ML16341A687
| ML16341A687 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1985 |
| From: | Scarano R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Shiffer J PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8506270488 | |
| Download: ML16341A687 (20) | |
Text
JUN 24 1986 bocket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 1451 San Francisco, California 94106 Attention:
Mr. J.
D. Shiffer, Vice President Nuclear Power Generation
Subject:
Investigation Conducted by the NRC Office of Investigation-Case Number 5-83-002 This refers to a special investigation conducted by the NRC Office of Investigation (OI) of activities authorized by NRC Licenses
This investigation, described in the enclosed OI Report Summary, consisted of interviews of personnel and review of selected documents.
No violations of NRC requirements were identified within the scope of the investigation.
However, the report notes some improvements can, be made to the quality of your background investigation program.
This matter will be followed up during our next routine inspection.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a),
a copy of this )etteg and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.,~
Should you have any questions concerning this investigation, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Enclosure:
As Stated Sincerely, y s'/
'oss A. Scarano,',Director Division of Raciiafion,Safety'nd'Safeguards 40 bcc:
RSB/Document Control Desk (BIDS)
Mr. J. Martin Resident Inspector A1 Johnson Rv 3>..
F. Kirsch <<i DSchae fer: dh MSchuster 6/~ /85 6/+ /85 RScarano 6/P /85 cc:
Jim Knight, NRR S. D. Skidmore, PG&E R.
C. Thornberry, (Diablo Canyon)
P.
A. Crane, Jr.,
PG&E D. Taggart, (Diablo Canyon)
R. Weinberg, (Diablo Canyon)
State of CA (Gordon K. Van Vleck)
BSOSm'0488 850~24 PDR ADOCK 05000275 PDR
'E~
I Ill I'(
I 11 I
I r
~
lllo~
n0 4**'+
4
~
r UnrtcA Sos Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmlilafoi - -,':='~"'.-.'::.="...:,-";=4::..... ".
~. 0'
")
-,--; stypsis Diablo Canyon Power Ant-;,Allegations of.
Falsified and Inadequate Security.Personnel Background Investigations'Q.Pirikerton s Incorporated
'I L
~
j S
1g
\\
Office of Investigations
"'.:"'::.'...,"':~~,~',";<-.'.- '-. -.....:. "......
Reported by Ol:
p/I h~
~
Enc1osure
SYNOPSIS On April 20, 1983, the Office of Investigations (CI) Field Of ice, Region
- USNRC, was advised by another federal agercy that it had received allegations and concerns recardina the adequacy nf the background investiga+ions (Sls),
which were being conducted of the security personnel by Pinkertor.'s Incorpor-
- ated, a private security contract firm.
The security personnel were employed at Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP), Avila Beach, California, which is operated by the Pacific Gas and Electric Compan s (PG6E), the licensee.
- he alleaer advised that his primarv concern was that sorre oi the security personnel had rot been
.horoughly investigatec; and in sore '.nstances, aeroaatory or inaccurate information had been detected and was r.o. includec in thc applicant's investiqative files.
In suppor.'nc his corcerrs, the a":cger provided the rares of five applicants who had been investiaated in February ane f'iarch 1983 for securi.y positiors at
- DCPP, and their BIs were believed to contair. discreparcies.
The alleger specificarly recalled that ore of the investiqative files revealed that the applicant had rot lived ir. a neighborhood as claimed, and that one of the applicar+s was believed to be anti-nuclear.
Another concer
- r. expressed by the alleger was that two Pinkerton investigators were told, on one occasion by a P'inkerton super visor, nct to wor".y about completing the sec.ion of the (Pirkerton
'.r vestigativf) questiorraire (or report) dealira with thc 13 listed ouestions regardina the applicant.
The alleaer believed that the 13 questions were required to be asked during each interv'ew of the Pinkerton ir vestigatior.
The licensee's corer'.'tments regarding SIs are rontaired ir. two separate documerts,
.he DCPP Fhysical Security Plan and :he DCPP Trf.'.ring and (ualifi-cation Plan, both of which had beer. approved by the
- USNRC, and tr cether these two documents specify a screening progreAl (i.e. investigatic r.;'of the secu.i+v applicant's employment history, and curre!lt a
d prior residences.
Previously in triarch 1983, there had beer.
a situaticr. involvira falsified P'epor+s, which were alleaed te have been submi+ted te DCFP by a Pinkertor
gl
investigator.
That, situation was identified and reported to the t~RC hy +he licensee.
The situation o
the alleged falsified reports was investigateo by the licensee, and the ouestionable or falsif ed investigative reports were reverified.
There was also a special NRC Safeguards inspection into the ma+.er, and it was subseouently determined by Regicn V to have been properly resnlvec.
The licersee also conducted an audit of other Pinker'.on investiga-
- tors, which revealed no falsified reports.
flo direct investica ive efforts were, +herefore, expended in that matter during this current OI;nvestiga-tirr.
A review of the appl cants'I files, to include the five identified ty.he
- alleger, was conducted at DCPP, which maintains the licensee's officIal records upon which the
- HRC, as an agency, relies tc insure compliance with regulatorv reouirements or commitments by the license~.
Durinc that records rev',ew, one Pinkerton inves..oative report revealed that an applicant had not res'.Wed at the address for the period of time reflected on the applicant's Personal History guestionnaire (PHg).
There was a discrepancy o
approxi-mately three months for.he specified residence.
r in a subsequent interview of a Pinkerton investigator, i. w~s learrec
~hat he
)ad reverified some o
the investigative reports submittea by other Pirkerton investigators after the disclosure of the incidert nf he falsified irvesti-ga
'ive reports n i'1arch 1903.
The interviewed investiga?or re',ated that ;f he deve!oped information which was different from that originally reported, he prepared ar. additicra',
and separate investigative report.
h'hen asked about the discrepancv of three months in the cited case, the investigator advisee that he had attempted to reverify tha. specific report; had noted the three mcnth discrepancy; hut obtained cifferent irformatior.
Tne invest.ga-tor further indicated ti'at he subsequently furr ished a
(seccnd>
invest:rative report in which he ro:od the discrepancies tc the Pinke. '.or. subof-.'.c~.:
- however,
".he investigator had ro knowledge of the final resolution
~'.= the two difterent reports.
A review of available files nf the Pinkerton suboffice was also corCucted.
It is to be noted that the Pinkertcn files are on! i for ccr venience and rct permanent'!~ retained; they are not required hy HPC regulatiors.
During.hat review, the second investigative rcport, which was refererced by the irvesti-gator who dio not reverify the contents of the original report, was located.
The second report was dated subseouent to the initial investigative report, which was contained in the official DCPP BI files.
It was noted that the latter report also contained other conflicting information from that reflect-ed ir. the applicant's PH(j.
The HRC investigator subsequently substantiated that the applicant had resiced az the address as ird:ca+ed on his PHQ with a relative of the same last
- name, thus apparently confusing the Pinkerton investigation.
During pertinent in+erviews, the reasons fo> the retention of two separate and confl-cting Pinkerton investigative reports at D(PF and at tl c Finkerton suboffice fo) the same residence verificatior s were not deter-minedd.
The responsible Pinker+or. manager testified that he could not recall the seccnd report; anC that if he herl been aware of the apparcrt discrepan-cies in the latter Pinkerton repoi t. the matter would have been further investigated.
Tl e a? leger 's concern regard ng the residence verification >>as therefore substantiated;
- hcwever, there was nc evidence o< willful wrorc-doina.
A1so curing this YRC OI investigation, inquiries ano records reviews were conducted in ar e. ort to substantiate the alleger s concern the an appli-cant was aoainst ruclear power.
It is impor.ant to no'c that the persoral opinions or views of an applicant regardinc nuclear power are not. ir. them-
- se1ves, with";n the pu. view of the HRC.
The GI invcstiaative efforts, ther~-
fore, only addressed the dcvelopmert of backgrcurd informatinn, both favcrab";e and derogatory, durirr a Pinker on investigation, and the 'ccurate reportir.g of that information for.ubsequent adjudicat'on by PGEE.
ln attempting tt resolve this issue, information >>as received at DCPP +hat une pf the applicar.s ramea by the alleger l ad apparent.'.:!
been dropped as an applicart, specific reason unkrrwn, during the investigative phase of pre-employment, end he applicant's B.I fi>e was not ava.'>able at t."e site.
During the subsequent revirw rf the files of the Pirkerton sulcffice, how-ever, it was confirmed that an investigation nf this sar1e applican+
had been conducted.
The files revealed two separate Pinkertor. investigat~ve repor.s attesTirg to an interview of the same character reference, but w1tl: different dates of interview.
The latter report, dated March 26, 1983, cortained a
statement in the narrative which read, ir, part,
"... the subject (i.e.
applicant) is definitely anti-nuclear power."
During the interview of the investigator who authored the Iatter report, it wa.. learned tha: the second repor.
was accomplished as a result of the reverification of the iritial interviei; by another Pinkerton investigator.
The specific reason for the arti-nuclear comment nc. being included in the initial investigative report was not determined.
Thus, the latter repor+ substantiated the allegation that a repor.
had been prepared reflecting the a..t',-ruclear v.'ews.of an applicant.
This matter was not further pursued bv.he OI investigator since the Pinkerton invest-gation haC nct been finalized and had not been provided to PGEE for appropriate evaluation, and there was no indicat.cr. of wrongdoipo in the conduc+ of the Pinkerton iinvestiga+ive efforts.
Regarding the 13 listed auestions on the Pinkertor. irvestigative ouesticr--
naire or repor:, t was determined through ir terviews and document reviews that there was no consistency in +he Pinkerton investigators askirg cr completing the 13 ques+ious on the preprinted foni. It was also determinea that -.here were ro established policies or procedures on the completion of the Pirkerton investigative report.
Sirce there was nn violation of any requirements and no indication of wrongdoing, the issue was not further pursued as a matter of OI interest.
This matter is referred tn Regicn V,
USHRC, for their evaluation.
.'n the review of a file or cre of the five applicarts identifieo by the
- alleger, the ViRC investigatr!
noted several Pinkertcr investigative repcrts in which the periods of employmert were d'.fferent fror. those Ca1;es cor ta',nec in the applicart's PHg.
There was no urther investiga+ive or admin.strative effort by Pinkerton or PGaE to explain or refute the oiscrepancies r.oted in the reporT;s.
Such discrepancies, although>>somewhat o".'nor, may be icent",fiab.e
0
with the alleger's concern on the adequacy of the Pir.kerton investigations.
Since there was no indication of wrongful acts in the investigative process, this matter was not of OI interest.
On the basis of the discrepancies,
- however, the validity of the PG8E screening p> cgrarr and the adjudicative process of the Pinkerton investigations are separate issues and are also referred to Reoicn V for their evaluatior..
During the review of the BI files retained at
- DCPP, a questionable Pinkerton investigative report, which was in aadition to the original allegation, was idertified by the f!RC investicator.
The report was de+ed JIarch 24,
- 1983, and it cor.tained the results of an interview of a character re erence.
The interviewee was identified by a last name only and a Florida telephone
- number, There was no address for the interviewee, which was consi.dered contrary to a normally accepted practice.
The character reference was also not listed on tt e applicant's PHg and, therefore, apparently was a developed reference during the Pinkertor. investigation.
A subsecuent check of the Pinkertor. suboffice files regarding the same applicaflt revealed an additional Pinkerton investioative report, which ccntained the full name cf the same character re;erence tc include a res'dence address
'.n California.
The date Gf the report in the Pinkerton suboffice was l'.ay 9,
- 1983, wh.:ch was, o.
- course, di~ferent than t",arch 24, I 03.
The character reference, whc was residing in Califorr.ia, was contacted by the HRC investigator.
The reference verified that she had been interv.'ewed sometime in the Spring of 19F.."-., bu.
could not more accurately recall the da+e of the interview.
The reference stated that she believed that she had been interviewed since her mother had also been interviewed regardinc the applicart.
The applicant's Pily substan-tiated that the mother of the interviewee was a listed character reference.
In further attempts to resolve this matter cf reports wth different cates and infcrmation, cN..merits from persons irvo'.ved with the FIs at DCPP were rereived that investiga+ive reports were sorret mes lost or misplaced at DCPP.
They believed the reason for the lest or misplaced reports was sirpli due to the large volume of BI paperwork processed in a short period o< tire.
Tr. ir sure that the specific investigative requirenen.s were met ir, such
situations, the
. inkerton suboffice wculd be requested by PG~E representa-tives (3) to provide ar. additioral copy of the initial report; (2) tc reverify that
+he interv.'ew cr check h.-.C been conducted; or (3.'e perform the investiaative check again.
As a result, a secona Pinkerton ir vestigation report would be aenerated with a different date and it would be orwaraed to DCPP.
Curing that time interval, the initial lost or mispl'aced investigatior report would be located at the site.
In such a situation, the original report would be placed in the files, and the seccrd irvestigation report, wher, received, would be destroyed since ;t was not required.
Oral testimony indicated that such a situaticn had occurred a few t'mes;
- however, there was no writter record of such inciderts.
During this NRC investigation, the exact circumstances for the twc differentli dated reports were noi ascer-
.a..'red, but there were no apparent indications o.
improper activity.
Additionally, during this NRC investication, a
serac rate and nor:-related issue was idertifiea.
lihile inquiring into possible falsif'ied repor.s. testimony was received from two inaividuels, who <<ere Pinkerton employees n tiovember 19&c, who advised that they had been involvea in the reverification of the reports of ore irvestiga or in 1982.
They statet that the original reports had been submitted dur'.nc the BI investigatiors conducted in Cctobe and November 1982.
Both of the irdividuals adv-ised tha+ the
. everificatien of the reports was performed at the airectior: rf the Pinkerton supervisor, whc indicated that thE G1 iginal reports did rot ccr,tair, su.: icient irformation or de+ails.
Both employees further related that in the reverification process, additiora',
information, which had not been submitted hy the initial Pirkerton investigatcr, was added to the repor+: however, the rever.'fied investigative repor
.s were preparea as if written by the initial investigator.
Cre emplo'ee expressed concern ir: his statement, "As a result, some of the Form i'8" (i.e. investigative reports)...
were completed... ir. the o-.fice withrut the investigators conducting ary further investigaticn or making any
+elephcre calls."
The ether employee, an investigatcr.
s.ated in part, "I do nut remember if there were falsifiec reports,... towever, I do telievc there may have been one cr two irstances where the '.nterviewec stated tr ru :hat he
/
had not previously been in..erviewed."
'.t was further determined that
.he reveritied reports in 1982 had been initiallv submitted by the same Pinkerton investigator, whc was terminated in March 1983 after the aiscovery of alleged falsified reports, which had been prepared in 1983.
When the appropriate Pinker on suboffice supervisor was questioned on this
- matter, he advised in sworn testimony that "I think that I had...
(name deleted)... check one of...
(name deleted)... reports which occurred about October 1982," but, the supervisor could no+ recall the specific circum-stances.
The supervisor also added to his statement that "I have never ask (sic) anyone to add false or incorrect information to a rector-..
I have asked personnel
+n correct.
grammar or make the sentence read correct."
Nothino was developed during the NPC investioation to indicate that
( I) the Pinkerton supervisor directed or suggested that falsified reports he pre-pared; and (2) ary "falsified" DI investigative repor.s were furnished to PGF E.
On November 17, 1983, purina the OI investigation, a licensee representative provided yet another questionable Pinkerton investioative report, which h-d been received at DCPF on November 14 or 15,
'.983.
The suspect report was an orig.nal
+yped document, and it was dated August 23, 1983.
The licensee representative stated that upnn checking the CCPP -.iles, it was discov red that a Pinkerton investigative report, also dated August 23, 198", containing the results of the same interview, was already reta-ined in the applicant's
,ile.
It was noted that some of the information contained in the more recently received report was, however, differen+ from the information already in the DCPP files.
The '.icensee representatives could offer no explaration for the twn different reports.
Sworn testimony was obtained from the Pinkerton investigator who had conduc-ted the interview and who had submitted both of the irvesticat~Me reports.
The Pinkerton investigator stated that
+he initial repcrt was inccrrect because the in.erviewee had confused
+wo members of the applicant's family.
The interviewee later corrected his.informat'on, ard
+he investigator there-fore had prepared a corrected investigative report alsc Pated August 23, 19U3.
He related that both repor+s had been separately submitted to the Pinkerton subn fice for referral to Diablo Canyon.
The investicator further advised that in tlovember 158-".,
he was reouested to prepare another copy of the corrected copy of the irvestigative report because apparently the previ-ouslv su"mitted report had been lost or misplaced.
As a result, he prepared a second copy of the corrected invest ga.ive copy, which was dated August R3,
- 1983, and it was furnished sometime in November 19S3.
.l e file reviews, together with the oral testimony, supported the testimory cf the Pinkerton investigato~
in that investiqative reports were sometimes lust or misplaced at
- DCPP, and the Pirl erton suboftice provided an additional copy of.he desired report.
There was no evidence to suggest willful cr intentional wrcrgcoing in 4i '.s matter.
Durirg the entire 01 investigation, there was no eviderce of wi:1 ul and illtentiorel v.'ol ation or disregard
- o. regulatory requirercrts or 1 icensee cori tmcnts.
There were, however, indica tiors of probe ems in the in:est iga-
.ive prograr:.
These included:
(1j there were nunerous di;.-.e ences in the writinc c. investiqative reports; (2) there <<ere a lack o~ procedures estab-lishing tI'e area of questicnino wi h the 13 lis-,ed cuesticrs on the question-raire (or in"estigative report); (.".,'here was
".he occasion..l misplacement or
'css of completed investigative reports; (4) there were inaccuracies
'n '."e details of information contained in some investiqative repolts'nc
('.) there appeared to be a need for a more comprehensive ad'udicaticn process of a completed Pinkerton BI c 1rclude resolutions of minor discrepancies in the Dis.
All of thes>>
comments reflectir g on the qua lit>> o< the bacl g) ourn investigation program have been referred to Region 'l for their evaluation.
The status n
the CI investigation is CLOSED.
4