ý I.

,. '. I. ;ý

..., -4: I

ý I

ý,..

... ý.

. I

. ý ý.. :..

I,, ",,,

ý

ý

ý ' L.

.',7 1

.ý I,

I - -e

- I - -

.2,.,.,

ý, ':

, ! ý

. : m -ý

",.... " ý

......ý

-., ý ",..... - - -i -

,, ý..

-,ý - -- I.. -

ý ý L,... ý..,.., I -...

ý '. :.

,.:, L

_ -::,: : ý:. ;: ".: -.

- :, a..

I r

-.7. :

ý :.

- : -.ý.

ý - -i - _- ý I -..-,

- ý

ýý

ý

ý -

I.

- ý..

I

...... I...

..,, ` - -

. 'r...,.

?, -.. -

ý, !-..-

I

ý

ý

ý

: ; -ý,

ý -.. : 1-

.1 I

, I o,

I......

ý ý :,...., L,,:,.:I-,

. ý

ý

..I w.

ý

.ý

.. ý ;. L,

..,... L,

ý

... ý ý...

I I ý. -.,. -.;

I.

" I.,..., -

.'. ý:ý "..,ý:ý I

I.

ý -

. ? -ý. ý,,

ý

-ý -

-, -, _ý,_

t

-ý.... :, ý:.. ýý.,. ý. -,;".,,

- :.:-7,ý:-.-, -,...

,, ::.ý.... ý-. : -.-ý -,,-_ý.:,-,ý '. ;, -.., -ý-.

ýý.ý -

-ý, ý, :,

......: ý ý

.,.. 'i

.. w -

L

- L ý.'.

ýL.'. :.ý.".

.: I I. I.I ". ' L.

ý '. -

-.- :..- - -, :.., ý,.t... :. :% - LýL

..I..I ý,.

,7.:,, :,.,

t : -, -

,ý ý ý!.:,

. L ý: ý. I'

-. ý. 1. '.

. 1. ýw

,. - ý. ý

_ ý.

,. : I L

• -,.-; ý,.

-., I..

- '. 1, -`.1 ý ý ; : *. ;, 7._ýý.,.,-ýý,7

-. ý

- E I.

. I

.ý ; ;, L ý, %, ' '..

. m tý ý

.ý...! :, : '. :,- Zi,,. - -,, -6,

ý *,,,,,, ",,..: :.-

... I i. :.

a... -

. ' ' t

ý - -

ý

ý,..

.:..-:ý...

I : ;..ý :.. ý'.

. ;... :..:, I "

,, -ý.., '. :. -,,,, m ; ý r -... : -.

., : I,.

.ý '. :.

. I, ý : ý- ý.... ý...

ý..

ý.;.

• ý

, ý:

-m

L,

m I

I

: -;ý..,.

,ý.

ý, '

ý,

.... ý., L: :._.

,ý

- -r

,.-.., ; -:,,,,. t! ;

. : - - ' - - ' ý'Lý"

, ",..'..'.. L: ý '..ý... :. ý ý,.

.:, ý I w

., ý.

- --ý.-. -, - %., -. -, -

: :. -.:. 1,

,. -.1

ý

. - f...

' I L,.. ;..,,

`

' ýL.,,, '.., *

.. ý. ý, :...

1...

. I. I. I : -,., : -

-,.!. ý

ý.

. ý

,,,, Z. -',

.. - -.. ý, - - - -.. ý.. -

,, ý,

I

_, ý,,.,

-,. _`. : ;, : -,

- - -, ý] -:.,,, -%ý-.-

.:i..

L:ý,

j.:." '

_.. I - - - __

-01_

ý -

ý,

ý..:

,.. -,. ý.,... '.'.-,,.. ý: :,. - - -

ý,. ý.. -ý, -.

I,

I

. O..

ý

,,:,.. ý ý

- ý,

.-.:,:, ý,.

. I

ý,. :.,.. ý....

I -,., ;ý.

. ý_,.!

ý ý.1..

ý.,

ý....

. ý

-: ý.ý : ý.

,ý' ;....

--I I. _1 I - -

I ý :..

I I

' ' L :, ' ; :,ý., r',,

ý

, z,

, : I

• _ý L ;f,.'4.... "

ý.

ý,., I, ".,.-ý-

ý

-1 :

.".,.,, " -:, z.,

. ý,.

ý ý

-'ý ý ý ý- L '

. I ". ': ý *.ý.._.. "..ý : '.' ' ý _- L. '-;'.

-%'.' : 'ý '. ' ' '.. - -

ý

.. ý ý.,

ý.

ý

ý, "; -

,,.1.

, ý,

ý,..ý,. :-, ý,ý -..

'L.

.. ý,

r :..' ;,ý 4,'...

ý L

ý

..ý,

. _ : ý.

ý,ý

. ý

_ý,

-:, ; ý :. ý 1

,, ý.; ý.

.ý :: :ý ý. -., -

I, I.. :,... -.

-;;ý,:., -,-,"*,.'

.*-::,,,7,:

,, ý:.

. -._.ý

." -,,ý

.,. ý '.ý

. - :.-'.. ý : ý. '

, ',-',;; ' "L.',.- ', -, m _.ý,

ýý..

-. 1, I

` L'. :. :' tý' ' '

',. " ! : ` :..' -

ý, : ".

.ý.

, :..ý I.....,, :- ý..,,,,, -.,-, :.-ý.,.....

ý ý ý...,

ý ý ".: :- ý;

-, ýý..

I,ý :

't ý'.'-'

.ý:ý:

-'ý - -ýý....

-ý

ý..

• ,, ý ý;:,,: ý...;..

id th

,.ý -

.1

.1

'L ; ý -,,_ ý: ' ".' "_

.." -ý -j'a.,.4 :. I I..., ý-

ýý

-L

. 's,; ". -,ý-;ý!

L..ýLý'

.:--ý

ý :,,.m

. -.:ý I.

--;ý.

...1.. -

1.

1.

11"

-I,; 'm

.-ý.

.'.I., '.L. ýý

-."r

.ýýt-ý...ý%-.,..,

tion,".-

....... -ý -I --

....,."., %.,ý.. :ý 4 -1, I %.

L.'....

'. L.

.-!'ý

,.'.

.1h"

,, "' :' -7' ;': ".

ý`-,.,

.-".,-"ý-11-'-..--"-.,-.,;"'ý..""".',

,.ý,.-,.........,r,

ý,:.,.ý.,.. _-

..,.: I L

!, " 7 '.,Z,.-..,::.,......

,ý,

-ý..,.,:7..

....-, L.....

a -,., -..,*.:.

L:,'........., ý Is..fecord

.:,ý,:

-: q

..m

..ý...,.. L......ý.;...-

.1 I -: : :,ý.

-I.'..

1%

ý L..--,ý.....,-,-....,

.. : ý Y,.1,

-: m

."; `.,

.m s -dow : ý..,.;.,;.,-..

.....', ý '... '......

,,,ý,.

.ý

....,,..... L -,, ---'.

."'i ý..,..-::.

ý O,.'- f.'.-. `:"--'..ý',--',.

..,..... '.....ý......

1.4ý,..,...

r,.'ý; ':, -, ; %.-; -.:.,acw tdanc

-,, -,.,ý

..., -,--ý

ýý,ý,

.1

. ý., in

-t "

,..,, i ý,.. ;

-, ý.. - - -

.t,

.,. - I..

_ý

.S. ;,

W i h

, ý.,

, ýý L ' "",ý

,.?.

.ý.. M,

,ý

ý ý. ','.._-..

.- m -.

, -%ýý w ".:".

. L

h& N ed

-Z' --..:. " --ý..,.. ý.:::10 ",

_ 1,.,.ý _...,.

!,,,ý,,,.,

kD ` '.:.".; -" - -ý7,-

ý,:...

00 '

- ý-....,

-,me--.,--,,ý-,.-

. _ ý...

k t; ýexempqqrjs T -.o7,,o -..4', 0 lhfofýjtý "..

t...

..I Vvý

....,LL.

ý,,,,ý,.,:.ýý,

-L...'X ýý

.- m ý, ': :,

ý...._,ý..'..

.!,' 1,. - ;;,.....

ý,., "..-. -_.,. ý,.:.--

,._.ý,ý.

-.-ý-ý

.. I.ý

,... :.......:1..1.....ý,- -_.... :..- -:%4:.,.t.::ý,..

.- I

.I.I.,.ý.: :.. --,,.ý:

_ý:

'.'jý'

'. ".t.

'. I. I.. _....

I t -,.-;. " ý- ;,!.:

,.'!.,..:: t, -

.... -.-L -E I A 5

, ý

.ý....

.'ý:

I.

....1. I.

. L :_

AOW - '

.. I

...., ý ' " -......... : I..

_ýýý

, ý,.

.. m.:,

., -,; -"

:..1 i_.:,..! : ý

-1. _' :,:-,,;: :%

Q 0 t I ý.I.

'! ;,,,.,- ý,:-,." -.., :' : ý L e -"ý -ý

.I, L ý :

11..

.. ::, m -

... I......,,...,, L c

r L.,.,,..., ý

., --:.":,... -m

,:';,:: ý%ý

-r-L. '

ý:.I.I -..ý ý..L ý.. ý, -ý,

- ý.

. I -

mi...i....

I

... ý..'L --- - :.

I 1:."., : I....

.I.,ý ý,.:,,,:.:,..

.., _ I...ý-..:,.I _

ý. ý...

I I

. L....1 'ý 'L ' ' -..-.. :,.

......ý..I.:. ý.

I.,.1 :...

1...

. ý. I..;

.... I..:........ '..

'..:; -,, -.. -.,. :. L... I.... -.

ý.

. ý,.:ý.

, ý ýr '.

.I.

.,.... ý ':

-.1 L

ý_-

-, :,.;. m. I.:.....ýý'ýL

ý:,,,

,ý -

I "

L.

.t - I. ý:,ý

ý....... -

-.. -:. : ý ý :.ý,,.... "..

.....ý;..

I : :..

. ý. 'L "... -

I.

f.,.. :.... :. ý.,

-.1.

ý : -..

.. _ I :ý,.:.::, L.

-.. I. ;.

.I :.,. -.:..... " ý.,,...

.:.. I I.

L.

Title:

KEWAUNEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT:

DELIBERATE FAILURE BY CONTRACTORS TO FOLLOW FITNESS FOR DUTY REGULATIONS AND DELIBERATE FALSE STATEMENTS Licensee:

Case No.: 3-2002-004 Nuclear Management Company, LLC 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241 Report Date:

November 29, 2002 Control Office: OI:RIII Docket No.: 50-305 Status: CLOSED Reported by:

Reviewed and Approved by:

Mary Kay Fahey, Senior Special Agent Office of Investigations Field Office, Region Ill Richard C. Paul, Director Office of Investigations Field Office, Region III WARNING DO NOT DI MINATE, PLACE IN THE PUBLIC CUMENT ROOM OR DISCUSS THE TENTS OF THIS REPORT OF INV STIGATION OUTSIDE NRC WITHOUT AUTh TY OF THE APPROVING O ¶ CIAL OF THIS REPORT. UNAUTHORIZEDDISCLOSURE MAY RES KADVERSE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND/OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION'IN.*.

SYNOPSIS This investigation was initiated by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Investigations (01), Region III, on March 25, 2002, to determine whether contract welders failed to report Fitness-For-Duty (FFD) concerns about their Foreman, and to determine whether the contract Foreman deliberately failed to self-report and submit to FFD testing at the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant during a fall outage in 2001. Additionally, on August 5, 2002, 01 was asked to determine whether the contract Mechanical and Civil Superintendent deliberately provided false information to the licensee% investigator relative to being told about the FFD concern involving the Foreman.

Allegation 1: Based upon the evidence developed, the investigation did not substantiate that contract welders deliberately failed to report FFD concerns. However, based upon the evidence developed, the investigation did substantiate that the contract Mechanical and Civil Superintendent deliberately failed to report an FFD concern involving a Foreman.

Allegation 2: Based upon the evidence developed, the investigation did not substantiate that the Foreman deliberately failed to self-report and submit to FFD testing.

Allegation 3: Based upon the evidence developed, the investigation substantiated that the contract Mechanical and Civil Superintendent deliberately provided false information to both 01 and the licensee's investigator relative to being informed about the FFD concern involving a Foreman.

NOT FO U.BLIC DISCLOSURE WT TAPPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DR CTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTI IONS, REGION m Cae o 3-2002-004 1

Case No. 3-2002-004 I

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY NOT FOkTLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOt APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRMMR-yhiý-OXYICE OF INVESTIC*;ONS, REGION III Case No. 3ý--2002-004 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Paee SYNOPSIS LIST OF INTERVIEW EES......................................................

5 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION...............

Applicable Regulations.......................

Purpose of Investigation.......................

Background.................................

Coordination with Regional Staff...............

Coordination with the Regional Counsel..........

Licensee Investigative Report(s)................

Review of Documentation........

Evidence.............................

Interview of Interview Interview o Interview o..

Interview of, Interviews o.

7 7

.............. ;...... 88 10 12 13 16 18 19 21 22 23 25 27 Interview of CLEM 30 Allegation 1: Deliberate Failure by Contractors to Follow FFD Regulations........ 31 Agent's Analysis...........................

31 Conclusion ;...........................................................

34 Allegation 2: Deliberate Failure to Self-Report and Submit to FFD Testing........ 34 Agent's Analysis.......................................................

34 Conclusion......

35 Allegation 3: Contract Supervisor Deliberately Provided False Information........ 35 Agent's Analysis..............................................

35 NOT FOR LIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIR~Q OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGON III Case No. 3-2002-004 3

C onclusion............................................................

36 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION.............................................

37 LIST OF EXHIBITS 39 NOT FOR PUBLIC kZISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTORI FE OF INVESTIGh1*

S, REGION III Case No. 3-2002-004 4

LIST OF INTERVIEWEES Exhibit elde ay and Zimmerman Nuclear Power Systems (D ZNPS)................................................................

14

• d Welder, DZNPS 19 CLEVELAND, Randall D., Access Manager, Nuclear Management Company.............

28 r

ZN S................................................

16 echanical and Civil Superintendent, DZNPS.

25, 26, 27

-_jj elder, DZNPS..............................................

115 q11n eneral Foreman, In Service Inspection Program, DZNPS 24 LProject Superintendent, DZNPS......................................

23 ight Superintendent, DZNPS 22 elder, DZNPS..............................................

17 NOT FOR P1kLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FELD OFFICE DoR1'7OZ, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION m Case No. 3-2002-004 5

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK WNTENTIONALLY NOT Fo0 ULIC DISCLOSURE W>

UT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DXlECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTGI.TIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2002-004 6

DETAILS OF ]NVESTIGATION Applicable Re,2ulations 10 CFR 26.23:

10 CFR 26.24(a):

10 CFR 50.5:

18 U.S.C. 1001 Contractors and vendors (2001)(Allegations 1, 2 and 3)

Chemical and alcohol testing (2001)(Allegations 1,2 and 3)

Deliberate Misconduct (2001)(2002)(Allegations 1, 2 and 3)

False Statements (2002)(Allegation 3)

Purpose of Investigation This investigation was initiated by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Investigations (01), Region III (RI[I), on March 25, 2002, to determine whether Day and Zimmerman Nuclear Power Systems (DZNPS) welders deliberate failed to report Fitness-For-Dut*

) concerns about their Foreman,4

1. 1..-= and to determine whether eliberately failed to self-report and submit to FFD testing at the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (KNPP) du a fall outage in 2001. Additionally, on August 5, 2002, 01 was asked to determine whethelt~iin*lechanical and Civil Superintendent, DZNPS, deliberately provided false information to the licensee's investigator and to 01, relative to being told about the FFD concern involving, Backeround On November 8, 2001, an emergency Allegation Review Board (ARB) was held to address an anonymous complaint alleging that DZNPS workers violate "many regulations daily." At the time of the allegations, DZNPS was a contractor at KNPP which provided labor support, including welders, during outages. On November 19,2001, REI Enforcement and Investigation Coordination Staff requested additional information from the licensee concerning the allegations, including an allegation that DZNPS supervisors, "... turn their heads when certain individuals come in half blitzed."

On February 8, 2002, Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC), notified RUI that upon conducting their own internal investigation for the time riod from August 2001 to No 2001, NMC identified four DZNPS weldersN,-jj-j

[.

an who stated th t, on occasion, they perceived the odor of alcohol on the breath of DZNPS General Foreman, while inside the KNPP protected area, and failed to notify their immediate supervisors or other members of management. It was determined that each of these individuals received and successfully passed General Employee Training (GET) classroom instruction and standard testing, which included expectations related to actions NOTFORR P DISCLOSURE WITHO APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECtTS OFFICE OF INVESTI TIONS, REGION In1 Case No. 3-2002-004 7

to be taken when an individual detects the odor of alcohol on the breath of a plant worker. NMC also determined that when approached by another worker (not further identified) who informed

.that someone had complained about the smell of alcohol on him,f offered to be tested, but no testing was subsequently performed.

On March 25, 2002, a RII ARB requested that 01 determine: (1) whether four DZNPS contract welders deliberately failed to report FFD concerns about their foreman, 7

ý and (2) whether eliberately failed to self-report and submit to FFD testing, in violation of 10 CFR 26.23 (Contractors and Vendors) and 10 CFR 50.5 (Deliberate Misconduct)

(Exhibit 1).

Additionally, on August 5, 2002, a REif ARB requested that 01 determine whetheij 7

deliberately provided false information to the licensee's investigator and to 01, about being told about the FFD concern involvin

,, in violation of 10 CFR 26.24(a)(3), Chemical and Alcohol Testing (Exhibit 2).

Coordination with Rezional Staff On March 25, 2002, and August 5, 2002, an ARB requested that 01 initiate an investigation to determine whether DZNPS welders deliberately failed to report FFD concerns and whether the DZNPS Superintendent deliberately lied relative to being told about the FFD concern in violation of 10 CFR 26.23, 10 CFR 26.24(a)(3), and 10 CFR 50.5.

Coordination with the Rezional Counsel This investi-ation was initiated with the concurrence of the NRC RPI Counsel, Bruce A.

B E R S O N,Q Licensee Investigative Report(s)

On April 22, 2002, upon the request of 01, NMC provided a copy of their internal investigative report which identified the FFD concerns during the Fall outage, 2001. NMC provided 01 with a copy of Walker Investigative Consultants, Inc.'s (WIC) Report of Investigation for KNPP, Report No. W-009-01 NMC/ECP No. 01-18, which included a Report of Investigation dated January 7, 2002, associated Exhibits (Exhibit 3), and a Supplemental Report, dated January 30, 2002 (Exhibit 4).

The internal investigation was conducted to address a number of issues, one of them being to determine whether DZNPS employees were known to have worked at KNPP while unfit for duty.

NOT FO LIC DISCLOSURE WITHO,.APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DI'

%R, OFFICE OF INNSTI 0S, REGION II SWei "M

Additionally, the internal investigation addr sed whether any DZNPS supervisors were aware of this conduct and the actions taken when the supervisors became aware of such conduct (Exhibit 3, pp. 2-5, 8).

The internal investigation concluded, "The below identified individuals, all of whom have received training and have successfully completed General Employee Training (GET) testing at KNPP stated that they, on occasion, detected what the elieved to be the odor of alcohol, to varying degrees, on the breath of Mr."

DZNPS Inservice Inspection (ISI)

General Foreman, inside the protected area of KNPP. However, they witnessed no additional behavior causing them to believe he was in any manner unfit for duty. Mr.

Ci'vil and Mechanical Welding Supervisor, suggested a medical condition may have contributed to the slight/almost imperceptible odor of residual alcohol, which he believed to be insufficient to trigger the reporting of Mri*

Mr.

former DZNPS contract welder, believed that as Mr.,

as a supervisor, the other DZNPS supervisors were already aware of the smell, therefore reporting was unnecessary; Mr.J alleged fear of union retaliation as his reason for not reporting Mrleged smell of alcohol, and Mr.

onsidered it not his job 'to sniff It is clear however that the individuals were aware of the intent and expectations of NMC/KNPP, through their having successfully completed the KNPP GET training, that the suspected use of alcbhol must be immediately reported to their supervisor, etc.

however, for various reasons, they choose to interpret this policy as requiring more than the mere smell of alcohol to trigger or report, such as slurred speech, aberrant behavior, or an unsteady gait" (Exhibit 3, p. 4).

The Supplemental Investigation to W-009-01 was conducted to address several issues, one of which was to determine Whetherw a former DZNPS welder, had informedW that N breath smelled of alcohol, as alleged by former elP der (Exhibit 4).

The Supplemental Investigation concluded, "Mr-*

id not

_alleged smell of alcohol to*

W alleged by Mr,.,,

Mr.

rially contradicted Mr.

allegation. Mr.

confirmed that he smelled alcohol on, the breath of

, adding that he also smelled alcohol on NOT FOR I4JLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DI 4R, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2002-004 9

7c

the breath of Mr."

during his(

employment at KNPP.

However, he stated, in contradiction to Mr

-*allegation, that he (Mr4 did not report this to anyone.

Mrw. said that he was orking out of Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 400, Green Bay, WI, rther tan his own union local in*.,,;M_=---

XF1*

Many of the Local 400 Union members, according to Mr.W didn't much like his working at KNPP, while other Union members of Local 400 were not working. He said he didn't want to 'create waves,' so he 'kept his eyes open and his mouth shut."'

(Exhibit 4, p. 3).

Review of Documentation WIC Report of Interview(s) with DZNPS Welder, dated December 6, 9, and 11, 2001, prepared by licensee's investigator. According to the reports dmitted having smelled alcohol on the breath of-,

but had no knowledge o' consuming alcohol inside the protected area of KNPP, an did not appear impaired in any manner. W stated 4e did not report his observation because the DZNPS supervisors were aware o condition and beca swas a fellow worker. The DZNPS supervisors were identified as and 21Exhibit 5).

WIC Report of Telephone Interview witA DZNPS Welder, dated December 10, 2001, pre ared b licensee's investigator. According to the report,.

__tated he has known

.or approximately 15 years through Local 400. He also stated that he was aware th vas a heavy drinker, and smelled of alcohol at the KNPP site.

• indicated that he did not repot

.to securit or anyone else at the plant because he feared possible repercussions from the union.

d0.=enied that he feared repercussions from NMC or DZNPS (Exhibit 6).

WIC Report of Interview(s) with

- DZNPS Civil and Mechanical Welding Supervisor, dated December 5, 2001, and December 11, 200 1,prepared by licensee's investigator, including draft copy and handwritten notes of the investigator. According to the reports, W

told the investigator tha "was known to have occasionally exhibited the smell of alcohol on his breath while inside the KNPP protected area."

suggested that the smell of alcohol was the result of a medical condition from an-ktated that he never observe -ito be impaired in any manner and dismissed the "slight and sometimes barely/almost imperceptible smell of residual alcohol on the breath of Mrhad no knowledge o Theing suspected of intoxication, nor had i-ndergone for cause" FFD testing.Z claimed that NOT FORP DISCLOSURE WITHOUT.PPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC1T4OFFICE OF I ESTIGA IGION III Case No. 3-2002-004 10 T

if he sus eicte w

mpaired in any manner or under the influence of alcohol, ould have initiated an FFD evaluation.

laimed that he would have had

" - sted if he believed he had been drinking witfhi ihe 5-hour limit.

told the investigator, "There is no policy that I am aware of wher

__was breaking any D&S [DZNPS] rules" (Exhibit 7).

WIC Report of Telephone Interview with[IVDZNPS Welder, dated December 9,2001, prepared by licensee s investigator. According to the report, rovided information indicating that he"was-ulled" from the entry gate and requested trtake a Breathalyzer test, with negatiye results.

old the investigator that he was in close proximity ti and it was oelief that the smell of a]

I emanated fro drifted back to

• was selected to be tested,

• stated it was not uncommon for

°o smell of alco.h in the mornings but not appear to be impaired. He added that if he had seen s...

mblin around he would have turned him in to the appropriate parties..X su ested that

• was unfit for duty, _his crew should have reported the matter.

q tated that it was not his job to "sniff':.(Exhibit 8).

WIC Report of Telephone Conversation with" DZNPS welder, dated January 15, 2002, prepared by licensee's investigator. According to the report, tated that, "... two eo le occasionally smelled of alcohol. He identified the two individuaas" Mr.d Mr. ff"old the investigator that he did not report his concerns about the smell of alcohol. According-to the investi hat because he was a he did not want to "create waves, so he "kept his eyes open and his mouth shut." During a second conversation later the same day, January 15, 2002, the licensee's investigator reported that gain stated that, "he did not tell anyone about the odor of alcohol, reiterating his earlier comments that he kept his mouth shut on the issue" (Exhibit 9).

WIC Report of Telephone Interview with

)).,ZNPS Night Supervisor, dated.'

December 17, 2001, prepared by licensee's investigator. According to the report, denied any knowledge of DZNPS employees who had been known to work at KNPP.while unfit for duty. He also denied any knowledge from any source of anyone working inside the KNPP protected area while exhibiting the smell of alcohol so denied the he had knowledge of xhibiting the smell of alcohol on is breath, inside the KNPP protected area (Exhibit 10, pp. 2-3)..

NOT FOR PUBLIC IS URE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFnN V STI ONS, REGION M Case No.

3-2002-004 11:.*,

Case Noý 3-2002-004 11

WIC Report of Telephone Interview wit ZNPS Site Superintendent, dated December 11, 2001, prepared by licensee's investigator. According to the report stated he was unaware of anyone working at KNPP in violation of the FFD policy. He also stated that he had not smelled alcohol on the breath o hile working at KNPP.

P advised that he had attended Continual Behavior Observation Program (CBOP) training at Point Beach Nuclear Plant, not at KNPP, and believed.1 may have attended th! same training (Exhibit 11, p. 3).

WIC Report of Interview with Darlene PETERS, Security Administrative Supervisor, KNPP, dated December 7, 2001, prepared by licensee's investigator. According to the.re ort, PETERS stated there was no record of FFD involvement for eithe, PETERS also stated that should an individual be randomly selected for FFD testing, no record would be maintained (Exhibit 12).

WIC Report of Telephone Interview(s) o.

DZNPS Welder, dated January 11 202 and January 12, 2002, prepared by licensee s investigator. According to the report, told the investigator ta DZNPS General Foreman, "...

routinely, and strongly," smelled of alcohol.,

tated that he had been randomly selected on two occasions to be FFD tested whie Watt-P, and it was

,whowa sent to retrieve

-from work and escoo the testin are laimed that on the second occasion, he made comments to the nurse conductin-the examinaion -about a.6 O

ondition.,

stated that he an ad attempted to report

'* * *o bothand ut were ignored and told not to worry about it (Exhibit 13, p. 4).

KNPP Nuclear Administrative Directive NAD-01.04, Rev. C, FFD Program, dated November 16, 1999. Section 5.11 states, "It is the responsibility of every employee to report to supervision incidents where a fellow employee may endanger the safety of himself or others, harm customer service or relations, or damage property or equipment of the Company, customer, or the general public." Section 5.15 states, "Plant Supervision shall be notified and determine if the person is fit for duty and if access should be granted" (Exhibit 30).

Portion of KNPP GET Training pertaining to Access Authorization & FFD, undated. The policy states that a worker shall, "Prevent and report actions that threaten the company or coworkers (includes reporting personnel with.symptoms of substance abuse)" (Exhibit 31).

Evidence The testimony provided during interviews was reviewed regarding the allegation involved in this investigation. In addition, various documents related to the allegation, which are listed in the NOT FOR PU CLOSURE WJTHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR,'8MCE OF INgTIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2002-004 1

7/C,

Review of Documents section of this report, were also reviewed. Copies of the interviews and documents obtained by OI:RIHI are attached as exhibits to this report.

Interview o Aent's Note:

iadvused at the onset of the 01 interview that on February 23, 2002, f

as interviewed by 01 on August 29, 2002.

stated that he worked as a welder for DZNPS at KNPP from approximately May 5, 2001, until he was laid off on October 12, 2001, when the job was completed (Exhibit 14, pp. 3, 5).

,N stated that he raised FFD concerns aboutecause he felt there was a, "Possibility of coming to work under the influence of alcohol.

xplained that he reached that conclusion because of the odor of alcohol u. on hnd-rumors within the plant aboutmelling of alcohol.

so qualified his opinion by stating that to watchA walk, he did not believe he was unfit or im aired, but based upon the smell, it was possible. He also added "I'm not an expert on alcohol."'

ýstated that he interacted witlat KNPP on only one day, on whichf and Mere assigned to work for-stated, "I told my supervisor that I felt uncomfortable working for this man because of the possibility of him being drunk."

facknowledRed that this was the same day that he was aware of the smell of alcohol 6n GI ould not identify the exact date, but recalled that it was during their pre tutage work, andtwas near the end

_of July 2001.

stated that he reported his concern to his supervisor, about an hour after starting time, which would have been around 8:00 am. He recalled that the conversation with 2took place in the pre-fabrication shop andýwas also present.

also stated, "And if I'm not mistaken, under Kewaunee Nuclear Plant FFD rules and regulations that is my responsibility is to report it to my immediate supervisor" (Exhibit 14, pp. 7-11).

FAI stated that he could not recal-exact response, but ndicated that

ýshould not worry about it, thak ould take care of the situation.

stated that no one was assigned to work for Im hat day.

stated that he did not know

]whethe'

ý_..as requested to be FFD tested. He recalled that he did not see LI;,r the rest Of the day (Exhibit 14, p. 10, 14).

RN=R1bl~tated that later the same da, close to the end of the workday, he also informe about hi FFD concern involvi3 could not recal response, but felt tha acknowledged thatU jhad given him the informationastated that he NOT FOR PUBLIC D 'NOSURE WITHOUTA4PPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, O*OF INVESTIGAT1O9S, REG],ON Il Case No. 3-2002-004 13

/C.

also mentioned his concern twZNPS Office Manager, later that evening after work (Exhibit 14, pp. 11-14).

Alw acknowledged that once the concern had been raised "that was the end of it as far as I was concerjed there was nothing else ever said about it."

tated that following the layoff, h u i-He recalled that on January 14, 2002 he was contacted by telephone through the union hall by the licensee's investigator. f ecalled that he spoke with the investigator by telephone twice on the same day, the initial telephone call and a second call to verify a statement that ad made during the initial conversation (Exhibit 14, pp. 21-24).

tated, "He asked me aboutthree different items and he got all my comments about different items was all put into one paragraph that had to do with this FFD thing." q

.4stated that he had obtained a copy of the' licensee's investig-ativie ndhad reviewed the investigator's report of the interview conducted with stated, "The entire document,'including all their findings and everything was about six or seven pages. But there opage that had a paragraph written by them that was supposed to be a quote from me."

sai itxplained that he actually made the comments to the investigator, "But they're saying I said it pertaining to the FFD violation and in fact, it was not said in context to the FFD violation.

It was said about something else" (Exhibit 14, pp. 24-26).

xplained the discrepancy to 01.. He stated that he made statements concerning a welding issue and told the licensee's investigator. "The quote that I told him was that I was not a member of the Local 400 up there, Local Union 400. I was and I was told by Mr.*

that I needed to keep my mouth shut. So in order for me to keep mY job, I kept my mouth shut. I didn't say nothing. I didn't raise any concerns about it. That (sic) was enough people on that job that knew about it.".4 onfirmed that he was speaking about the welding issues and not the FFD concern. AN also acknowledged that this information gave the perception that he had not reported his concern abou because he was dnd did not want to create any trouble.

[reiterated that on the day he identified an FFD concern involving

.,e,** p "aorted that concer (Exhibit 14, pp. 26-27).

1j*

denied that he told the licensee's investi ator that he did not report the FFD concer involving the smell of alcohol to anyone. "

stated, "No, I told him I did rep6rl it."

acknowledged that he told the licensee's investigator that he reported the concern to (Exhibit 14, p. 34).

lso acknowledged that he learned the next day, that ad also reported an FFD qoncern about;

_on the previous day.

cknowledged that neither he nor "ew that the other had reported an FMD concern involvin ntil the next NOT FOR PUBLIC DIS LOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 0 CE OF INVESTIGANREGION III Case No. 3-2002-004 14

d or had they discussed the concern before reporting.

tated that

ýold him that Zad reported the concern to Exhibit 14, pp. 28-29).

acknowledged that when he arrived on site at KNPP, he received GET training, which was provided by NMC. He acknowledged that he was tested and passed the required test, recalling that there were specific questions about FFD.

rtated,"...the responsibilities of workers is to report it [FFD concern] to their immediate supervisor.. which was.7

ýMcknowledged that he felt that he followed the NMC procedure in reporting an FFD concern (Exhibit 14, p. 31-33).

also aclnowledgepdthat there was some animosity between he an Wprior to the incident involving" Istated thatqý was a member of Local 400, Green Bay, WI,. Melt that I did not need to be there." i further stated that he tried to ttay cear o but "watched me like a hawk."

S so stated that there was some animosity be-twene an "Oh yjeah, they fought like cats and dogs. Everybody knows that. But then again t was just - - it wasn't nothing major, but it was just differences of opinion, you know."-

denied that there was any animosity between he andi ILand denied that his raising the FFD concern was in retaliation.

cknowledged that he did not kno-nor to arriving at KNPP (Exhibit 14, pp. 37, 39-40).

peculated that.

dernal th

'd raised a FFD concern could be retaliation for comina fr eha animosity towards me for beingo

. Okay. Also, he knows that if he was to have told ecurity when they did their investigating and I mean NMC, when they did their investigation, the initial investigation about this, if he had told them that we did tell him, then that would put him in hot water. He could possibly lose his access.... Because we find.out now that nothing was done about it when it was reported, so therefore that would put him in the hot seat, instead of us" (Exhibit 14, pp. 37-38).

denied that there was any unspoken rule at KNPP or with the union, about reporting another worker for an FFD concern.

Wconfirmed that he would not be hesitant to report an FFD concern at either KNPP or Point Beach Nuclear Plant in the future. However, he added,

"...it would be documented rnight there when I reported, made a report" (Exhibit 14., p. 42).

.ý,stated that in approximately January 2002, he took a call to work at the Davis Besse Nuclear Po~wer Plant (Davis Besse), and discovered when he arrived on site that he would be working for DZNPS. He recalled that on his third day on site, "..1. was removed from site with armed security and Was not told why until I was removed from the site.'

.,stated that he NOT FOR PUBLIC CLOSURE WITH1OUT APPROVAL OF' FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, FICE OF INVEST ATIONS, REGION Ill Case No. 3-2002-004 15 I

was told that he had been denied access at KNPP and therefore, Davis Besse was not going to grant him access because of an FFD issue (Exhibit 14, pp. 43-44).

stated that he contacted NMC to determine the reason his access had been denied.

recalled that he.soke with PETERS, who told him only that he was under investigation for an FFD violation..

stated that he received a registered letter from NMC which explained why he was denied access. "This letter that I got from them did officially deny my access for a period of one year which the period began September of my denial of unescorted access was due to untrustworthiness." rMe so spoke with Randy CLEVELAND, NMC Access Manager, who did not provide any information.

stated that the letter from NMC described the process for appealing NMC's decision and appealed their decision. He stated that in response to his appeal, NMC continued to deny his access. Ilmcknowledged that he intended to resubmit an appeal to NMC on September 1, 2002 (Exhibit 14, pp. 44-47).

I M tated that he subsequently learned in early Sprin 2002, tha ad lied about helling K

ha.ad th smell of alcohol o him.

lihi, a.statehat M

e had a telephone conversation wi uring whicli told hati ad admitted lying to the licensee.:

explained that h had retained legal counsel when his access had been denied, and his attorney contacte dnd conducted a deposition via telephone.

stated, "I have an affidavit fron(

stating that admitted he lied to security when they interviewed Ir.

explained that he was not prsent during tion by telephone, but his attorney prppared a typed affidavit and sent it t fo sign ture..

acknowledged thatIR~)

refused to sign the affidavit (Exhibit 14, pp. 17-20).

According to W...he Peels that if he was to sign this deposition, him working for under the direct supervisor of ten61w1ll find a way to terminate him and that's what he's afraid of. So he refuses to sign the affidavit. He doesn't refute the fact that the statements are true. He's refusing to sign it because of retribution" (Exhibit 14, p. 20).

Interview ofW@

O as interviewed by OI on August 5,2002.

is a welder who was employed by DZNPS at KNPP. -

could not recall the exact dates of employment at KNPP, but was employed until November 2001, at which time he went to work at NMC's Point Beach Nuclear Plant (Exhibit 15, pp. 1, 4-6).

acknowledged that during the 2001 outage at KNPP, he raised an FFD concern about

• "Because he smelled of alcohol."

cknowledged that he observed no other signs of impairment, but qualified his answer by stating, "... I don't claim to be a doctor, NOT FOR PUBLKDISCLOSURE WIIHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTT OFFICE OF IN TIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2002-004 16

cop. I just know he smelled of booze, alcohol" (Exhibit 15, pp. 13-14).

ecalled that he reported the concern wit ome time in July, pre-outage, but not during the first week during which

.supervise nd tated that he worked in a small utility shed, "fabbing stuff," and when

• talked b ould smell alcohol. ',

and I confrontea NIP9and then flat out told him I'm not working for that man. I'm not working around that guy.,

stated thaaq blew it off...We told him and he just kind of said - -

just bfew it off. He didn't really say much about anything."

f recalled that he and ere standing outside the shack and P-...

-onfroter t.nd of looked at me, kind of shrugged his shoulders and to be honest his reply I cannot remember word.for word. To paraphrase, it was basically like it didn't matter, who cares, something on that end. And that's a paraphrase, not a word for word."

cknowlded that he did not raise the FFD concern to anyone else (Exhibit 15, pp. 15-19).

tated that he told two other welders, d possibly that he had just

reported, t

• recalied that cliied to have also told I *ithe same thing -(Exhibit 15, pp. 32-33).

V W stated that he subse uently learned that'-- =

',eisor claimed That he was aware that

,,,..Ihad reported the concern to m stated that he also retained legal counsel when his access had been denied. L.stated

that,

[

!been lying about this and the reason our access is denied basically right now is because he said we never told him." o*

explained that it was his understanding tha. 4ad been interviewed by telephone. b the attorney and 0 0was asked to sign an affidavit corroborating statements(ade during the telephone conversation. WPstated that onfirmed that he di in fact, have a conversation with the attorney, and explined to hat the reason he refused to sign the affidavit was because he was not sure whether the affidavit was an accurate characterization of what was said during the telephone call (Exhibit 15, pp. 20-24).

According to

-old him that he had a conversation with*M *',in approximately July 2002, during hich

]*1

.... admitted too he lied to Hal Walker saying that'we never told him" (Exhibit 15, pp. 25-26).

Agent's Note: Hal WALKER, Walker Investigative Consultants, Inc., conducted the licensee's investigation.

explained to 01 Ohisunderstanding of the FFD rules if one would suspect another worker was unfit for duty. ý

ý.stated that you were supposed to "Contact your NOT FOR PUBLIC DI OSURE WITH

=PT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 0.CE OF INVES KGATIONS, REGION I7 Case No. 3-2002-004 17

immediate supervisor."

M stated that he knew tha ad been not been FFD tested because he asked*

added tha

_eamed after the fact that ad reported him to*,.'(Exhibit 15, pp. 29-32).

stated that he was subsequently contacted by the licensee's investigator about welding concerns at KNPP.

stated that towards the end of the conversation, he was asked questions about Pstated that he told the investigator that he had toldbout his concern.

_-acknowledged that he felt he made some, "very casual," comments to the investigator that he would not have made had he known they would end up in a report (Exhibit 15, pp. 34-37).

vdenied that there was an animosity between he an since had never me

,1a

_also denied any animosity between he and ca ng that Lad previously worked for him.

__tlid admit that he and

.had some fallout, dragout (sic) arguments over [the welding issues]."

enied that he raised the FFD issue in retaliation against-or (Exhibit 15, pp.. 38-40).

Agent's Note also raised an allegation of discrimination during the 01 interview. That allegation was investigated under 01 Case No.: 3-2002-020.

Interview of*o as interviewed by 01 on August 5, 2002.0 is a welder and was formerly employed by DZNPS at KNPP from approximately June to mid-November 2001 (Exhibit 16, pp. 1-4).

Iecalled that upon arrival at KNPP, he'attended GET training, which included discussion about FFD procedur

. cknowledged that he was tested, and passed the GET exam, which included questions about FFD.V.tated that it was his understanding that an FM concern should be reported to, "... your immediate supervisor." *W

'dentified his immediate supervisor for DZNPS at KNPP (Exhibit 16, pp. 6-7).

0tated that some time between June and November 2001, he reported an FFD concern a

xplained that he had been...

isiting the boys in the back," and he could smell alcoho 0ted that he reported the concern to.,

but later learned that and a

had also reported the same thing. "We had both done it on the s day. T ey done it prior to myself, because I had - -

as coming through the maintenance shop, and that's when Ihad stoppedfo*.and told him about smelling of alcohol."

stated that bold him that he would NOT FOR PUBL ISCLOSURE WITHOU APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO FQFI CE OF INVESTI TIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2002-004 18

look into the matter. "He said he would look into it, and that's far as it went, was right there, because we figured you tell him, he's going to take care of the problem and I didn't see*

anymore that dgy, so I just took it as he took care of the problem."

_stated that he did not*

know whethe as FFD tested (Exhibit 16, pp. 7-11).

• recalled that the issue resurfaced in December, after he had been laid off and was not working..

!stated that an, "NMC investigator," telephoned him about some welding issues, and next thing you know he asked me if I knew about a fellow that smelled of alcohol. That was my mistake; I said, 'yes.' Because the rest of them - - got plenty of others that didn't - - they said they didn't know nothing of it. They didn't lose their access. Seems like the ones that admitted to knowing of it lost access."

recalled that the investigator did not ask him whethe had talked to anybody about it (Exhibit 16, pp. 12-13).

1M stated that he subsequently learned that his plant access had been denied, because according to the NMC investigator, I...I did not tell Kewaunee supervisor or Kewaunee security about an individual smelling of alcohol." r tated that

• he KNPP FFD programs says you report an FFD incident to your immediate supervisor, and

'reported his concern to the contract supervisor (Exhibit 16, pp. 14-15).

It was pointed out to uring the 01 interview that there was nothing in the NMC investigative re gt which indicated t hat told the investigator that he reported his concern bouttte-mater an it cWlcnowledged that he recalled specifically speaking with1N-*ff

'6bout the matter and it was the same da.thIF ~

andlml*

acknowledged that had also raised the same concern.

_ eiterated that he did, in fact, report an FFD concern about

+tExhibit 16i pp. 25-27).

mstated that in the past, he had reported an FFD concern at Point Beach and had no

_reble.Qm.

kexplained that in that case, the process worked, the worker was tested, and J*

did not get in trouble for reporting the incident (Exhibit 16, pp. 18419).

Interview o

• il was interviewed by 01 on August 5, 2002. M

.is a welder who was employed by DZNPS at KNPP from approximately July 2001 through the end of the outage in Noveniber 2001 (Exhibit 17, pp. 1-4).

M-acknowledged that he attended routine GET training upon his arrival at KNPP; He acknowledged that the FFD program was discussed, but did not recall whether the GET test contained any material related to the FFD program.

'stated that it was his understanding that should a FFD concern arise, "We're supposed to report it to our supervisor or to NOT FOR PUBLIC DISC SUl WITHOU APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR,.OFFr OF INVESTI TIONS, REGION Ill Case No. 3-2002-004 19

management, and to security, the guardhouse." 5 ecalled that at the time, his DZNPS supervisors wer I

on the night shift, and.

on the day shift (Exhibit 17, pp. 5-7).

tated that while employed at KNPP, he did not report any employee that was suspected of being unfit for duty, nor did he report any employee who smelleUf alcohol.{

stated that some time during the pre-outage phase, he was FFD tested.

xplained that he had entered the plant at approximately 7:00 am, and upon arrival to his work area, he was paged to report to the nurse for a random FED test. __

tated that he was tested, and there were no problems.

tated that he was given a Breathalyzer test, and not the routine urine test..- Eurmised that he was given the Breathalyzer because somebody had smelled alcohol.

stated that in retrospect, he recalled that when he ente ed the plant, he was in close proximity to Saater approached about his being tested an i'iaid not to worry about it, he would check it out ecalled that nothing more was said about the matter (Exhibit 17, pp. 7-11, 15).

tated that he has worked wiI ince 1995, and

-did not smell like alcohol to his knowledg. He stated that he was not aware of anyone else raising an FFD concern about MO

,*'tated that the matter was dropped until he was contacted by the licensee's investigator.

cknowledged that he had not told the licensee investigator anything different that he had told 01 (Exhibit 17, pp. 12-14).

Astated that no one at the union would frown upon reporting a coworker if there was an FFD issue 0=

so stated that despite having his access denied, he would not hesitate in the future to report someone for an FFD concern (Exhibit 17, pp.16-17).

1 xplained that NMC's reason for denying him access was because he,...

acknowledged to an NMC investigator that while working at Kewaunee you smelled alcohol on a worker and did not report the observation to either Kewaunee supervision or security."

stated that the reason he did not report anybody was stated in a letter to NMC, in whic rovided the reasons why he believed the denial of his access was not warranted.

a tdted that he believed there had been a, "misunderstanding or misinterpretation," 'of what was discussed during his NMC interview.iN cknowledged that the reason he did not report anyone was because despite smelling alcohol, he did not know which individual smelled of alcohol.

stated that he is not aware 6f anybody...ho has stood up and actually admitted that they went to a supervisor and reported xhibit 17, pp. 18-20, 23; Exhibit 18).

NOT FOR PUBL'ICi)$CLOSURE W rHOOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 6FJCE OF INVVTGATIONS, REGION m Case No. 3-2002-004 20

Interview ofI-as interviewed by 01 on August 5, 20027is a welder who was employed by DZNPS at KNPP from July 2, 2001, until August 3, 2001 (Exhibit 19, pp. 1, 4-6, 8).

cknowledged that he had attended GET training when he arrived at KNPP in 2001. He acknowledged that the FFD policy was discussed during the training, and"passed the GET training exam. It was nderstanding that if you observed someone or suspected someone of not being fit for duty, you would, "Turn them in," to security. He also acknowledged that you could report the matter to the supervisors or foreman. "Foreman, supervisor. But most of the time report it to security people. And the reason for it, it's supposed to be confidential" (Exhibit 19, pp. 9-11).

A" stated that he did not learn until approximately November or December 2001, that there was an FFD issue wit 1

stated that during a conversation with a private investigator about some welding issues, he was asked if he had ever smelled alcohol upon

-tated that he explained to the investigator that, "He had bad breath, but I can't - - I couldn't tell you if there was alcohol on his breath or not.'

stated that he explained to the supervisor that his sense of smell had been gone for years.

tated that he told the investigator, "And I said, 'The only way I can tell if anybody's either been on drugs or alcohol is by their eyes, bloodshot eyes, or circles around their eyes, or slurring of the words, of their words, and speech, or if they stagger...And none of that was seen.,.-also stated that he explained to the investigator that he only interacted wit few occasions, for a few minutes in the morning as they entered the gate, during pre-outage training, and in the fab shop (Exhibit 19, pp. 12-13, 15-17, 30).

4J*

'tated that he received a letter dated February 12, 2002, from NMC telling him that he was ineligible for NMC access authorization. According to the letter, "On December 10, 2001, you acknowledged to an NMC investigator that while working at Kewaunee you smelled alcohol on a coworker and did not report the observation to either Kewaunee supervision or security.

• When asked why you did not report the smell of alcohol, you stated you 'feared union reprisal."'

stated that this statement was incorrect. Aenied that he ever smelled alcohol

-upon, and provided documentation in the form of medical records thatV has in impaired ability to smell. p ap stated that he has had that problem since he was a child (Exhibit.19, pp. 17-19; Exhibit 20, Exhibit 21).

OW*

tated that he did tell the investigator that he feared union reprisal, buti lm felt his response was taken out of context.

xplained that he was asked if he had smelled alcohol and had told the investigator, "No. I can't smell. And he said, 'If you had smelled alcohol, would you have turned him in?' And I told him that, 'I probably would have but there NOT FOR PUBLIC CLOSURE WITHO APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, CE OF INVEST ATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2002-004 21

would have been union reprisal.' And I said, right after that, 'But that wouldn't bother me because I had turned a man in I think it was '[19]83." Acknowledged that even though he believed there would be some union reprisal, it would not have prevented him from reporting

• had he smelled alcohol upon him.M stated that he was not aware of any code of silence about reporting a coworker for FFD concerns, nor had anyone at KNPP ever discouraged him from reporting anyone (Exhibit 19, pp. 19-22).

Interview of as interviewed by 01 on September 12, 2002.

was the night shift upervisor for DZNPS at KNPP during the outage in 2001, from approximately the middle of August until he was laid off on December 4, 2001 (Exhibit 22, pp. 1, 5-6).

Agent's Note: jontacted 01 by telephone following his interview to clarify that his dates of hire by DZNPS at KNPP were July 16, 2001, through December 4, 2001.

tated that he never observed an FFD concern but became aware of a conce in aproximately August 2001.

m came into the office, and he

said,

'nM

.'they aint' going to work for a fuckina drunk lik

... And I remember as plain as day 'cause I'm not saying that lya little angel, but they brought it to the right person because if they felt the foreman was under the influence, they're supposed to come to the next one in charge and that was - - at that time wabd he was the GF (General Foreman)."

'stated that they went over the foreman's head, because the foreman was and he was the one who was suspected of being under the influence.

According toU it was his understanding that the KNPP FFD policy required that an suspicion of a concern be turned over to the immediate su ervisor or s explained to 01 that he had not heard the conversation betwee' but hzar" 'ake the comments in general when'0 their office.

rc*ll haas also present in the room when the comment was made by

'Exhibit 22, pp. 10-13, 24-25).

Agent's Note:

dentified as enid taor riete FED concern diret! to hfiii,,nor did he recalt aising a'similar concern.

ecalled asking what he was going to do about the matter, and believe L m

ay have said, "You'd better go take care of this."

Sted however, that he di not haste specific recollection in this instance because that w

standard answer, "That was his generai thing that he usually said to us as his superintendents, is 'You'd better go take care of it."' (Exhibit 22, pp. 13-15).

NOT FOR PB DISCLOSURE WITHOUT ROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO QFICE OF INVESTIGA NSý REGION III Case No. 3-2002-004 22

cknowledged that as far as he knew, no one had requested te FFD tested. He tlso acknowledged that he never had any concern about I

FFD.

• cknow edged that the proper course of action would have been for

.,-N to h*ffave hadE-M*pmMl-MD tested and the matter would have been put to rest (Exhibit 22, pp. 17, 26-27).

Mtated that the issue surfaced after he received a telephone call from a man named WALKER.

ecalled that he was asked questions about welding issues and then asked him if thoughwas under the influence [of alcohol] when he came to work. ".and I said absolutely not" (Exhibit 22, pp. 19-20).

tatd lat he was aware of a problem between 9

. n surmise dthat was upset that he had not been made a foreman by

-at P.

also felt that there was...

a big power struggle, between xhibit 22, pp. 30, 35).

Interview o was interviewed by 01 on September 4, 2002.

as the former Project Superintendent for DZNPS at KNPP from approximately June 2001, to December 2001 (Exhibit 23, p. 4).

anger e"recalled that the GET training he received at KNPP included NMC's FFD program.

stated that it wai his understanding that if an employee had an FFD concern about another employee, they should contact the immediate supervisor (Exhibit 23, pp. 6-7).

C explained that he an have been friends for a long time and socialize together outside of the workplace.

'stated that.

first learned about an FFD concern involvingater he had left KNPP.

stated that he receive a telephone call from an investigator who was investigating some issues at KNPP, which included welding issues and the FFD concern (Exhibit 23, pp. 12-14).

stated, "The guy talked tid

.-and he was saying that he was being interviewed. L ad been interviewed. Other people at the plant had been interviewed about this situation and basically I was just kind of surrised that no one had ever really talked to me about it.

ad mentioned i

• ad mentioned it to me. So I knew that there was things going on out there,...

cknowledged that while employed at KNPP, another employee mentioned tha(

hould inform to be on his "best behavior" because security was tightfter Septernber,11, 2001.

stated that he had'heard rumors for years about*

M.*_

. *r*

ecalled that he told' t-"-t NOT FOR PUBLIC

.I.CLOSURE WITHOUT APPR ?VAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO.-0-CE OF INVESTIGATION3

.GION I.

Case No. 3-2002-004 23.

I don't have a concern with you. I'm just telling you what somebody had said to me, that they're giving you a heads up that because of all the problems, so-called problems in the past, that you've been tested before and now there's a hundred new security officers, I mean... So they were just basically giving, wanting me to lelM know and I would have told anybody the same thing."

stated that he could not recall who it was that mentioned the subject, and he did not raise thle issue witl' JNd enied that anyone ever told him that they fe1U M*

was not fit for duty (Exhibit 23, pp. 14-18, 20-21).

acknowledged that

'ant concerns while they were employed at k.

concerns had been raised aboutt_

him that some of the welders refused to pproach him about any FFD oever tell him that FFD denied that.

fever told xhibit 23, pp. 20,49-51).

(

tated that the licensee's investigator contacted him by telephone and they had, probably a two minute conversation."

cknowledged that everybody was talking about the investigator who had contacted them.

Ilelieved the time frame was February and March 2002 (Exhibit 23, pp. 21-23).

ecalled that he went _tol apartment to speak with him about going back to work-for DZNPS.1l 6b1at the investigator had told him that, "...two guys are claiming that they came to' d said that they would not Work for, because the thou lht he was a drunk and-had been drinking. According to admitted t that d

ad spoken to. him!

d e aske hat he had told the investigator. "And he said he remember nd orrin'g to him and I said, 'Well, what did you tell Hal Walker?' And he said, 'I told him that they never came to me."' (Exhibit 23, pp. 25-26, 34-35, 43).

(

also stated that dunng his conversation withhr-told him that the investigator also claimed thatj ad told the two workers who had raised the issue that they should not worry about it because

'was going to ISI in two weeks. "And that's whenA said he remembereond oming to him. That was the second half

..of it; the first half was that he wouldn't work for him because he was drinking and~JXsaid that, 'Din't worry about it; he's going to'1SI for two weeks"' (Exhibit 23, pp. 53-'

54).

stated that the next day, he visite

.and told him.whatad said.

Andi stated to me that he had talked t_

a week ago and he already knew that.

Ohad told him exactly the same thing."

stated that he then received a NOT FOR PUBLIpIS CLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECT OFFICE OF INVE TIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2002-004 24

telephone call from I stated tha told him that NMC had denied him 4% 6 access because he had told el would not 'Work for

-"tatedthat he told what Sad told him and attorney contacted stated that attorney sent him an affidavit to sign, befused because he could not recall if the affidavit accurately reflected what had said during the telephone conversation with the attorney.

• stated that he to]

what he had said to Aattorney, and that he had told the truth about what had told him (Exhibit 23, pp. 26-29, 35-36, 48).

• '*tated that,

"... andA ay they went tot and maybe I'm getting way off base here, but to-n Ayt e

r-

.-A-N nd.

say they went tol

.and-FONWsaid they never came to him.

I could see, if you're on the outside looking in, I would say, well, these guys got laid off, they're mad at*MMj-'

Okay, it's their word against his. But then, you havE 7

~ who doesn't want to get in trouble, tells the truth got nothing to hide. I mean they interviewed Aabout his drinking and everything and all has no problem... But you have ho;if

,says todm exactly what I said about that remembers dn coming to him, if rotected id savee

• job by not t'urning in, why woul stick up for:

nd

"(Exhibit 23, pp. 43-44) elatedha pproximately one month ago, he had a conversation wi in which ha expressed surprise that no one ha contacte during this investigation.

stated that according t 0

lhe rT had been in the office

-day that.

I and j*'reported their concern about oI "And he said, 'You were on the phone and you were guing with somebody.' And he said, You turned around and said, 'take care of it.' And he said, 'Then you turned around and went back to talking.'`hdmitted that he really did not remember the incident (Exhibit 23, pp. 51-53).

-.Interview o was interviewed by 01 on June 5, 2002.

as the former ISI General Foreman for DZNPS at KNPP from approximately June 17, 2001, through December: 1, 2001 (Exhibit 24, pp. 2, 4).

NOT FOR PUBL ISCLOSURE WITHO T APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO CE OF INVEST ATIONS, REGION IIM Case No. 3-2002-004 25

.i

--",cknowledged that he attended GET training upon his arrival at KNPP and recalled that the subject of FFD was discussed

• recounted his understanding of the policy at KNPP. "First of all, if you're a worker, you go to your - - say your foreman which would be your immediate supervisor, and then he would go to his supervisor, I believe. And they would make a determination that, you know, we have to go get a test or something like that...

Now in the case of if it's a supervisor, then they would go to the person above him."

cknowledged that he took the standard GET test, which included questions concerning FFD, and passed the exam (Exhibit 24, pp. 8-11, 13-14, 31-32).

denied that he ever worked at KNPP in 2001 while unfit for duty. He also stated that no employee ever told him that they felt he was unfit for duty nor did anyone tell him, or suggest that, he needed to be FFD tested..

1 however, acknowledged that during a telephone conversation with "

during the second or third week of December 2001, old him, "He said that a couple guys came upto him and said that I had alcohol on my breath or that I was drunk, and that's all I know."

_stated that nothing was ever done about the concerns and acknowledged that Rever asked him if he had been drinking. Jated,"Mtold me what he'told.thepeople. He said,

'Don't worry about it.

e's only going to be here for a couple weeks and he's going to ISI.'

cknowledged that while he was employed at KNPP, ormed him that anyone had told_

that was unfit for duty. -L further acknowledged that he never voluntarily self-reported for an FFD test, nor did he ever fail to come to work because he was not fit for duty (Exhibit 24, pp. 17-20).

iadmitted that he did not get along well with either or.hile workinat KNPP.

stated that he thought.that *elt that he rather than should have been a foreman. I stated that he and=,'We just didn't hit it off." Imexplained that he was their foreman from June 17. 2001, until August 1, 2001, at which time he went to workfor ISI, tated that--

s on who identified a and having raised the FFD concern about li`(Exhibit 24, pp. 21-25).

denied that he had any medical condition which would cause him to exhibit any symptoms that would give the appearance that he was unfit for duty. He also denied that he has ever exhibited symptoms of staggering or slurred speech while at work. He admitted that he drinks alcohol and characterized his usage as moderate, "Probably like two or three drinks with dinner or something like that, and there again, it depends if you go to a wedding or a party or something like that" (Exhibit 24, pp. 26-29).

admitted that a security guard once told him that he *smelled of alcohol, but acknowledged that the comment was made in passing and he was never requested NOT FOR PU1Žkh S

ISCLOSURE WITHOUT ROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECT6&N,4FflCE OF INVESTIGA 5, EGONII Case No. 3-2002-004 26

to be ttestdil" m

e ed that in that situation he was required to self-identify and submit to testinz.

W cknowledged that no one at DZNPS ever requested that he be FED tested nor has he been questioned or confronted by anyone at DZNPS about his FFD.

denied that he has ever been in possession of alcohol on site, nor has he ever attempted to cover up the smell of alcohol on his breath by using mints or mouthwash (Exhibit 24, pp. 29-30, 36-37).

According to the licensee invest'a or's report of interview withx_

M claimed that in August 2001 pproached him anadiet he smle

1. dnotfi.hathedu smelled of alcohol[ad ed that e had no idea wh id not follow procedures to have him FFD tested (Exhibit 29, p. 3).

Interviews of Mwas interviewed by 01 on June 6, 2002..

as the Mechanical and Civil Superintendent for DZNPS at KNPP from approximately the end of April 2001, until the end of December 2001 (Exhibit 25, pp. 3-4) tated that FFD was discussed during his GET training by NMC-* I explained the expectation related to action that should be taken when an individual detects the odor of alcohol on the breath of another plant worker. "You're suppqsed to go to your supervisor, and I remember that to a certain extent, it's something's mentioned about aberrant behavior..." (Exhibit 25, pp. 8-9).

A acknowledged that he know d would characterize their relationship as friends. He acknowledged that he has socialized with outside of work a few times (Exhibit 25, pp. 10-11).

enied that he was aware of any occasion when Nvas asked to be FFD tested and refused. He further explained that if that had occurred, he would be obligated to escort the e ee off-site or take the em o ee to security.

eied that he ever asked o be FFD tested.

-- also denied that AWh'ad ever called in and said he was unfit for duty (Exhibit 25, pp. 12-14).

ate that someone may have claimed that was not fit for duty because there were hard feelings because of an earlya off byDZNPS at KNPP.

• surmised that there was some animosity towards-,

ecause he was made foreman at the request of NMC. 7*-stated that eported to him for app atelly three weeks and then reported to ISI. _stated that he had problems with and4 acknowledged that elt that he should have been a supervisor or NOT FOR PUBLIC DYSQOSSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOROFYFJ44 INVESTIGATIO REG.IONM Case No. 3-2002-004 27

foreman.Aalso stated that he had problems with.

who was a union from another Local z{greed that bot nd ere,"...mad enough that they could be eceitful" (Exhibit 25, pp. 15-22):.

,denied that anyone raised FFD concerns to him aboutAIWM however, admitted that during a conversation in December 2001, he had told

-that an issue had been raised about his FFD.

denied that he identified any individuals to A""'I didn't - - I didn't know because nothing has been told to me about the names" (Exhibit 25, pp. 23-24).

rIF@

tated that in Februaiy 2002, when he went to work at Point Beach, he discovered that his badge had been put on administrative hold for approximately ten days while this FFD matter was investigated by the licensee. He stated that his own FFD was also questioned, although no one had questioned him while he was still employed at KNPP. [

acknowledged while he was employed at KNPP, no one requested he be FFD tested, nor did anyone from DZNPS management ever question him about any FFD concerns (Exhibit 25, pp. 24-26).

acknowledged that he never smelled alcohol on.

nor did he ever see ato that Iwas not fit for duty..denied that he ever observed lur his speech or unsteady on his feet.

acknowledged that hecked in with him almost every morning of the outage for a few minutes (Exhibit 25, pp. 27-28).

stated that he was not aware of any employees being hesitant to report a coworker who was not fit for duty. He acknowledged that DZNPS has never discouraged any employees from reporting any FFD concern, nor was he aware of any employee being retaliated against for reporting a coworker. He added that his union, Local 400, Green Bay, had their own FFD program in place and he was not aware that they have ever discouraged reporting a coworker (Exhibit 25, pp. 28-29).

tated that he determined whether

,an were going to be hired and laid off at P

though he later admitted that he knew neither W [nor.M prior to being hired.

explained that the union provided a list of names and he picked peo le from the list. He also stated that was hired at the request of the licensee, and*110i ad been running the ISI program at KNPP for the past 22 years (Exhibit 25, pp. 38-42).

At the conclusion of 01IN rOI interview, and while off the record, provided additional information.,

recalled a-conversation during the summer 2001, with NOT FOR PU DISCLOSURE WITHOUT PROAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIREC fN OFFICE OF INVESTIGAT *NS, REGION Ill Case No. 3-2002-004 28

f---o

_was upset that he had not been selected as the foreman for the crew at KNPP.

stated that because of a shortage of money for the DZNPS contract, layoffs came several weeks earlier than planned.

,stated that things

."got uglyl' for a few weeks after early layoffs were announced. According t6o*

told him that since he had not been selected as foreman, "people would go down,"

anl h could make trouble for them..stated that he felt these accusations might be the result of_

trying to get even with him (Exhibit 25, pp. 19-22; Exhibit 26).

Agent's Note: Due to the additional allegation referred to 01 at an August 5, 2002, ARB, that ad provided false information to the licensee's investigator and to 01 concerning the FFD concem,;

was interviewed a second time, on September 12,2002.

During the 01 interview, was apprized that a number of witnesses had contradicted his assertion that no one reported an FFD concern at to him at KNPP conceming4-Additionall as cautioned about making false statements to 01 during the interview (Exhibit 27, pp. 4-5).

again denied that he ever requeste o be FFD tested, and acknowleded that his previous statements concerning this matter were true and correct.

cn e

n ne "officially" came to him and reported an FFD concern about

.:ated that the statements he made durin his previous 01 interview were true.

pecifically denied that*

told him they ulnot work fo ecause they thought he-was a drunk or smelled of a col.1

-,also denied that, aised any concern to him about working for, (Exhibit 27, pp. 5-8).

stated that he spoke with DZNPS management, "after the fact," about the issues had raised includin ý,"..service water, piping beam, control of air conditioning su orts fitness for duty." '

!K..y.was unable to explain how he could have raised

-name in relation to the FFD concern, wheiclaimed that had never raised the issue to him. [,xplained that there were unhappy people who had b

id off early and who may have been angry enough to make accusations about him.

as unable to explain why coworkers that he got along well with also contradicted

.'his statements about the reporting of the FFD concern involving.

xhibit 27, pp. 8-11).

NOT FOR PtIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRE'O9R, OFFICE OF INVES ATIONS, REGION HI Case No. 3-2002-004 29 C7

Interview of CLEVELAND CLEVELAND, NMC Access Manager, was interviewed by 01 on September 17, 2002.

CLEVELAND was interviewed concerning the denial of access t four welders, 4 Aand based upon NMC's investigation into the FFD concern.

CLEVELAND stated that based upon the results of an Employee Concerns Program (ECP) investigation conducted by an NMC contractor, CLEVELAND made the determination to deny their access. "The basis for the initial four denials was failure to report the smell of alcohol in accordance with the fitness for duty program..That failure to comply with the fitness for duty program we deemed significant and warranted denial of access" (Exhibit 28, pp. 5-8, 14).

CLEVELAND stated that he was involved with only two of the interviews, OW.

and d he acknowledged that provided conflicting information than what he had provided ot the NMC investigator. CLEVELAND stated that during his June 12, 2002, interview with

",claimed to have made a reference to a technician at whs being escorted b a random drug test. According to he told the technician th was the one who should be tested.

CLEVELAND stated that he was ableo identify the technician and could not corroborate that the statement had been made by "Those technicians were interviewed regarding their knowledge of any such conversation. Were unable to recall it" (Exhibit 28, pp. 16-17).

CLEVELAND stated th'at previously, on March 27, 2002 had been interviewed by PETERS at Point Beach concerning the same issue and

!laimed to have made the comment to a coworker who had escorted him to the collection point, and not to the technician.

CLEVELAND also pointed out that when PETERS questioned about his statements to the-NMC investigator on January 11, 2002th tas "loaded every morning,"

enied any knowledge about eing drunk. CLEVELAND stated, "Based on that information, conflicting information he was providing NMC investigators, his access was denied" (Exhibit 28, pp. 17-19).

CLEVELAND stated that he i erviewe who ded information thatj had made admissions t hat W w and had come to himith the claim that 7

smelled of alcohol. CLEVELAN stated that despite having a copy of the attorney's affidavit, denied having heard ake that statement, which contradicted the information contained in the affidavit (Exhibit 28, p. 35).

NOT FOR PUBLIC CLOSURE WITHOU VRoVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, CE 3OF INVESTIGA2ONS,

• GION "M Case No. 3-2002-004 30

Allegation 1: Deliberate Failure by Contractors to Follow FFD Regulations Agent's Analysis On February 8, 2002, NMC notified RIH that upon conducting their own internal investigation, NMC identified four DZNPS welders,..1and who stated that, on occasion, they perceived the odor of alcohol on the brea*th o2 D

PS General Foreman. The licensee's investigative report, indicated that each of the aforementioned individuals received and successfully passed GET classroom instruction and standard testing, which included the expectations related to actions to be taken when an individual detects the odor of alcohol on the breath of a plant coworker.

The NMC investigative report concluded thatt*

A and4 l

were aware of the smell of alcohol upon the breath ob yet for a variety of reasons did not report this FFD concern to anyone. 01 however, did not reach the same conclusions.

With regards to

01 determined that h. alongrwit id in fact, report his concern about

his mmediate supervisor. Whil denies that either or, told him that they were uncomfortable working for Pw I

eMause of the odor of alcohol upon him, several witnesses interviewed by 01 corroborate testimony.

stated that he was present withinthe pre-fabrication shop when they had a conversation withL staed' that he told that he felt uncomfortable working fori

'because of the ossibility of him being drunk. 1estimony to 01 corroborated the fact that he a d confronted:

ý.,

old 01 that he later learned from n/hat they had also reported a similar concern aboutl a supervisor who shared an office with

', told OIhcame into the o ice one day and said thatIN also fe osred-t.a) and had told him they would not work for a drunklikel_,

,.*dso stated that towards the end of t!e day, he mentioned the FFD concer who was supervisor.

however, did not corroborate tha t 6ad informed him of the FFD concern.

denied that he told the licensee's invest tor that heidid not report the FED concern involving the smell of alcohol to an one.

'told 01 that he told the licensee's investigator that he reported the concern to stated that upon reviewing the investigator's report of interview, he determined that the comments made, while accurate, were not made in the context of the FFD concern. i explained that the licensee's investigator asked him about three different items but attributid all of comments to the FFD concern.

NOT FOR PUBLINISCLOSURE WITHOUT PPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO OFFICE OF INVESTIGA IONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2002-004 31

With regards toj 01 determined that he had received informaa rr

• an regarding a potential FFD concern involvin ndfa'ie to follow the licensee's FED d

es. Testmony from

• an-ndicates that together, they spoke wit.about their concerns with In additio ui

.so proFvided testimony that he spoke with withoty prior knowledge that he anreclae ported a similar concern. *"

another ervisor., told o

that he recalled' making a comment that neither* lwor i

wanted to work for ecause of their concerns aboutk FFD.

During the interview with the licensee's investigator, admitted thatiM

• M S occasionally exhibited the smell of alcohol on his breath while inside the protected area at KNPP.

attributed this to a medical condition of --

T___. j....

however, denied that he had any such medical condition.'I I

admitted that in the absence of other signs of impairment, he had dismissed the smell of residual alcohol upo told the licensee's investigator that he did not refe evaluation, because he was not aware that' was breaking any DZNPS rules.

ed that several months after the fact, dmitted to him tha t M*d h ad spoken to him abou Iso admitted toturina the same conversation that he told the licensee's investigitor tha and xmhad not reported the concern aboutto him.

Additionally, that several months after the fact told him that a couple of workers had approached having alcohol on his breath or being drunk. According toU admitted he told the workers that they should not wo,aboutit, that a~-asn ointo be there for a couple of weeks and then would be going to ISm stated that during his employment at KNPP during the 2001 outage never asked him dibout his FFD, nor did anyone request that he be FFD tested. He also stated that

never informed him that anyone else had questioned.

W Une uivocally denied that anyone had approached him at KNPP about FFD. Even after a second 01 interview, during whic was confronted with conflic testimony, he denied that he was aware of any question concerning e.plained the conflicting testimony as retaliation and jealousy by his subordinates.

According to the testimony of bot.4ni_,....

i__*-*claimed that the licensee's investigator had divulged to that two unnamed worker's had come forward NOT FOR PUI IC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRE OR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGA3N3,RGIO n 7c Case No. 3-2002-00 32

with FFD concerns about A review of the handwritten notes and draft report of interview prepared by the'licensee's investigator reveals that no such information ws.s tovided.

This would indicate that oI new that two individuals,.

an had approached him aboutff.i.

Additionally, oni d been interviewed by the licensee's investigator prior to the interview o o

n December 11 2001. A review of the report of interview ov14IJindicates tha4 did" not identif*o by name or generally to the licensee's investigator and therefore could not have been questioned about two workers who had identified FFD concerns about With regards to 01 determci.

pjdnot have any FFD concern nor did he report any FFD concern involving w

Id prb, ded medical records indicating that he hs an impaired ability to smell and therefore, would not be in a position to determine Vwhethehad acool upon his breath.

stated that during the few minutes that he interacted wit each day, he never observed any other signs that as not fit for duty. Medical records provided bto 01 indicate an since approximately June 1991, due t i

istated that he did tell the licensee's investigator that he feared union reprisal, but stated that this comment was taken out of context.

xplained that he was asked gerierally would he have reported someone if he had smelled alcohol and Ehad answered, "I probably would have but there would have been union reprisal."

tated that he went on to explain -that union reprisal would not have prevented him from reporting a coworker if there were FFD concerns.

With recrards tol*

01 determined tha.

did not have any FFD concern nor did he report any FFD concern involving Du*r*ing his employment at KNPP,I Vwas randomly'selected for FFD testing.

surmised that he had been selected because someone had smelled of alcohol.,

tated that he did not report anyone, because despite the smell of alcohol, he could not deterne which individual smelled of alcohol. He also stated that in retrospect, he believed he had been in close proximit hen he entered the plant that da

ý tated that he had questioned about being selected bul nothing more was said aboit the matter.

1 tated that he provided the licensee's investigator with the same information that he pro*',ded to OI.~

told 01 that he believed what he told the licensee's investigator was misunderstood or misinterpreted.

NOT FOR PUB C DISCLOSURE WITHOUT AXPROVAIL OF HIELD OFFICE DIRE OR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGAONS REGION I. l Case No. 3-2002-004 33

Conclusion Based upon the evidence developed, the investigation did not substantiate th oA40eliberately failed to report FFD concerns. However, based upon the evidence developed, the investigation did substantiate tha deliberately failed to report FFD concerns involving a Foreman.

Allegyation 2: Deliberate Failure to Self-Report and Submit to FFD Testing Aeent's Analysis On February 8,2002, NMC notified R.II that they had determined that when approached by another worker (not further identified) who informe at someone had complained about the smell of alcohol on hi offered to be tested, but no testing was subsequently performed. At an ARB, 01 was asked to determine whetheri' deliberately failed to self-report and submit to FFD testing at KNPP during the fall outage in 2001.

t that he never worked at KNPP in 2001 while unfit for duty. He also stated that no employee ever told him that they felt he was unfit for duty nor did anyone tell him, or suggest that, he needed to be FFD tested.

-stated that he learned in December 2001 that someone had approached.

about his FD.

_stated that=.

never-discussed the issue with him while he was employ d at KNPP, nor did him to be FFD tested, or whether he had been drinking.

rther acknowledged that he never voluntarily self-reported for an FFD test, nor did he ever fail to come to work because he was not fit for duty.

admitted to 01 that a security guard once told him that he smelled of alcohol, but ackow ed that the comment was made in passing and he was never requested tobeIdenied that in that situation he was required to self-identify and subitto tesing knowledged that no one at DZNPS ever requested that he be FFD tested, nor has he been questioned or confronted by anyone at DZNPS about his FFD.

enied that he has ever been in possession of alcohol on site, nor has he ever attempted to cover up the smell of alcohol on his breath by-using mints or mouthwash (Exhibit 24, pp. 29-30, 3 6-37).

According to the licensee investi at s report of interview witi claimed that in August 2001, Z=pp roached him and advis,

bathe smelled of alcohol.

added that e had no idea why did not follow procedures to have him FED tested (Exhibit 29, p. 3).

NOT FORFFI DISCLOSURE WITHOUN I APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRE~&R OFFICE OF INVESTIkTIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2002-004 34

During his 01 interviewj W cknowledged that while employed at KNPP, another employee mentioned that tould spdak to to be on his "best behavior" because securit was tiat after eptember 11, 2001.

tated that he had heard rumors for years atated that he co Id not recall who it was that mentioned the subiect, and he did not raise the issue with He stated that he approached

'fo agive him a "heads un" because had similar problems in the past involving rumors of being unfit: jtated that.

ad submitted to FFD testing for many ears altways with negative results.

enied that anyone ever told him that they fewas not fit for duty.

Theher testimony-from any of the witnesses indicating that they hads oken directl withrand expressed an FFD concern'to him, thereby requiring m

to self-report and submit to FFD testing. Based upon the KNPP Access Authorization and FFD policy, it does not appear that violated any FFD procedure.

Conclusion Based upon the evidence developed, the investigation did not substantiate that'.*W deliberately failed to self-report and submit to FFD testing.

Allegation 3: Contract Supervisor Deliberately Provided False Information Agent's Analvsis On March 25, 2002, an ARB requested that 01 determine whether deliberately provided false informationt t see's investigator, relative to being informed about the FFD Zoncem involving 01 determined that despite his denial,'

had received information from.I Sand regarding a potential FFD concern involvin and

.failed to follow the licensee's FFD guidelines in having

, evaluated for testing. The Access Authorization & FFD training hand-out indicates that for-cause testing will be conducted, "after receivin credible information that an individual is abusing drugs or alcohol." Whilei ght argue that the information provided was not credible, he e

raised that defense, but rather denied that any employee had raised any FFD concern about Additionall.y, admitted to the licensee's investigator that occasionally exhibited the smell of alcohol on his breath while inside the protected area at KNPP. This coupled with re ps. Lnother coworkers, should have caused to take further action to evaluate NOT FOR PUL CLOSURE WIT UT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO FFICE OF WES TIONS, REGION m Case No. 3-2002-004 35 C/

tated that several months after the factidmtte to him that.

a id 111110had spoken to him aboutM-A6-.l admtted t urina the same conversation that he told th lenee' investigator that nad not reported the FFD concern abou o him.

Additionally, old O1 that several months after.he fact',

old him that a couple of workers had approachedb.having alcohol on his breath or being drunk. According t admitted he told the workers that they should not wor ut it, thaatas oly a g to be there for a couple of weeks and the'ould be goin. to ISI.

tated that during his employment at KNPP during the 2001 outageever asked himnabout his FFD, nor did anyone request that he be FFD tested. He also stated tha never informed him that anyone else had questioned his FFD.

unequivocally denied that anyone had approached him at KNPP about FFD. Even after a second 01 interview, during which' was confronted with conflicting testimony, he denied that he was aware of any question concerning conflicting testimony as retaliation and jealousy by his subordinates.-

According to the testimony of bothan laimed that the licensee's investigator had divulted t hat two unnamed workers had come forward with FFD concerns about A review of the handwritten notes and draft report of interview prepared by the licensee's investigator reveals that no such -information was rovided.

'This would indicate that only1 ew that two individuals,'

and"-

ad approached him about'

. AddltiMnally, only ad been interviewed by the licensee s investigator prior to the interview ofl n December 11, 2001. A review of the report of interview of ndicates tha did not identify or0 by name or generally, to the licensee's investigator and therefore ould not have been questioned about two workers who had identified FFD concerns about.,

Conclusion, Based upon the evidence developed, the investigation substantiated thaty

• 1deliberately provided false information to both 01 and the licensee's investigator relative to being informed about the FFD concern involving, NOT FOR PUBLIC D CLOSURE WITHOUT APIOVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR; FICE OF INVESTIGATINS,REGION III CaeNo. 3-,0022-00 JU

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION On November 21, 2002, William P. SELLERS, Special Counsel for Regulatory Enforcement, Fraud Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., was apprized of the results of this investigation. SELLERS stated that, in his view, the case did not warrant prosecution and rendered an oral declination.

Information on Chilling Effect There was no testimony provided which indicated that any of the witnesses were discouraged from reporting FFD concerns by the contractor, union or licensee, while they were employed at KNPP. In d,.n.

stated that des ite the outcome of the licensee s investigation, they would still report an FFD concern.

andV p stated that generally, they believed that the impact of the licensee's investigation upon the contract employees-might make some employees less inclined to report an FFD concern, although this was based upon personal opinion and not fact. The references from the transcripts in which the chilling effect concerns were raised are as follows:

(xhibit 14, pp. 42-43) hibit 16, pp. 17-18); 1 xhiit 17, pp. 16-18);

M (Exhibit 19, pp. 38-39 (Exhibit 22, pp:, 28-29);

(Exhibit 23, pp.56-757)i',1 xhibit 24,p.36-3/'7); an hxhibit -5, pp. 28-30).

The following information was obtained during the investigation, but was not referenced in the Report of Investigation:

Exhibit 32 Exhibit 33 Exhibit 34 Exhibit 35 Exhibit 36 Exhibit 37 Exhibit 38 Personnel Access Data System (PADS) Security Report for lWated September 17, 2002.

PADS Security Report for ated September 17, 2002.

PADS Security Report fora f dated September 17, 2002.

PADS Security Report fo ted September 17, 2002.

PADS Security Report fo ated September 17, 2002.

PADS Security Report fo ated September 17, 2002.

PADS Security Report fo*410lated September 17, 2002.

PADS Security Repor o*aed

etmbr1, 02 NOT FOR PCLOSURE WITHOUT4PPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR,-*0 EF INVESTIG1AOrS, REGION Ill Lase INo. J-Y.UU2-UU4

..5t I-I

Exhibit 39 Exhibit 40 PADS Security Report for ated September 17, 2002.

PADS Security Report fcIj@. dated September 17,2002.

NOT FOR PUBLIC D LOSURE WITHOUT AkPPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 0 CE OF INVESTIGAONS, REGION III 7T

-,' *'t~

Af'lA

-'O f'*__

_ *k case P40. J-.ZUU.-Uvq

-10

LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No.

Description 1

Investigation Status Record, 01 Case No.: 3-2002-004, dated March 25, 2002.

2 Investigation Status Record, 01 Case No.: 3-2002-020, with entry dated August 31, 2002.

3 Letter from NMC, dated April 22, 2002, transmitting WIC, Report of Investigation W-009-01, NMC/ECP No. 01-18, dated January 7, 2002, with Exhibits.

4 WIC Supplemental Report of Investigation W-009-01 S, NMC/ECP No. 01-18, dated January 30, 2002.

5 WIC Report of Interview(s) wit, December 6, 9, and 11, 2001.

6 WIC Report of Telephone Interview with December 10, 2001.

7 WIC Report of Interview(s) with December 5 and 11, 2001.

8 WIC Report of Telephone Interview with December 9, 2001.

9 WIC Report of Telephone Interview of January 15,2002.

10 WIC Report of Telephone Interview o)

December 17, 2001.

11 WIC Report of Telephone Interview o Diecember 11, 2001.

12 WIC Report of Interview of PETERS, December 7, 2001.

13 WIC Report of Telephone Interview(s) of January 11-12, 2002.

14 Transcript of Interview o August 29, 2002.

15 Transcript of Interview o.

August 5, 2002.

NOT FOR PUBLI 7SCLOSU1Ž THOUT APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTO1POFFICE OF f STIGATIONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2002-004 39

16 Transcript of Interview August 5, 2002.

17 Transcript of Interview of" August 5, 2002.

18 Letters from NMC to" dated February 13, 2002, and May 14, 2002.

19 Transcript of Interview o August 5, 2002.

20 Letter from NMC t February 12, 2002.

21 Letter from Hitchcock Cross to NMC, dated March 14, 2002.

22 Transcript of Interview o w

September 12, 2002.

23 Transcript of Interview off 7)September 4, 2002.

24 Transcript of Interview o June 5, 2002.

25 Transcript of Interview June 6, 2002.

26 Report of Interview

, June 6, 2002.

27 Transcript of Interview of eptember.12, 2002.

28 Transcript of Interview of CLEVELAND, September 17, 2002.

29 WIC Report of Interview o anuary 17, 2002.

30 KNPP Nuclear Administrative Directive NAD-01.04, Rev. C, dated November 16, 1999.

31 Portion of the KNPP GET Training relative to Access Authorization & FFD, undated.

NOT FOR PUBLIC D OSURE WITH[

APPROVAL OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFIC'E OF INVESTI&iONS, REGION III Case No. 3-2002-004 40

NRC FORM 8C (7-94)

NRCMD 3.57 COVER SHEET FOR CORRESPONDENCE USE THIS COVER SHEET TO PROTECT ORIGINALS OF MULTI-PAGE CORRESPONDENCE