ML19345H325
| ML19345H325 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/19/1981 |
| From: | Herr R, Potapovs U, Sutton J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345H322 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900109 NUDOCS 8105200111 | |
| Download: ML19345H325 (7) | |
Text
__.
O U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Investigation Report No. 99900109/80-02 Company:
Pittsburgh Des Moines Steel Company Neville Island Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15225 Investigation Conducted:
November 12-14, 1980 Investigation At:
Caracpolis, Pennsylvania Investigator: d 2;
// I a < </7/
R. K. Herr, Investigation Specialist Date k
b)
/-/4 - S/
Inspector:
\\d O It J\\\\ W.' Sbt'o'n,' Vencor Inspector Date VMdor Inspectic ranch I
i-Reviewed by:
ikN l-19-fil Uldis Potapovs, Chief L
Date Vendor Inspection Branch Summary:
Investigation on November 12-14, 1980, Report No. 99900109/80-02 Area Investigated:
Allegations that lost or damaged shop travelers on nuclear-related work were falsified when they were reconstructed.
This investigation involved 28 investigatcr man hours by one NRC Investigator and one NRC Inspector.
Results:
Investigation disclosed that Pittsburgh Des Moines Steel Company (PCM) improperly reconstructed shop travelers in 1974; however, the improper pro-cedures were identified in 1978 and corrective action was instituted at that time.
6 i
8105200HI
2 INTRODUCTION Pittsburgh Des Moines Steel Company (PDM), located in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, periodically, under specific contracts, fabricates steel components for various customers, in the nuclear industry.
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION On August 7, 1980, a Region IV inspector received an allegation from an~i'ndividual who formerly worked for POM, that PCM had falsified some document records for a nuclear project in 1974.
SUMMARY
OF FACTS On October 23, 1980, the alleger (Individual A) was contacted and reiterated the following specific allegations:
1.
That on one occasion in early 1974, Individual A observed / overheard a manager (Individual C) tell a document clerk (Individual G) to "make up" a shop traveler when it could not be immediately located.
2.
That about ten (10) lost or damaged shop travelers were falsified when they were reconstructed by not requiring the cognizant QA inspector to sign or initial the reconstructed traveler and that a manager (Individual 0) stated that "this practice goes against my grain."
3.
That Individual G threw a newly created shop traveler on the floor and walked on it to give it a " shop worn appearance."
l 5
i
._~
3 DETAILS 1.
Persons Contact Pittsburgh Des Moines Steel Comoany Emoloyees
- K. J. Ko"...., Vice President of Operations
- Dave Davis, QA Manager Jamds F. Strunk, Engineering Manager Other Personnel Individuals A through G
- Denotes those attending Exit Interview.
2.
Investigation of Allegations Allegation No. 1 That on one occasion in early 1974, Individual A claimed to have overheard a manager (Individual C) tell a document clerk (Individual G) to "make
. up" a shop traveler when one could not be immediately located.
Investigative Findinos On October 23, 1980, Individual A was interviewed and executed a signed statement (Document 1).
Individual A stated that on one occasion during the early months of 1974, when a shop traveler could not be immediately located, a document clerk (Individual G) advised a PDM manager (Individual C) of this problem and asked Individua'i C, worcs to the effect "do you want me to make up the record?" At this time, Individual C answered Individual G by stating "yeh, go ahead."
Individual A explained that this shop traveler refered to the fabrication of a liner plate for Long Island Lighting
& Power Company (Project No. 10064).
Individual A remarked he did not know the exact identity of the shop traveler and also did not know if the traveler covet ed an item with a safety significance classification.
Review of Pertinent Occuments A review of PCM records on November 13, 1980 disclosed (Occument 2), a record of shop order numbers.
Document 2 identified the correct project number for Long Island Lighting & Pcwer Company as 10093.
Further examination of documents associated with Project 10093 disclosed approxi-mately 32,000 documents.
Extmination of selected documents dated in 1974 which covered liner plate fabrication disclosed a numoer of reconstructed shop travelers as evidenced by the appearance of identical handwriting e
h mm em e.
~u f
~
4 for signatures, comments and initials, and the clean appearance of the travelers compared to other shop worn travelers bearing different handwritten signatures.
None of the reconstructed travelers bore safety significance.
Interview of Individual C On November 13, 1980, Individual C was interviewed and executad a signed statement (Occument 3).
Individual C stated that in 1974, as a manager for POM, occasionally (two or three times a week) the department would receive information frt:m the documentation clerk that various shop travelers could not ba located or were unreadable, and ask if a new traveler should be nade up.
Individual C explained thet usually the documentation clerk was told to "make up" the missing documents.
Individual C explained that what is meant by "make up" was that the documentation clark would reconstruct the traveler by verifying work on the item thru records or contact with the inspector.
In addition Individual C stated that no document was reconstructed without a verification process.
Contact with Individual G resulted in Individual G stating that "make up," meant to reconstruct documents using duplicate records if available.
Allegation No. 2 That about ten (10) lost or damaged shop travelers were fabricated when they were reconstructed by not requiring the cognizant quality assurance inspector to sign or initial the reconstructed traveler and that Individual 0, a POM manager, stated that "this practice goes against my grain."
Investigative Findings On November 13, 1980, Individual 0 was interviewed.
Indivi;ual 0 related being an employee for POM in 1974 in the document section.
Individual 0 denied any knowledge of travelers being "made up" or reconstructed in the document secticn by anyone.
Individual 0 explained that it was the understanding that if a document was missing and/or damaged that the QA inspector would resubmit a reconstructed travelers to the document section.
Individual 0 remarked that no statement was made to anyone utilizing words to the effect "this goes against my grain."
Interview of Individual B On November 12, 1980, Individual B was interviewed and advised that as an employee for PDM in 1974, and while holding one of the top quality assurance management positions, an overall view of the QA department was one of the responsibilities.
Individual 8 stated that all reconstructed shop travelers that were lost or damaged were recreated only after veri-fication procedures were accomplished.
Individual B explained that veri-fication procedures required that the documentation clerk would, contact the drawing engineer and obtain a serial numoer or document number issued 5
e
. * - -*w-
-,--een-e.
e
=
-+-.=ee e,,-
y v--e a-e, ew-e-
%e-ge-i-
,-w*ee-e---
c-
-. ~
~
5 to any particular shop traveler and then woJld " walk it through."
Individual B remarked that walking a document through, meant contacting all the individuals that would normally come in contact with the document and securing the appropriate signatures.
Individual E knew of no falsification of such shop travelers.
Interview of Individual E Ci? November 13, 1980, Individual E was interviewed and executed a signed statesent (Document 4).
Individual E stated that in 1974 while working in the documentation section of PCM as a supervisor the position was one of closeness to all employee and systems.
Individual E explained that during that time, if shop travelers were dirty, damaged, or lost, the documentation clerk would reconstruct the shop traveier using cuplicate records if possible.
Indiviudal E remarked that normally the cognizant inspector or worker who had signed the original document would be contacted and appropriate initials or signatures would be obtained.
Individual E explained that if the cognizant person could not be found then the docu-mentation clerk woJld sign the missing cognizant person's initials or signature.
Individual E empahsized that, at that time no other markings appeared on the reconstructed document.
IndividJal E further advised that after the reconstruction document was recreated, then the original document was thrown away.
Individual E advised that this was not considered to be a metrod that constituted falsification of records but was merely a reflection of a copied record, of one that was not legible in its original form.
Individual E quickly pointed out that in 1978, this practice was changed to the current procedure wherain if a cognizant person could not be located for appropriate signatures, the documentation clerk will still sign for the missing cognizant person, but will now also add "for" and sign their own initials adjacent to the initials that they signed for the cognizant individual.
Also, as of 1978, the original document is kept with the reconstructed traveler and is no longer thrown away.
Interview of Individual F l
On November 13, 1980, Individual F was interviewed.
Individual F explained that in 1974, as a supervisory person in the quality assurance inspector's section there was a close working relationship to other employees.
Individual F explained that during this time docu-mentation clerks would approach (Individual F) in order to obtain a particular QA inspector's initials or signatures for a reconstructed traveler.
Individual F advised that when the cognizant inspector was no longer present due to illness, retirement, etc., that (Individual F),
would sign or initial the traveler for the inspector, but that Individual F always added the Supervisor's own signature and the current date on
,the reconstructed traveler.
Individual F recalled that this request from the documentation clerk occurred sev aral tiines a week during the first months of 1974.
Individual F concluded that approximately 50 percent of the work that they were doing at that time consisted of safety-related activities.
l 6
l i
l' l
I
6 Allegation No. 3 That Individual A claimed observing Individual G throw'a newly created shop traveler on the floor and walk on it to give it a " shop worn appearance."
Investicative Findinas Interviews of Individual 8 through F resulted in all of them claiming they had no knowledge of the activities indicated in the above allegation.
Telephone interview of Individual G on November 12 and 19, December 1980 resulted in Individual G stating that shop travelers were copied over when they were damaged, torn or illegible.
Individual G explained that they would copy the original shop traveler on a new shop traveler in order that copies could be made for distribution to cognizant personnel.
Individual G denied throwing a copied shop traveler on the floor and walking on it, pointing out that this would defeat the reasons to make a clear copy of a shop traveler in the first place because then xerox copies would not be clear.
i l
l l
l l
l I
..-,.y_,
~,,.es-
,,y-y-
,y---,
~
7 Documents The written statements and copies of all documents identified herein rei-sting to these allegations are maintained in the NRC, Region IV, office.
The following is a list of documents utilized in this report.
Document 1 - Statement of Individual A, dated 10/23/80 Document 2 - Record of Shop Numbers, undated Docuoent 3 - Statement of Individual C, dated 11/13/80 Document 4 - Statement of Individual E, dated 11/13/80 t
I i
i l
- - -. -