ML20137J825

Discusses Chronology of Events Since Preliminary Notification of Event or Unusual Occurrence Case 4-94-010

ML20137J825
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Saint Vrain
Issue date:	04/14/1994
From:	Armenta J NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
To:	Williamson E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML20137J811	List: ML20137J805 ML20137J825 ML20137K000 ML20137K011 ML20137K055 ML20137K061 ML20137K078 ML20137K088 ML20137K102 ML20137K115 ML20137K791
References
FOIA-96-434 NUDOCS 9704040148
Download: ML20137J825 (43)

Text

\ ,

/ (

April 14, 1994 MEMORANDUM FOR: E. L. Williamson, Director Office of Investigation.s Field Office, Region IV FROM: Jonathan Armenta, Jr., Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region IV

SUBJECT:

Chronology of Events since the Preliminary Notification (dated March 25,1994) of Event or Unusual Occurrence Case No. 4-94-010 (Fort St. Vrain)

SYN 0PSIS:

On March 25, 1994, PSC reported to RIV that certain radiation survey records had been falsified during late 1992 and early 1993. Preliminary investigation disclosed that from September to December 1992, release of material surveys were not documented. Further investigation revealed they were later documented fictitiously to represent the same as if they had been made 5 months prior to the actual making of such document. These fictitious i documents were made knowingly and willingly with fictitious entries to cover up by scheme with intent to deceive.  !

I In addition, surveys conducted in regard to RWPs were not documented, but were later Scumented in the same manner as above.

l CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS:

i March 7, 1994:

• During the conduct of an on-going NRC investigation at FSV which was initiated July 1993, 01 was informed by PSC's upper management that they had resolved to hire an independent " third party investigator" to conduct an investigation in an effort to continue PSC's commitment "to safety and the health and well being of our employees and the general public... ."

According to PSC, "our actions were not driven by the current NRC j investigation.... ." PSC's third party investigation team consists of Ed i  ;

5 9704040148 970331 /

PDR FOIA /'

'4 PDR SAURO96-434 _

. , < ( ,

Stier, Mark Malone & Howard Anderson, Darrell Blain of PSC has been assigned

- to assist Stier's team.

March 10, 1994:

• PSC conducted an all-hands meeting in which upper management introduced the independent investigation. The investigation was alrepdy in progress,.when an RP tech, who requested confidentiality, talked to Stier'regarding a scheme involving the falsification of records. The anonymous RP tech disclosed  !

information regarding the falsification of release of material surveys by certain RP techs, including the surveys related with RWPs. Stier immediately j informed Don Warenbourg~(Dir of Decommissioning Project at FSV) of the seriousness of the anonymous allegation received. l

• -Warembourg informed PSC vice president, Crawford. Crawford conducted a l

- teleconference meeting with Westinghouse's upper-management-Team, including SEG's and MK's group upper-management to inform them about the allegation and ,

the potential serious effect it could have on FSV. The W-Team took action, including SEG contacted its corporate office to request assistance. i k j March 17, 1994:

• SEG contracted fomer NRC inspector, George Smith, (an associate of SEG),

to conduct an in-depth independent investigation into the alleged r l

falsification of survey records. According to Smith he was brought in because SEG wanted to know exactly what they had on their hands and; Smith would be  !

able to tell it like it is;- (Smith indicated his interpretation of the NRC 3

regs are not any different then when he worked for the NRC). Smith said he would uncover the truth, regardless if it is damaging to SEC. l 5

March 21, 19H: ,

• George SMITH, who through his preliminary investigation, reveased the ,

following: (1) records supporting the release of materials from tse FSV site for unrestricted use were falsified with the intent to mislead and failed to  !

gy comply with procedures; (2) records supporting the RWPs on level 11 of the 3 reactor building in the early 1993 time frame were falsified with the intent  ;

to mislead and failed to comply with procedures.

March 25, 1994:

• PSC made an informational call to the NRC in an effort to describe the  :

events that had happened, i.e. the preliminary findings and planned course of corrective action to the NRC, including informing the NRC of the safety ,

[F

% implications and reportability requirements, if any.  ;

• PSC's bottom line assessment-- "there were no significant safety implications resulting from the alleged inappropriate actions identified." l i

1 2

I e I w- -- y y- -- ,,, w-- ww- w,-,, mi - - , , -- - =-

o ( l

" ...while there were procedural violations, and implications that records were developed after the fact, no material was inappropriately released from the FSV site........the health and safety of personnel were not affected." l

~

• Although, on a different issue from the on-going NRC investigation, PSC l indicated they expected to receive a visit by the NRC staff, including but not  !

limited to the office of investigations.

1 March 28, 1994:

• PSC issued a stop work order requiring certain actions be completed by the Westinghouse Team prior to the restart of work.

March 30, 1994:

• OI arrived at FSV to determine status of FSV's activities, the level of severity and wide spread of the record falsification. Although this new issue is totally separate from the initial investigation, undoubtedly there will be common ties with this second investigation.

i

?

• Preliminary OI investigation has disclosed the following:

At this time no interviews have been conducted nor any other investigative activity other than keeping abreast of the status of PSC's and W-Team's internal investigation.

1. There are currently 3 investigation teams with each team conducting ..

g their own investigations o Investigation Team Leaders:

, Edward Stier - PSC's independent third party investigator-George Smith - SEG's independent investigator (former NRC

e inspector who is an associate of SEG, not.an employee of SEG)

Hank Sepp - W-Team independent investigator

- (employee of Westinghouse corporate office)

2. Stier indicated there are four areas his team will focus during his investigation, they are: a) Harassment & intimidation of employees; b) interfering and/or discouragement of RP techs from writing RORs; c) failure of SEG's management to take corrective action on certain issues (RORs); d) falsification of records.

3. On or about February 25, 1994, while conducting routine release of k material surveys at the truck bay area, RP's Bob Rankin and Jeffrey Dominey told MK supervisor, Dean Ross, that they could not release the material due to a high radiation reading; after a minor dispute 3

_l

l li ( (  !

l' l ad disagreement, Ross called RP supervisor, Chip Sawyer and told him there was a problem with some material that needed to be j released. Shortly, Sawyer showed at the bay area and authorized

! release of that material.

l 4. According to Stier, RP tech, Jim Bixby falsified numerous release i survey documents. Bixby claims to have conducted the surveys,.but i did not fill out a survey form as required. Bixby claims he thought

[ it was sufficient to log the surveys in the survey log without t having to fill out a survey form. Bixby also claims to have used

the survey log as the basis for his recollection to fill out the

survey forms in February '93 [ backdating them almost 5 months back];

j. he also signed them when he backdated them.-

5. George Smith said he doubted if anyone would have detected the j falsification (scheme) because it was intended to' deceive a QA j auditor and any other reviewer who would have looked at these j

records at face value, including 1.n NRC inspector.

6. Smith in'dicated he was sure that the records had been falsified; .

According to Smith, he said there was no doubt in his mind that  !

Bixby tried to cover-up his mistakes (violating procedural i requirements) and in doing so, he attempted to place a document back in the file to give an inspector an impression that that survey form had always existed--when in fact the release survey form did not exist in the time frame that Bixby claims it did.

)

7.' Smith said the suryey forms (approximately 20 at this time) were

.I filled out~by Bixby.'on Febr9ary 23, 1993; many of them from a one  !

statement entry in the survey log.

8. In March 1993, SEG RP tech, Duane Parsons, who was responsible for ,

. writing RWPs and other related surveys, conducted a self i assessment and discovered-that numerous-surveys had been logged in i i

the survey log out of sequence. At this time Parsons brought it to the atte,ntion of Zarht, but Zarht did not-take any action on it.

According to Zarht, he asked Bixby if he had been documenting the I release of materials surveys. Bixby replies that he had not.

3 Zarht told Bixby to "fix the problem" "you got to have the surveys i documented"; Bixby (on or about February 23, 1993, took it upon  ;

himself to produce the missing surveys and log them in the

- survey log sheet. The document itself leads anyone to believe that l it was made 5 months _ago; had it not been for the disclosure of this information by Parsons through self assessment, no one would have l detected it (the surveys are sequentially logged, but in this case the "out of sequence" surveys logged by Bixby were detected by l Parsons)

Initially it was believed that Bixby signed the survey forms and that_Kenneth Zarht (SEG RPT Supv.) had signed and dated them, but 4

b

l6 L (

! 1 l now Smith indicates that Sixy both signed and dated the surveys and j Zarht only signed them and processed them.

I 9.  ?? Why didn't Bixby write something to the effect that the document j was being recreated from the survey log at the bottom of the form under " Comments"?? Smith said that when Bixby was asked about it,

he replied, "I don't know." Smith said Bixby should have indicated on the document what it really represented rather that give a false i i impression.

3 According to PSC (Sr RP tech Blain) he said PSC used to write .

something on the comment section whenever that occurred, that i:: how i

! it was done in the past; he said he did not know when SEG changed l

the procedures. l l

, 10. Parsons himself conducted a self audit of the RWPs because he was I concerned that he had too many RWPs and didn't have any surveys

! (forms). Further review of the RWP packages revealed, that there l were numerous RWPs, that had no surveys in the RWP package. Again, according to Parsons, he told Zarht about it.  !

~4

11. Smith indicated that general RWP surveys were performed under one RWP for the entire job assignment, however; workers cannot start l l working at a specific area of the general RWP until a survey is '

j conducted of specific area. According to Smith, specific area ,

surveys perhaps were not done. Smith's conclusion is

the fast  !

i track (dosi-dose) computerized records show when people are at work l on any given time; the false surveys that were discovered show l workers working at different times than those shown'by the fast

track records. In some instances the surveys show that the survey i j was conducted after the finished the job; in other instances the i

. fast track record and the survey do not match at all (meaning that l

whoever filled out the survey, either did not conduct the survey at all or did not re-create the survey accurately.

4 l

12. Smith indicated SEG's upper management was aware of the

inconsistencies and breakdown of the survey record keeping and i failure to document the surveys (meaning Zarht knew about it

because Parsons told him on two separate occasions); in addition,

! SEG failed to effectively take corrective action.

f i

5

6 ( (

. 1 From January 1993 thru March 1993, Sawyer directed Rankir; to backdate the

[ release surveys. The date of the backdate is March 8, 1993.

l Bixby is now stating that he does not recall back dating the release surveys.

1  :

• 27 out of 41 release surveys conducted by Bixby cannot be traced or matched j

i to the survey log, perhaps indicating that the surveys were not performed at

, all.

1 4

• Out of 20 RWP packages, apsroximately 40 documents have been falsified from

! about September 1992 to'Decem>er 31, 1993; however, after that date, there is 3

no evidence of falsified records, only missing documents--partly due to the i lack of RWP control and the idea that being guilty of not having records is better than having falsified records.

l

• Smith indicates, "an organization that was not really defined" Asked where

was PSC's oversight, as the ultimate responsible party, Smith said, "I have 1

asked that question also, but I haven't found the answer."

i l l

'

• A consistent pattern of failure to comply with procedures is evident.

There is no doubt there is a breakdown in the Radiation Protection Program

procedural-deficiencies.

4 i

j

• According to the audits of early 1992, SEG walked on water, Smith said. 1

, This is representative of a breakdown in the radiation protection program and more likely that the root cause for this is the effectiveness of management on.

, behalf of SEG and PSC. Why? perhaps pride on behalf of SEG personnel; perhaps intimidation and influence by MK management personnel on SEG RPs, i Zarht practically controlled the RP program and not ED PARSONS'or DICK SEXTON and perhaps influence thru the bonding of relationships between MK and SEG; and or perhaps lack of resources (manpower) and breakdown of the organization; I

! at this time E. PARSONS and D. SEXTON have assistant to help them make

! decisions and evaluate Parsons' and Sexton's capabilities.

l 1

l j NOTE: As of April 15, 1994, Westinghouse Investigative Team I consolidated their efforts with SEG and combined the two

investigative teams into one investigative team with Hank Sepp as

! the Team Commander of the recovery team and George Smith as the j i

Team Leader of the investigation. ~

l i

i 6 i

x e

n.--- - ,

I I

a ( (

l l

1 POSSIBLE VIOLATI0ll$ E 10...CFR 10 CFR 19 -

improper surveys conducted, improper training instruction 10 CFR 20 -

surveys inadequate - improper file of procedures l 10 CFR 50.5 -

falsification of records with intent to deceive, I I

10 CFR 50.7 -

harassment and intimidation by SEG upper management on SEG ;

RP techs i

l O

e 7

l

.. - . . . . _ . _ . . _ . . _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . ~ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ . . . _

t' 5 (

l.

4 MORRISON KNUDSEN CO!!PORATION i j . ~ MK-FERGUSON GROUP i

l INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE i

DATE

August 15, 1994

$- TO: Distribution l

FROM: Bill Hug j

SUBJECT:

Guidelines for Reduction in Force Actions I Attached is a copy of Section 5 of the MK-Ferguson Corporate labor Relations

! Manual. His document addresses termination of field craft employees, including

Reductica in Force (RIF).

! The guidelines provided in this document are basic and relies heavily on the l judgement of the Superintendent and the input provided to him by others. Our j selection process is based on qualifications, performance, ability, attendance, j attitude and the requirements of the project. We have no intent to change our ,

process of selecting those to be laid off, however, we must be on guard to prevent the increasingly prevalent claims of discrimination. Not only do we need to be cognizant of discrimination from an EEO perspective, we must be aware of i a potential claim of discrimination related to the voicing of safety concerns. ~ Both l the NRC and OSHA have regulations which prohibit the discrimination against those who have raised safety concerns.

Also attached, are copies of 10 CFR 50.7, NRC Form 3 and 29 CFR 1903.11. l The NRC regulations, specifically 50.7, prohibit discrimination against an l employee for taking part in protected activities. These protected activities are  !

defined in the regulation to include providing the NRC or his employer information about alleged violations. These alleged violations are defined by NRC Form 3 and other documents and can be as general as bringing up a safety concern. It should also be noted that an employee's engagement in protected activities does not automatically render him immune from discharge or discipline for legitimate reasons.

OSHA, in its regulations 29 CFR 1903.11, is more specific in that it prohibits discrimination against an employee who has filed a complaint or is involved in pursuing a complaint.

./

t' l,/ .

f. : . I I (

- ' (

Our best defense against claims of this nature is to adequately address any safety concern when it is initially brought up. If the concern is either fixed or explained to the satisfaction of the employee, it would be difficult for that concern to be later used as the basis of a discrimination claim. Likewise, a healthy exchange with employees pmmotes the overall awareness to safety.

k[I/14 W. J. ug Project Manager i

i

)

1

i l

i. - '

gMORRISON KNtX. .N CORPORATION $ Secton 5 - Page 1 of 7 1 4

. uson naunows Effective. 05-3191 a

i 1

j

SUBJECT:

Disciplinary Policies and Procedures .

j lt is the intenton of the Corporation to ensure that all terminations of employees are handled in a j consstent and legal manner. Management must carefully review and approve all terminatons a

to be sure th6re is no queston of prejudice or favormem as workers are laid off or are terminated i

for cause.

4 Corporate policy in regard to terminatons, in the normal instance is to keep turnover of employ-ees to a minimum by planning and scheduling worker requirements, it is ahways boet to inter.

l view appicants or referrals from unons to minimas the employment of unqualified individuals.

! A. I::;-:eR4llty It is the responsibility of MK Management Personnel to:

!

• assure that employees are fully aware of the reason for terminsten.

e resolve any difference of openen regarding the reason for the terminston and consult

! higher management and/or the appropnete Labor Rolsten representabve in resolving the i difference of opinion,if necessary.

(  !

i e document the reason for termnabon in accordance with establehod Corporate poicy

?

I B. Employee Conduct On The Job i

l The Corporaten has a conbnuing responsibehty to provide our sonnces in the safeet, most effcont and economcal manner Good conduct on the job is thus essenbal to the common good of all employees and the daily progrees of the job. Therefore, unseeslactory conduct will be subject to appropnete deciphnery acten, bened on the crcumstances of the individ-ual case, up to and including decharge.

3 Examples of job rules that are consdered necessary and reasonable for the proper conduct -

of business con be found in Secten 9 of this manual. Conduct whch is immoral, unethcal or illegal, wE not be tolerated.

C. Policy For Administering Progreserve Corrective Acton The Corporaton endorses the ccicept of fair deshng in conjuncbon with adminstenng corrective actons. Decipline is not intended to "puneh", but rather to " correct", so that the inappropnate behavor of the employee s not repeated. Always give constructive father than destructrve critcom. Let the employee know that improvement is expected and the time frame for ths improvement.

t

. - . . , . ,_ .. ..-.w

__ _ _ __ _ _ ___._ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _

gMORRISON KNUL .iN CORPORATION (

Secten 5 - Page 2 of 7

" * * " " Effective: 05 3191 ,

s j .

Disciplinary measures include reprimands (warnings, verbal and wntten), disciplinary sus-l penson and decharge. Each supervisor is responsible for exeresing cortrol over deciplin-l ing employees for infractons of both Job Rules and Company Poicy.

! When management conducts a deciphnary interview and the employee requests union

{ representaton (i.e. steward) at the meeting, the intervow must be stopped immediately, and may not be continued until the employeet union representative is present. This is based i' upon court decisons that have sustained the right of union representation at investigatory interviews whch the employee reasonably beloves may result in discaphnkry acton against him or her.

! The type of decipline to be issued will usually depend on the circumstances and serous-l ness of the violaton of the rule or poicy. If there is any doubt as to the appropnote acbon to l follow in handhng deciphnary matters, the appropriate Manager or the Managert desgnes should be contacted.

D. VerbalWerning(Counseling)

]

The verbal waming is the least severe form of disciphnery acton and it most often takes the form of counsehng or constructive enbcom for relatively minor ininactons.

Whenever you give a verbal waming (couneshn0), you should make a record of it indcating the subpect, time, place and what was said. This informehon is extremely important if the i employee does not wrect he or her behavior and further deciphnery acton needs to be taken.

E. Wntten Woming (Notification)

This is an offcal statement to the employee and should be filled out completely ggfore _ it is  ;

seen or signed by the employee. If the employee refuses to sign the repnmand, the supervi-sor should note " Refused to Sign" in the employee signature secton and asue the employee his or her copy Where appicable, a copy should be masied to the employeen local unen. Frequentty, the  ;

employeet unon representative will investgate the circumstances of the waming and in many instances s helpful in correchng the employeet unwarranted conduct.

When a wntten warning is necessary, you should use the "Notificaton of Unsafe Act and/or Unsatsfactory Performance" form (See Secnon 13 - Form "PER340'). It is imperative that the employee knows and understands that this wntten warning a being placed in his/her personnel file.

[r

LAson w a s Effectrve: 05-3191 l 1

!)

1 l i I

! In utilizing this form, you must be specific in filling out the: (1) "incdont secton" - if you have i verbally wamed the employee, indicate the dates from your notes; and (2) f corrective action secton" - do not wnte "repnmanded" or " warned", but indicate what the acton was, for example, " failure to follow rules will lead to terminaton", or "if attendance does not improve,

! will be terminated". Wu must make sure that the employee fully understands what he or she did wrong and what improvement is e4WM. i l It is absolutely critical that whatever corrective actiun you decde upon for a particular j employee problem or job rule volaton, it must be appicable to g employees. For example.

you should not give a wntion reprimand to one employes and decharge another employee l

j for the same of ense unless there are other documented circumstances involved.

i l F. Disciplinary Suspension A deciplinary suspenson, without pay, may be given for improper work related behavior l that requires more severe disoplinary acton than a wntten waming, but does not warrant a i

decharge for cause. Decipknary suspensons should be thorough 4 documented, and the l

i appropnate Manager should revow and approve the suspenson prior to implementagon.

(  :

G. Decharge For Cause l t

i l in the matter of decharging an employee, it is usually a good practee that no matter what l

. the reason, the decharge be reviewed and approved by the appropnete Manager prior to '

j implementaten. This is to ensure that aN the facts have been investgated and accon taken is l consstent with provous deciplinary deceons i

l

' f Should immodate achon be regured, the supervoor should suspend the employee pend-ing investgaton of the situabon. By ubleng the procedure, a supervoor is given the oppor-

- tunity to thoroughly check that all documentaten is in order and that the Et3 consstent betore maiong a final deceon. Always remember to make sure you get the employeet sde of the story before any final deceon is made.

H. Separations From The Company l

it s important to accurately estabish and adequately record the reason for an employee's f

j terminaton from employment. Wu must not attempt to mentnize the unpleasantness of a dscharge by usang a fchtous reason such as a "reducben4n-force" when the employee s actually being terminated for another reason Management must not lay off an employee 1' that wants to quit for their own personal convenence. Individual employee crcumstances or relatonships do not dctate when MK lays off personnel. Using the wrong reason can and often does lead to serous and expensrve problems for tne Corporabon. These problems include civil rghts complaints, lawsuits, unemployrnent insurance habilites and the rehire of indivduals who should not be elgible for reemployment.

t

[MORRISON KNUL IN CORPORATION

! Section 5 - Page 4 of 7

" ueon neunows Eft:ctive: 05 3191 An involuntary termination is one initiated by the Company and can occur for a varety of reasons. A voluntary separaton is initiated by the employee. Separabon categores and responsibilites are outlined below.

1. Reduction-in-Force. It is the responsibility of Management Personnel to assure that when a lay off is necessary that:

a. the individuals to be laid off are selected impartially by management allowing for input from the immediate supervisor, or as mandated by the Collecuve Bargaining Agreement.

b. as provided by the appicable Collecuve Bargaining Agreement, all selecbons for

!ayoff are usually made on the bass of qualfcatam, performance, ability, attend-ance, atutude and the requirements of the job. Anyemployee quesbons regarding a reducton-in-force should be answered by the responsible management supervoor 3 it is important that no dscusson be held with employees relative to any past griev-ances or activities.

c. on constn,cbon projects, should the subject of keepeng " local hires" versus "trav-eiers" be brought up by anyone, including union officals, the response should be "It is Corporate polcy to keep the best quahfied workers" and end any further dscus-son on the subject.

P 0 2. Dv: barge. The rght to terminate an employee may be lirnited by the terms of a collec-tive bargaining agrooment because:

a. most agreements normaty contain language shpulabng that discharDe must be for "cause" or "just cause". Whether or not a decharge s for just cause is determined by whether or not the decharge is reasonab6e and justifab6e; in other words, for a fair and logrtimate reason and not just any reason.

I b. al employees must be judged by the same stardards ard the rules must appty aquely to eX. The pattem of enforcement must be consastent. Ircusistent appica-ton and ordurcKnent of job rules and deciplinary measures can result in grevances being filed with the unon whch may lead to arbitrabon (arbitrators will usuany rule in favor of the grevant if it can be shown that irv::onsstent or irregular decipitnary acton was taken). Charge:: could also be fibd with the Equal Emp6oyment Opportunity Commtsson or state and local agences, including crvil suits for wrongful dscharge.

w L

Il

!' i MOfWNSON KNUk JN CORNN Lamon w a s k

Section 5 - Page 5 of 7 Effective. 05-3191 l

t l

1 1

i c when a employee is discharged, all docurnentation (other than the termination slip) l j to support the reason for decharge should be forwarded to the'approprate Man-i ager and/or Labor Relations representatrve. This may be done in narrative form or i

by completing the Record of Deciplinary Acbon form (See Section 13 - Form j *PER341") and setting forth the facts and the required informaton under the j " Remarks" section of theform.

j d. on construction projects, employees that are " ineligible for rehire" should have that statement entered on the aboveeferenced documentabon as well as on all copies

! of the terminston slip.

3. Voluntary Separatons. The employee is the intstor of all quits. An employee may quit for d variety of reasons that Can generally be pleoed in two CategoW; 1) resignabon for stated or unstated personal reasons (that do not necessanly reprsaant a lack of satslac-ton with the job), and 2) resignaten due to some doestafyrg aspect of the job. When an employee ques, management personnel is to:

a. assure that the employee is geven an opportunty to give a reason for quetbng and that it is so noted on the terminston siip,

b. assure that the terminebon slip is compistely filled out prior to the employee sgning same,

c. assure that when employees phone in and quit, tne informaton is noted on the terminaten slip and on the employee egnature line "Not Armlable - Phoned in and Quit".

4. Termination Slip. Management is responable, prior to mouing the employees' final l check, for assunng that employees being separated from the Company have returned or accounted for Company property; venlied that the appropnete supervoor sgns the

] employees termnemon slip; that the employee signed he terminaten slip (if the employee is absent the day of the separabon, "Not Available" should be noted on the terminston slipt employee sgnature line and inibaled); and that " eligible for rehire" is noted on the termneton slip for those employees being reduced-in force.

l 4

L

4dMORRISON KNUd=cN CORPORATION Section 5 - Page 6 cf 7 m mmms Effectus. 05 3191 v

i

1. Superhs Disciplinary Checidist ,

The effectueness of employee warning nobces, both verbal and wntten, depends upon the i supervoor. In handling disciplinary problems the superwoor must:

l

• Rely upon f.agts _ and data.

• Listen, evaluate. l

• Maintain emobonal control.  !

• Be fair. ,  ;

• Follow the appicable colisctive bargaining Egi::TW4.

• Gather all the facts. i

• Make a decoon.

• Take approprote accon

• Compile an accurate and comoiste wntten report.  ;

)

Prior to the admwiistrabon of any correctwo acton it is recommended that you renew to following Supervoort Checklat and ask yourself. . .have 1:

• conodored whether a h m rmght be a more effectwo way of handhng the atuabon? l

• determoed whether R is an isolated case of meconduct or part of a panem?

• found out how it has been handled in the post?

• asked for "he/her ade of tM story"?

h

• checked out he/ hor expiarc.cn?

• taken a calm but firm approach?

• made certam that I have not shown any doenmnemon toward an indudual or group?

• checked to be sure that my schons and those of other members of supenneen were fair i and reasonable?

• verifed all of the facts and made notes of them?

• checked all past records?

• made cortam that the accon I plan to take can be backed up with proof and be defendecF l l 1

m .- 2-- - , - , --, - ,, -w .- . ---.m-, ,m ,m-

• MORRet$ON KNUC N CORPORATION ( Section 5 - Page 7 of 7 '

m am.Anous Effectivo: 05-3191

(

' )

1 I

i I J. Avoid Preferentiallhaelmont Studies show that consstent treatment of employees usualty is the most important factor in a l

l good, sound labor / employee retabons program and inconsstent treatment of employees is j the most iirpciisnt factor in a successful orgareng drive. More so than wages, unequal

treatment of employees leads to the kind of doenchantment with the company that makes an employee dissatsfied.

j I

l All Company work rules, e#y those govemeng decipine, decharge, races, prom j tions and layoffs should be admenetered fairty and conostently for all employees. Uniformity j of treatment, lack of favontem and non deenmnabon is absolutely essental to good human i retabons.

i l

I 1 .

I l

il

-4 -

(.

o 4

El% /r flh EElGEIQq

/ 6Y $C N WT d 0>1TPAf40/- HAM 44E9uut)

TWr Fou cun % ISGotes tDtMDFtED To ' Mdt ol4W '.

U.n?E6 I l

i cG RtEca.05 fhts,tatAn?os.is OcT0afnj .

1. MK4*Jces l pef &stM80,

- TMCIATcou %FMS WERe

%k2.- th2

ascese., ao ae. m s u w e w a s u a . kr n w au. ,

REca.oG uASE.F />EMe/ATL"O fo Dhe'T bATF PEdl6R6 ujW.

PelfoP Httsb To DJM./LY Wifl4

f. EAGid lit'/ i 94RM6Y5 ceam ago , Horaw- i Ru)Es wear no r oe.u>4euvea s i l

AT k M G:M. t%ff I 1Z6o2.05 w W 4Eus2M a Ta e -

t WCWA--

Dcf)UALMT QQdt6%5 kw ung.tc v.ntta a rw eA.

l CoufpAcrot sa & ducy !  % 4f,e,cs, p g ,- g,yu gy.c4,3ogo RepsStGw=b nu RfsMuse- to H%17.

bl t

L

//

1

/

, 'L l l l ?- l j-

p. - -

s > a_.m e-

//-d- Y .. MM N7kg m&

• w/ Nn, he- E c

& M"' f &&$)&& W An a.-w snu4 %sem)

(b W-yro w.6 -Q 7 9 7 a u s w x p .-

7% ~ g #- w & s 47sa3.n f)& A syg w1 & ~ &=A I

.; ~2brpt ,A ,

Ad/W = fQ /zaA a A,e @ _j9 e #-

pa, kk f + >r A &+ w a m 2- .

o k~ m u s ~~a i

- sq p .

-u, -

.ses - m! y .

% +gDub144~.d:f&y.~a &

T 6 1p b s s a , a s- w dr m + L sep WLaw-p /AA;4/Je M

? .l lTf.5&)Aw/ % awp2 ., L 4=A93%.a4, 7 7 a l L w .

"9- ,

7??</~ p d d ~ Au2 & / s m = ynek

.i ~f ~/p = @ sw ~A/~p3) wuc p>% us jdfu' gi b# ?>!/O v +m w> s u> 6L nn )

' - - * -s -*4--+,_m . _ _

1 h

L fu.  ?>w-y,C 9 / W o->-ry:

L + g _, ano %w#,.g_

w 4

~ WW WW Ws "

a 4

O 4

e . e

i.  ;

I

.. j r

1 iI e

l 1 es )f

,. ! e .h l D

1

a. .

tele & SInl%.'Bl">b Wap,+ n&c.

W >.~ mmg.%l. l kc e +- -

(Mou Q ff/'s M

,,a,4 a,e.

M 'C

.c7k('

f 1

- son wm w-i

--+ RoA tupuj }w- //// gly.

- &@ sd Mws -/ red b W A&. ,

ip.0xh/v A w, #+a m da 4 5a0 % /pw \Mi 4

~

hdAb/f) f OthA, W & k %'.

&ad n nu aca) _

,wnd 4 - w-s y %Agda : no re p<n 3 i++Tq me _ %

L a;c ov u sc A+ cc q et

% l &l  % M'* lb ks-s sD g_ F GM.a n.+e c,s na-k ud4 W .,, .

// u ."<

wrv-r- .4w,. - ,

e S/24/ft' - uh a w #s c # d d u L m A sf de_

W-(V&K cetwp/M}

edl ,- ,

• j

.W 4

. M/* O yfisIRf DS$ l*

n w u k b /c h ,

)

9 ,, , J a inimssyd gz ,p y -,9y ,,4,4 g 'n vidf' N pe

,a cf Pse A p x - ww A na, j{, >Y * =:?SO EO t'

,,g 3 .,

gab) @ w/ m W -

pucea= e Jo h. , sg waan9 ys sg ,g-e -

l & k - g u p ,c 4

,; { /3 m , &

4) m un -

nuc w/n s - a sc sn

/rdweb u%&

M" ' "'/ % !. )

l i

l

,e yh L /: 'l

( ,

LIMIT D DISTRI 1011 -- N FOR PUBL I IRE INVESTIGATI'ON STATUS R ORD .

Case No.: 4-94-010 Facility: FORT ST. VRAIN  ;

- Allegation No.: RIV-94-A-0026 Case Agent: ARMENTA  ;

i Docket No.: 50-267 Date Opened: 03/29/94 Source of Allegation: L Date of Full-Scale Upgrade:  ;

i Notified by: 0AC-RIV Priority: N Category: WR Case Code: R0 l Status: EVALUATION Estimated Completion Date:

Requested by:

Subject / Allegation: ALLEGED FALSIFICATION OF RADIATION SURVEY RECORDS ,

Remarks:

Monthly Status ReDort: Page 4 04/30/95: Report of investigation from Stier, Anderson, & Malone (SAM) was reviewed and evaluated by 01. SAM's report concluded that radiation vehicle surveys and radiation work permits were deliberately falsified by SEG employees. Two SEG supervisors have been  ;

terminated. 0! will include SAM's report in Ol's ROI. Final '

draft of ROI has been completed and is in F00 review. AUSA )

William SELLERS declined prosecution on April 21, 1995. l Status: RIO ECD: 06/95 05/31/95: Investigator received a verbal declination from D0J. Case F00 closed on 05/26/95 l

l l

Closed: 05/26/95 Closed Action: S Staff days to completion (WAR):

Issued: 05/26/95 Referred: Statute:

D0J Action: DEC D0J Action Date: 04/21/95 (verbal) i h LIMITEDblSTRIBUION,-N0kFORPUBL'IkDISCLO E\ TkI/kPP AL gi b.

/ doca

I (

l0 N LIMI D'DISTRI

\ / v TION --v#0 FOR PUB C DIS OSU,RE INVESTIGATION STATUS RECORD l

Case No.: 4-94-010 Facility: FORT cT. VRAIN Allegation No.: RIV-94-A-0026 Case Agent: ARMENTA l

Docket No.: 50-267 Date Opened: 03/29/94 Source of Allegation: L Date of Full-Scale Upgrade:

Notified by: 0AC-RIV Priority: N j Category: WR Case Code: R0 ,

Status: EVALUATION Estimated Completion Date: I l

Requested by:

Subject / Allegation: ALLEGED FALSIFICATION OF RADIATION SURVEY RECORDS Remarks:

Monthly Status Report: Page 3 12/31/94: No change.

01/31/95: Case agent contacted FSV management liaison, Sam Chestnut, and was informed that the internal investigation report prepared by Stiers, Anderson, & Malone was submitted to the licensee on 12/31/94. The licensee indicated they will be in the process of evaluating and reviewing the investigation report and could possible take as long '

as 4 to 5 months to fully complete the review. 01 has requested a copy of the report in order to begin review process. Status: NRA i ECD: N/A I l

02/28/95: Case agent was informed by NRC Inspector, Robert EVANS, that the internal investigation report prepared by Stiers, Anderson, & Malone could possibly be ready for review by 01:RIV on or about March 31, 1995. Licensee contact, Sam Chestnut, indicated the licensee had pressed for an earlier completion review date by licensee attorneys instead of the initial projected completion date of May 1995.

Status: NRA ECD: N/A 03/31/95: Awaiting report of investigation from FSV's Independent Counsel, Stiers, Anderson, & Malone (SAM). Licensee agreed to submit a copy of the report of investigation to 01:RIV by the end of March 1995.

Case gent plans to review jointly the report of investigation with Mark Ma Qne of SAM at FSV during the first week of April 1995.

Status: NRA ECD: N/A r -

/

LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR PUBLIC '

DISCLOSURE WITHOUT ~

01 A PROVAL L

, /

LIMIT a

> ,blSTRI8'UTION-'NOTFfRPUBLICIj.SCLOSMRE

- w u JJ INVESTIGATION STATUS RECORD

Case No.

4-94-010 Facility: FORT ST. VRAIN  :

Allegation No.: RIV-94-A-0026 Case Agent: ARMENTA t Docket No.: 50-267 Date Opened: 03/29/94 i Source of Allegation: L Date of Full-Scale Upgrade:

1

] Notified by: 0AC-RIV Priority:

Category: WR Case Code: R0 Status: EVALUATION Estimated Completion Date:  !

Requested by:

Subject / Allegation: ALLEGED FALSIFICATION OF RADIATION SURVEY RECORDS Remarks:  ;

Monthly Status ReDort: Page 2 07/31/94: Awaiting executive summary report to be completed by PSC's third '

party investigators. PSC has tentatively set August 4, 1994, to personally deliver summary report to RIV NRC staff in Arlington.

Texas. Completion of the entire investigation to follow at a later time. .

08/31/94: OI received a copy of the Stiers, Anderson, and Malone summary l report to NRC RIV staff on 08/04/94. Licensee to provide )

investigative report in October 1994 for the complete report of i investigation. In.the meantime, 01 conducted additional interviews in Denver, Colorado, relative to this pending investigation evaluation.

09/30/94: 01 talked to Bill Brown, Regional Counsel, concerning additional investigative leads relative to this investigation. Additional interviews may be necessary; however, Stiers, Anderson & Malone's i, full investigative report is due out within the next 2 months, and at that time, 01:RIV will determine if further investigations are warranted. 01 will continue to monitor this case.

10/31/94: Report of Investigation from Stiers, Anderson, & Malone proposed to be completed no later than mid-January 1995. 01 will continue to monitor this case and will determine if further investigation activities will be warranted.

) This was an old evaluation. It is being upgraded to a full investigation under the new process review (DG 94-001, Appendix F, 10/1/94).

11/30/94: No change.

, f. /~. O. i v

1 LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT v /F

• PUBLICv disci.0SURE '

WIJkl0VT a

l 4 .. r_/

l*

/ . /~ (\

{x LIMITEuDISTRIBUTION-ANOTf0RPUBLICUISCgUtE d

v v vj v v v INVESTIGATION STATUS RECORD j

Case No.: 4-94-010 Facility: FORT ST. VRAIN Allegation No.: RIV-94-A-0026 Case Agent: ARMENTA Docket No.: 50-267 Date Opened: 03/29/94 Source of Allegation: L Date of Full-Scale Upgrade:

Notified by: OAC-RIV Priority:

Category: WR Case Code:

Status: EVALUATION Estimated Completion Date:

Requested by:

Subject / Allegation: ALLEGED FALSIFICATION OF RADIATION SURVEY RECORDS Remarks:

Monthly Status ReDort: Page 1 94/03/29: Case under evaluation.

94/03/31: Propose to conduct preliminary investigation to determine extent of falsification and review the records alleged to be falsified. Due to higher priority, investigator plans to return to FSV next month and conduct interviews.

94/04/30: Preliminary investigation disclosed that licensee has hired 3rd party investigator to conduct internal investigation. Plan to conduct interviews, including review of the records alleged to be falsified next month and allow the licensee to finish their internal investigation before OI returns.

94/05/31: Internal investigation continues by PSC's 3rd party investigator.

Awaiting completion of the internal investigation to be reviewed by 01:RIV.

94/05/30: Executive sumary report is expected to be completed by PSC's third party investigator on July 6, 1994. 01:RIV has officially requested from PSC, a copy of the report; however, still awaiting completion of the entire investigation to be reviewed by 01.

LIMITED D'ISTRIBUTION - 'NOTJOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE, WITHOUT OIfPPpVAL i&uw h$fhfdwCW

/ (/

i INVESTIGATION STATUS RECORD Case No.: 4-94-010 Facility: FORT ST. VRAIN Allegation No.: RIV-94-A-0026 Case Agent: ARMENTA Docket No.: 50-267 Date Opened: 03/29/94 Source of Allegation: LICENSEE (L) Priority: N (L. J. CALLAN, RA:RIV)  !

l Notified by: WISE (SAC) Staff

Contact:

CHARLES L. CAIN, CHIEF FUEL CYCLE / DECOMMISSIONING BRANCH Category: WR Case Code: R0 q Subject / Allegation: ALLEGED FALSIFICATION OF RADIATION SURVEY RECORDS l Remarks: 10 CFR 50.9 <

I i M[tnthly Status ReDort:

03/29/94: On March 25, 1994, Public Service Company of Colorado at the Fort St.

Vrain Nuclear Generating Station (FSV) and contractor personnel from .

Westinghouse, and Morrison-Knudsen (MK) notified NRC

RIV staff that l l certain radiation survey records at FSV apparently had been falsified by Scientific Ecology Group employees, also a contractor at FSV. The licensee informed the NRC that they had contracted with a law firm to conduct an internal investigation, which had identified falsified j vehicle survey records and radiation work permits (RWP). The licensee j

, related they had identified contractor personnel who acknowledged they j had conducted surveys, but had falsified the surveys and RWPs by i providing results of these surveys at a later date. The licensee related they were continuing to pursue these issues through extensive i j personnel and documentation reviews. It was discussed during an l Allegation Review Panel meeting, and the Office of Investigations (01), Region IV (RIV), recommended the licensee investigation be allowed to proceed and OI:RIV would review the licensee's investigation for adequacy and completeness. Status: FWP [ Field Work

.' in Progress) l 4

a

]

e

{

lq L'tr(

l

(  !

l

~

UMITETb1 INVESTIGATION STATUS RECORD l

l Case No.~: k-fY'OIO Facility: F1 E *"'~

Allegation No.;/2/p fy-A4E6 Case Agent: 2 -

Docket No.: 50-267 Date opened: ,29 A M W Source of Allegation: L Date of Full-Scale ' Upgrade:

Notified by: 0AC:RIV Priority Category: lu d Case Code:

Status: EVL Estimated Completion Date:

Requested by:

Subject / Allegation: @* / ,

h?cx0LW\ 19 "

crt.s$<t .

Monthly Status Reoort:

O l

l 1

l I

MMQED DISTRIS&TTON -- Nul APPROVAL , ,e lk {bl&N !

l l

r I OWIAL USE ONLY (

l#

l jfg7- g g g CASE CHRONOLOGY o,cuo er

$./ _

s'ta missaanh YY ~~0/b m,a massb A 1- W k O f#/W urc acy,,,,,

{ l 3- 2.% 94 Asc,% J 4. CL h . vo o gre.__f 4 ,, L -4 0 sy _e e/4  !

s

] -4v T:s \/  % o < , I . m, i,.m s4 3.M x Fu uuQ -

l 3.-3o-94 ch - n. bw +, i=sv W *,i " " f " - 7 g. = w , g e s,- sg- %  %: e r-5 V tF w ) '2.hw q ue, P- g, 3,u o 4-t-% ha % k.- A .

o=o e e,,s u-7eca- = t u j 4 - b - t *t s-wog (5 64. 9 =4 1) DO A - t + 5 e t 2.6 W E. -

s w a-u _six w .1T 's 1m e - I* vsv 3 <> P S the.r>r s t,n/se/ , . , . , ,~,,,1 94 ; h $w)aa' st/.eud Lis;hhu; l t

._ 3c/A - %--+.s.r esi-r. enc - wa ~ +t.s

<n *H'*~3 >. <n't%w Mw w c .

& s-4. L , e , ,,o arsh r.;

't- \ s -% V w4 %  %,a k s. == 4- m.-?a_L.. s%m ngc . 1= .. .

A -u-6 + - tu n wa ts a'sn"sy m -' t)c.o (RA"o oe,a+,xa.

(-c, es, P-- +n 2 o" ...

4 - 2.2. 9 + - co i F bbe

-4 m4-c .4t < i. rW am .wi o e*s4 . +<  % qq -fo .c.u _ a A_. -H-. t, - w s+,t.

Pg. ta ri ,i s a + F6 v A-Wi..s , to ad W 5-3 s R y- c/A- w L_A. L k -p M (/ w 1~,..:- ,lo n i fs. s.-  : f/L '

-L w k <:.7- At d d%stia>uuhbrW?a /<a st-4. Nsec .

/ dWW fo d fresi k b - W 5) 24- ' '

F O't1 c m f~D b Ar v@ - C Y a a 3 ci r-I , u G r .- .Asc d

~7 - 2 5 'M ch- o eY c JJ h.~ M W > sW d % m paf.

~2 - 2 8-4 V Cla wY .. e o ' 4 e> L --Wu.:t- K'8arLf- 0 (n N& sk

• k l%1s.h %L A u'R --}4.}-L 4 /W' I

')-M-% c/A- lLu 'cl er at l E' N S' O u r// bet & b /?)E k-4*SV)}rxAll?C.%

9 - 3I-N c h . aa.o, w .,e J L' & y w s// c m 4 L ,. h nu l % e ,mits/;mf,k Ncsh a s A em .s,,w.At.MLA -

9 j_ - fy Nes: 72: " **,o- $ ' 4' * ? N S / 9-n -+ y.N uo. r 0 - W . W .

9 -/+ - ? s,' f# p'kib/ w/ r r, r /W/ &~w,v -1<. A%. ', tw 7.< ' c' I 9-/ H v (' / p ic ii ~ /' %% ,e s- '

A At /' sun n /w. /r E / &n a. i s'. < J... f a . Ke !*

<^//fu

/

9 11 t /fff' J/t //se'd W S(  !! L

& / ite 7 / / 4 "Y E'

~

,s - ). ,

.ssa .v. .

/6 -//- N  %.*7%fd'YW#f) no c M rm A k RIL \

/l - 1 tt 9- u '>$t & *' & &er- -w whata a w I-s h'Ic i M . WI d.e.u d ,,,W g/A -Le as,dd

//- / 4.-% l 4 Fde- - I C/-/r.</v 6 #< ./ b S ,.1,m. . .egs # I

• i-n rv nya n w . +, a.w , L w cn:A,-,s /c ? \ l hs / se m na~su 4 m - (1 in in i :v,.,+ .+ r <c... n M... .,<da l l

.s-m.9s c/p Anet w/ w .n& w  % . w/rsw y' 1 .s .n . m . (m A- ) H ita.o -

2. s.c.1 <A ku /.L ws.4ra -

AC Tf v TTY CODES L/W . LETTER Os 088190 TC e TELEPesset CALL sese a essetCTrom 9l .

l ~( J $ l

1

omesat uSE ONLY l, (-

i ._

. 2.  !

[g7 [7 hjg CASE CHRONOLOGY e.e u

. o y-gY-0/ Q e... .

.3-2 p-9</ .

.e,

. == . ,,

f i

3 .2tr.9 s c)n Cruhd u)/f.cv.'Sn M 4/wSw . v6

&& & . p 5;n/.to/ FCt//'" U 1 MW % I M> /u-etGu ' AL.7.L'.T.'

y- 4 -95 Enr w & 4v Rsv -

+ -a=3 s - Bd w ,c/s.wh.g m .o,r. mm psn m '

wL' M lun% . Ms J-/ mk +- A~k MM' M 4 s A. m- c ar e.r.)

4-6 45 - CJA cM k s CAldd y : cas, g pp.gf

%d h e & J C f J 4 # 3 a n V/ M i a&(.

km L A.7C.T, =  ?;nts uosadaid--m ,L,& im-f.f '

n sa+. ..,a ca. nnt -w R. r c . t .

• ) S Rc em to q C/A - ch 1 - 0 C/ or haci e teQ c% <,,I -fr,wscrik e.

8f - t et

-des k - -

<Lu W cov ~

reel c4L w

~

lt+-2.o-ss osee ooa cin - W~ 1 wA Dn at) na/,r rto.cf v h p.4t%-E ~ m M cJ S e G, MIb bw k 07 ba ~

4 -h- o A s - M 5 % re a J +a ELw -o Gn%Y.

4 2.o 45 E o g. s,iJ. a.tb A % TbD & W * 'bQ AFT "

Mco: Ad.tC A. /.b o 3 , wdL( do o .w cu 0_ J d th c( Q h - MW; S; y- 9 s t's' A<is h be eL ') w L1a.s, & t'ene -nt/we,(pa J hs</p r 1

i L/m . 6teten es m.ase re . 7:Lannoac cact mee asesectica

.strvive seats sov masvisaves asp. . aspear essere ege..stwo OFFICIAL USE ONLY 00 NOT DISCLOSE l:

l r '7 ' .

• J L/

f, INVEST!1AT*7E :LAN (, i

DATE:

i 1

l CASE AGENT: CASE NO.:

REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION RECEIVED:

j CONTROLLING OFFICE / REQUESTER:

REVIEW OF REQUEST /ND APPLICABLE REGULATIONS BY F0D:

i i

4

COORDINATION WITH STAFF

)

.e "CORDINAT*0N WITH REGIONAL COUNSEL /CGC:

l .

REQUEST FOR ADDIT!0NAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF:

. SUBMISSICN CF 01 RESPONSE / STATUS CF :.ECL'EST FOR *NVE57* GAT:CN i ' Case Ocening Pacer):

s t

INTERVIEW GF ALLEGER: CONFICENTIAL;TY 3 RANTED: YEI NO ~5 NO.

t l

' r l 'NTE:.V:EW CF APP:.0PRIATE ~TAF: WEMBER:

.w.e..u. .v ...

a --

, .e - . .y . r ..yIr. .et .*.0 NTH' v. *NY:..*

.. . .4 n'i..N . .e-~~.'.e

.n . :rOR*i ' *. :-.-". ': ',,' I ~~,' -. ". :

a. .

i

.,i!_.

. e-..c . e .y .g g7u g: - ygt : u~.n.-e- :;7s; ::- nD' SNG ~~~ -- -- IND ::'.CO*-"

.r

. . , . . .. .. ..: .: ., ...:.n

- . .- .s. .. . . " -

.../...,..-

,. .... -. a r. 3 .N D . . ......s.

... .e. e . - .,. - : . = ..nac . .- a c.t .

1 a

CISC"II;CN CF CASE PROGRE55 WIT" REG:CNAL ADMINISTRATOR:

SUBMISSION OF MONT* U iSR:

DATE FIELD WORK CCMPLETED: ,f[

DATE DRAFT REPORT RECEIVED BY F00-DATE FINAL REPORT SIGNED BY F0D AND/OR FORWARDED TO HQ FOR REVIEW:

2 k $ 0 'W"

f

? ) )

i 1

l 0FPI'IfAL USE ONLY  :

l l

MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE i

,,, m ,.. ... .hr 6osat-isor u.

+/y-freis x...,...-.. witwgn ""

l l ,"" ,"** = ' ~ hi< earn,*- (en)fe-truo g/is/ry

.. .u r, . ,o e ,s..,, w

$Wans ?

lb*b5 $'HA. f Y 0

Y .' '

Y/ ^

i /o : ye w- es.;, J J eis- 4 j y+1 m". AM '- .

l sn: JMa L akis &L A) kf.Is & w4w tALM u:

l

- wed ni,z J h m',2 447 s m -: o i  % ir indw t Mi~ ' '

&n M en' M n M M S m yen.

! i '

L6m L 4e r, x d e.. .t

s  %& $xid &\eobu m M M PSC' W of u &

Okb C J be &t- ~ s ' le :

~

+o . .!

. L+-r 1s w coo A nh l>r a d & fL- A & (by see)I

,a mk' ',/da 12,

~'

l U#' hek enema'771-o n...,

s

%k br+ e) , /,ISv.an m & th suD-b *~ M f h 04 f~ MW P W _

! a,h& ' -

U '

Cl i O .1 :n . 4 J .. a

1. bu. c, a..M% & ./oTtA' ra/EOd' "'

M Rse iwndsla/sAue f

LA lackr. /a \

!, e m / Scda $643 ht Yu$ WO 'nA ba%> $wyer '

$/t.4-A%fw$Afs/ams l\ 4 bid R?IS +o- % k W y a $ 4 4 s rVtv' necrh .

w - . ~n /c/

s, i /i- ,

f.

,2.aan.o e, ACfl02 EdOWIR.0

?j i

s ..

//

<....=.., ....

ti ASFemese t eer Asse se em ea me me met Ae* ,, , ,,

s -

~

} OPPIStAL ust ONLY I 1

j . MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE

{ frog agtecas Matte:Pasf8 F45 me.

W essene or coesseenme. & M'l% y~ff p/g gaaes savstw / ffettle

. , .f e M ,_.

W Saft yggg

/e -s'- 7f' . as,

.e.,, muvv . m. g ,,jpsp. '

! *"*'""' 7 d~ 4 . / 4 ?x. JnaJn ,4 sn ,

\

~ ?MM m M - A L :. / n % o ~ 0 i - Awss D s .a 14524- ne.9x l -R a Ja/ na m : ,ic &i:.,

l Au/rs'n . /M ,' A m r '" ' _

t */ /

l UM & > & w. M /n' - sm sMA

! .,s. &u A~ ~.W kW2 %. wa-l 6-rL k nWMewr/m % D.' LKt l 0- rA) n& vr ua sad 4 Sm-- Ar~_4.< '

j -

l - A ,u L & + nad A e = A a & 4 4 -- --

l

's: ' ,

n en La :u /

w r J M ,,n -

I J.,J-i . ,

, - /Uw ts. .J m o a L A .*.. M %A in

! s .~_ A a L A m &cs% z,s 3) ~ .w n su a me i l

f.n.% sn, "m .D n.. - - -

-J & oJ.t +

Q rA u!/ J n 1. L.

!, ,s i

,A, s,A A, esos / or j l

"'""' T A J R f,. ... ,s..

ST),v -

I 3

REVIE;t. 87 Saft 0FFICIAL USE ONLY - 00 NOT 018CLOSE h[/q/c

1 1

• ) OPPICIAL USE ONLY '  !

.' MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE

! n.:ani minants ma as. *

o -1esene se convessamen gq g g 4 -% fo/o I 3 ***8""'""' 'J. M , L . fb M 4

i er.en gg, ff f 9q y /

' Tiet commentiaury assuserne was

~@ A30 $M(UT) summant

%Y Ce SY N A ! .=

~

$, , L*o~ _

t' p_,, x &

M %. w m ~4=rv. ~

h 4

R u _,c.,an A n #14& cr.~L,@> 02.a, M e s w H j he,el.2 & Y {L Ps\ '

f

! rma 1 o

. _ s aw w  % -su w n L 4.m 2 J n a-K  ?

• > Wt/ 64 *% > Y r* ' ' $ WWt &

wah- u an1 x. wa - a px i

etS cel/Sede) i NML a V/Y/ U

~

i l

j fa L A : L %d % -Hra M1 %

r kW/ 'm v be V-APs m ko .. .. .$d L k g'w s v 42 . . . L i . 'D u im_ *An .OMSD1

( 0 -%.4 ~ T 2 SN Y ~M S $ rw up MEN k W1/ 0f W r t

YY lA4f / /

t ks .

VW l

i i

j -

4 i ,

esos / 09 l M .. __ h , E ,

/o -//-i f or,.= ...u....

etvit".40 87 # ATE OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 00 NOT DISCLOSE cone e n . .. . -

i OPPICIAL USE ONLY l

4 _

MD40RAf800M 70 CASE FILE f,,, m. tu m nts '

nu s.

c name e, ce=vsanano.

gg4,% V 0/D I I **# N /))M t ) etutR 6, 8 Ad& ght{. 2,' f 4 Tf 4

l ries i

a commesariaut, eseusorge was @ g/a e,77 SunnsaRf ,

l; h14 W (b I

U -At;s JAe > a wJ 4 f),w y

^lUu% $ & 44 - kAW

• APc f/ r ~ $wy&

Y1bs . /kY JJi>DE

/

' // VF j 1

bb(,h U YM!k LL -

& ~/s&-* L

! / # #

t

, b b 1 Ao-1lJ

'Y '

F h8 M N a 0 L l 0 $ V " "

11- YW 'A i t -

I i

i i

4 i

i j

4 I

BAet i 39 .5 l SCE PME D ~ Saft li x- k". // W

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

W CEvstr.80 87 BATE 1

OFFICIAL USE ONLY -

00 NOT DISCLOSE

~ ~ - - -

4,Lusu

) b M EbY \

~~

MEMORANDUM TO CASE FILE r ,,a u t. =arie: pants ms .

sesses or comyssearten ggy7 #

g ,

C;5th satt j'- fp - O/3 t3 saas esveau / status t 5 crunn YML W b.YM* , Mal ~lS Y l -

ti s

concesariauty assusetse vu @ /fopjn g7; suusant l

! C hwa -sca a aw a a '

n-l A ea % ter - % cR' & r% -/od

/7h W" sf _ - 4 zwEr e"r1 & Mik v- AtL m'll m wasaq

& d M6m ME.L. d h wd M D - fAe . L & rnO O w18L ~ Aia. 2, /9 f tl: ~ ~

l JL c , il Mnr : &f m/hAvnun du Mw]

m -

f - S w_- w =l + m v & 1 n d mi L M l

A m A L .rn_-,A2-,.ev-is & <<-nf-G " '

l $ . '/n n / #t/4D - A wLp - x M p fro' I M $% + S 61 cusewmA /A#M & 2 4. }& wL* :

' * /% Le 2~] - 4 2 hwA. p .. daui#493

'S n A'# +v  %, s1 T , .

9...., u La- cn-w_ n M _L _, A _ s_ LL w a /, d)<t' d/su > , t $# --b - 7%ea- n Als /A!dith.o'- 4 /kk

%! uu d / A % 4- A- e9 h4 h - - - M

' W w J $w Ael> M "L-s $ M  ;

/A , s ,i 1 +

p ,

f mes / or /

er

- oars

,cekn:af)u km& ,In- //-/V ~ff u r, . = . . .u, .. .

t 847E KEviE M D tv t OFFICIAL USE ONLY - 00 NOT DISCLOSE ff] i& LL-

- - - - - - . . - . ~ . - - - -

. . - .- - . . - . - _ ~ . - .. . - - --.....- - . - - - - . .

t .

NRC reau 213 u.s. NUCLEAA KtCULATORY CCA m2N DATE  ;

f- N

, ne osso

.5'- l ME j

, TELEPHONE OR VERBAL CONVERSATION RECORD g A-Q, i O INCOMING CALL Q' OUTGOING CALL O visir l 1

• I OFFICE / ADDRESS i

PERSON CALLING PHONE NUMeER l EXTENSION i

i LA Ard M PE RSON CALLED C mL OFFICE /ADORESS -

someo-en o PHONE NUMEER l EXTENSION l

%,v %% VM - sde - Cdomdo ' (ao%10-n 57 i

- CONVERSATION Q$t & , L)- 9 tf. 0/ D ! VSW fhfllf ttk hC h

SUMMARY

i PC: W %ces - a. .7A A) . '9 5 - Le Je I M et% Roft n M teks l Es- tr M n 1 Wolkhtkt 1 +erslv % 4tXsf I-Hevs wxs sm by ,-

l

, 'b pK bctS f Se&%(-r em M' 7

• vtud W Scl& c?e  !

i l-Ws.ce4, b et if . 4/t/ekw w.ts hh/ bi, N/ced - sllie l

! wat u euN nd a L Lud 7 fo // . L + //rcit E d N &J ; f r o s s't d fl e h ods A ha <,ca -l'ed a-/ & l NtriS hx} Co$t~ wu'Nk M AO(U dbv- Ed my b'ohh As

• J V '

fow ud Ahdusm .a :/e r e i w.e d a+s M- J -

b L- - k & 414.4~ .i w ' a /u/a ao u

' Y L A MLA. k w AAw f - > >_ < 2 , M f9L1DL .

O C

? CI'kUt) S a.ut ve drA

.7 \..e A+cv_s - L O o>tJ. t & a ; % d b, Ask 1w . A > - ,2 1 A x_r b u ,,k jlw.A v / e /A_ : 2 - ///% /u /h,

/r n '/ea L h ol np A,vi . area d r u, n U r.

_ i

/ / l O /] ,m **et / OP / i PCEPangg's, / l i

gabg y4t f

a ACTics asowings/

w u> n % d.

(

i lAl4 ,

f l

l. lf / &

envie.6 ., . . _ _

. = . , - - . - . - . - - . _ - . . . . , - _ _ . - - . - . - - _ . - . . - - . . . - ~ . ~ . . - . - . ~ . - - - . - . . - . - . _ . _ - . ~

4' b

NRC Peru 213 v.s. NUCLE AA REQULATORY Coan. .saglON DATE 4

N mCM 0340 $* {[ bY TM TELEPHONE OR VERBAL CONVERSATION RECORD /3o COMING CALL O outgo NG CALL O vis:T i I PERSON CALUNG OFFICE / ADDRESS -  ?

~ PHONE NUMSER l EXTENSION l ott M t p M.o M FSV-Si44 ] Cow 2 Abo (503) slo -,95+ i i

i PERSON CALLAD OFFICE / ADDRESS -

PHONE NUMSER l EXTEN$10N i

tuk Ard 5 .

o r-Rat CONVERSATION

( e n ) s s o t ii o  ;

J

• • • ^*'

M ny', if-9hi-O/0 : E//9 d SkA$tebk.*Zur9 Lea.&

! sumuARv m ,,. _,,

- . ~ . _ , .

j l As au- c y cork - .Pc,r 's y r.d vad ,voeff,Q l

, h_ c& c A - h 1 e e co u A.

fo % ,c u

~

l &A i L + od warrf. W. m cw br & ~s' nl t

o-i j

22i A4 mties1 :

F sM/ 6 M1h o/aW b 1

mem n LW JJw d to-2dhe

, ~,

u

{ -/- [ #WA V< *2 T - w t a k e d R p - D. 81u.lu - An d nA 4, Jak 4 gon l: zw,4um 4

<w< A mA 4 pa e -

mA W a & x /n % 2 4 W : w d w . d 4 '

_t> . Eto-leu

/

o~ w3 & 1- 6 Aers .D. %n 1.d W ,

klo3Ncf4- ik,A== L_L siuud / ,wcxs c.=%:..,s arf l

'c

/ <

(uaua+ rm w)  !

DK JJ's M w/ok 09, FM& (jued&d/~ b v

(/

IAMP ( d : _MM i j l

Y4o Y%'s '

ACV F

?e Y . he$. Whm i '

W$~ '

negg ( 09 /-

1. 1. E74a80 87

• Sett g/n /9Y -

&Citees ageusag3 Etveestg gy hlhed 6---

._.m . _ . - _ _ _ . . .. - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ - _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . . _ _ _ . . _ _

i . N;C poxu 213 u.s.Nuctsam assutAronv co*" sessoN DATE

! u?g ease d "/7 - ?f

'. TELEPHONE OR VERBAL CONVERSATION RECORD ME pp [

ShCOMING CALL O OUTGOING CALL C VISIT PERSON CALLING OFFICE / ADDRESS l PHONE NUMSER l EXTENSION i

////tfiM /////)(CNf OI.'ON ff)d'46 $7/ b

! PE RSON CALLED OFFICE / ADDRESS PHONE NUMSER l EXTENSION i /){L}lf6Yf$, , 'StN 2o3 0247S]

i . CONVEFISATION FS9/ 9b0/5 lLMW 0/O j

SUMMARY

s l N4MI O n '

Sfk1%+ O m rW pA;i4 L Psr LS t%G/ .i Ie d ;' m u we c N & & Q ,

YWk tww$ 0 Q& caA/

/ / W P d- &cc l' ( ?Vb- A W>a Je~< - twt

/ M 'Av m' Asc

! /

,w>sAA _. A c l o m a L L .f k J) - s l.,

w $ w /b _

& ksM th ' _

a v <

J j ~

I 1

t esos ) or L. '

hf/9/9Y

,,.. s ..,... ,

EEW8 tete av Soft f

j (4 #M

- - . - . . - . . - . - . - . - . - . . - - . ~ _ - . _ . - . ~ . . . . . . -

N;C recu 218 , u.s. NuctsAn necutarony ce sasioN DATE "E

K44/f4 TELEPHONE OR VERBAL CONVERSATION RECORD 'p Jd  ;

bCOMING CALL O OUTGOING CALL O vis:T l PERSON CALLING DFFICE/ ADDRESS I4 A 8&ct PERSON LLED fsv-r/h-PHONE NUMeER l EXTENSION f3 o, ypp,,

, , - OFFICE / ADDRESS PHONE NUMEER l EXTENElON W '

oi hl 05 h /) bb6 $//D CONVERSATION

~

SusJECT Q -f}#0/$ V ~ $.4 0/ D

SUMMARY

sn /Mndi  ;

i i

l l

REFERRED TO:

O ADVISE ME OF ACTION REQUESTED ACTION TAKEN.

M'Mdh *

~

DAtE-)f-b' INmALS ACTION TAKEN wk tVn/ ash ~ w/cm ^^> ^"

9'-9y-O/O NKC PORM 216 I4 76 3

- l.2:0juc

7

;7g  ;;y 7; ,  ;

.I !IIl i  !!

!  ! W!,!!!o!!,! e! ,!

j l II I ! $! !

!,!![Id,!lIj'jl,lId l!dII$1!!

Illdi!!,!!!

! i

199 judin!il.

! i i l

lieiliilhillill!! p!

Idll;jipli!

a!Ila;

)

l lu1181111idPJ l 3-l

I SU i

f L ill

____ _ _ ___ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _i y

g toes.ie se cyn ch. xvu (71.en adulen) P seedyos.d nostin % w decelesed to other offleers or employ. (d) Upon the roguest of an eagleyer, grounds to helleve that the alleged wk- recteur. . hk to non, ma: '

ese concerned with earrying out this any authertsed representeuve of een. neuem arten be shall muse an hopec- hh es#Ie'e#0e in wheet:

• Act er when relevant en any preeeed- pleyeen under g 198B.8 la en area ess- teen to be omede as seen as procesenhae.

Ing under thte Act. In any such pro. e ana=T trade seente ehmE he am, aon- to determane if such anaged ytonouse p 8 8 R8 pony and the empt  ;

their *ws ~p  ;

essens the Secretary, the '%===.a=-

ston. - u,. ee.,t .no - .uch ployee u,ortsed la h,that u,earea espe.ro.or en to emeterse e.te, u as- .ewima

.i n rampactions be use.ted under this soeuse to ensuore ~ or. .

ordere es smay be appropreste to pro- area. Where there le no ouest repre- ferred to h the comedakst.

""'*8* 'h' A"8'8883 888 or

• • '*'EIF* "

i (c) Prter to or sharing any inspetuon I teet the eenfldeousalty of trade oe- sentauve or semployee, the twsmpaannee '"'o'f of a workpanee, any eseployee or repro. w the Area crets." Soetton I6 of the Act le a==dd- anfety and Health Ofneer ehmE een.

i ered a statute within the menetas of esatt with a reassenkte sumher of sea. * """"P'***'I"8 eentatfw such of ammpanyees wortpense ammy neuryesmployed the co n. in law o storer and wntien su !

escuem sesthMan of utas s of tam paoyees wine wert in that area een.

l United States code, wtdeh aussages earntes esatsere of enfety and heaMh. pilance Safety ased Health Offleer, ha W g mh,- de88'8e# and late reesi l wrtths. of any vtelation of the Act "'*'*"I of law Amt !

frees the manceande requiremmente song, ters that are "spoetnemIly eneageod 0 1988.10 C==mi-an , web asstspe, whkh they have reemon to betteve e mal Detteter shall he fina l I ersets k suds worhytmee. Aar auch euhfeet to furtswr wm, i frees dimeteenere by statute." enfdy and BeaMh N motsee shan eeuwly with the require. If the Area Director er i th> ascuen teos of uus 18 ef the em may esandt wMk m onsets of parasreph (a) of thle oseden. that se impoetten k not warr [

4

' United states code provides: "Whoev- e8888EE 8e88888a e """F" safety (d) Secuen 11(eMI) of the Act pro. emme the requiremmente og g : ,

er, betns an ofneer er ammployee W the n e ey h m "No pense shaR escherse or in Itaw met been meet he shall r United States er of any department er Besamery for tage enduet of m eh any mammer esW m, man e any party in wr1 asemey thereof* puhtishes. Grubene. esw ed tamorough n-p=.eam= Durtes employee nn."== such emotoyee bee h seen de.s manca e or seaken known he may take eeur m e m IMyestin. myen- fBed emy amayaname er gesuget.g e, shnu be wtthout prefuemee to amanner or to any extent met auther- pteres sham he anorted m espertmal- easmed to be amoututed any procoomes of a new essetakst mesetens t

' had by law any inferneatase comake to ty to bytes any vtetattee of the Aet usador er related to then Act er has too. guerennente of g 1 pes.11(a).

hien in the course of has suspierseset whiten he nues reneen to theMeve autete eined er le abaist to tesury in '

I la the wort.dmee to time ausmuse of possemens or beenuse of 8 3888 38 38'*Immetemacer a.inussa by - -mph ,oe a he t,he, o n a, ,,,e. eve, n.d as soo,, as ,

4 j o, retu,n. ,e,, ort e, roose, u.ade to e; ~ ~ =ofdyed=e==Of-A m t. er stagere of my rtsht afforded by than anee Safety and Health Off (

filed with, mach depare==mt or egency or ofneer or emapioyee thereof, wtateh g gggg,gg g W by W eludes on the hemis of an b '

IdeeN4e Dr the Office et % that coedluone or practices infornentase concerne or relates to the 9meget umeer esmeret maaher 3333 any pleee of eenployment wh'  !

trade escrete. preesseen, operh (*) Aar easederse er terresentattw style of wort or apparatus, or to the of employese who housw tant a Wats-8 reasonably be expected te esa ideouty, emendenual statteuent data, taen of the Act estate ha any wortryanma gas ym 11e00. Suet. 4. nets, e, among,g ,g er sortous phyelcal harm inar !

amount er soures of any Imman=a prof. wtiere auch emotoyee le employed anny Deym stese. June 1. tees) er before the imuninence  !

Ita. losses, or expenetures of any roguest an in=Pmeten of euegg wort. h em he eHaninated thg. ,

person, Gren, partnership, corpormaann pleee by stvtes instaes of the aDesed ggg, , ggg  % met sur m onds hufse- enfoseemsent procedures a or anmodauan; or perumste any inan==, es amenam to the Area Derseter er to a pretteled by the Act. he shat return or copy thereof or any book 'hy"a== Safety and BenMh Ofn.

(al If the Area Dersetor deteranense the affected ennployees and e.

cone -naans any abstract er partteubare ear. Amy sueh nettee shmE he reduced that as boosetism he met warrested Ino. of the danser and that he i thereof to be esem or e===a-ad by any te wriths. shan est forth wMh ressen. Muu titem am see ressemakte grenames "=ametaf a civH neuem to resta r perseen except as prowlded by law shan atple pertasestartty time greennes for the to haben thet a vioiauen er danger esceuana or praettees an*" i tse need not enore than $1.000, or ha. notaos, and chan he stened by the esm. enhee wMh respect to a a==pama-e appropriate relief in acco. I i

prisoned not more than 1 year. or playee er representative of semptereen. under l1933.11 he attaH notify um the prevletone of secuon las t both; ased shall be reenoved from offlee A espy ahan he provided the semployer  % party he wrtung of ensch Act. Asspropriate citations any I or Ida egent by the Area Derseter er m 'I1se esseplatakes party *f pr"Pa==d penalties may ti may"estakt mHew of mach deternmann, wMh respect to an imminent !l or eenplorument."

(c) At the enesumenesonent of an in- W Safety and Realut Orneer um by outmitting a wrteten anna- e even though, after being inte f l spectaen, une esmadorer anny idanuty no later them at the th of leagusetten, ,g postuom with the A=mam

. nan =%emeest wtanch con- eseept that, uses the regeset of the e =a moyenn. etsch danger by the Compilarw  !

areas in the g M' uter and, at une amone timme, pre. and Health Offleer, the empt i taan er which malght reveal a trade person stetsus such nettee. Ide nemme 't the eengdoyer with a copy of anodistely eliminates the immt i secret. If the Coenpliance Safety and and the names of hadividumI employees such % by certifled unalt. The the danser and initiates steps Health Offleer has no clear ruman.n to rWerved to Laterste chan met appear ha t quesuen such idenufication. Informs. such copy or en many record puttished, may makselt an opposing maett eBanger l r.a====d etatem

=e ent of position with the uan otetained in au nasauve, suchponto ar.d arene,o i,nelsens pt.et p.a ntor,made e - avasahte by the De- ,3,,,,g he e i e.

on. otreet.,

redde the an= paman.

and. at = = - - . <

debanom.

graphs. and enetronomental paa= (b)If usson reestyt of such notaflet- l las party wMh a copy of such state-

,,,g (al "Ihe Area Director shal  !

ehan be labeled "confidanual-trade taen the Area Director determan== thed escret" and shah not be dA=.a mma the ====pantat mesets thee requireessets g,,,,g ,g certifled sman Upon the re-emmelaining party or the*

the inspetuon report of the i ance Safety and Health Office !

except in meeordance with the provi- set forth in paragraph (a) of this es> eunployer, the Amtstant Regional DI- the heels of the report the Are etone of secuen 15 of the Act. Gen. and that there are reassenkte ,

34 36 i t

J

(,

l 11 I"1 it Sei({tta' , y

!I 4 i g!

i!!r3 s!,il ri t lij lf 1

d igijoo<l lig

m. i jlilg -

! i!il!Ill! idisIlr,4 rail #

l .

l)I!?l)

, i , nic Jl: i i i i i i

I I 8 3 l [nn ifii:-)!jl]q i, g,i i a n i i IIIII f l i llld I d .1 M,11 '

l i! liri ami ina n1 l*l

i

! 1, i i ti !

I ri .i r ldl il 1i l'i :! 9!Ilr,i i 31 1

- l >l!l l g :t ic i {IrI

}) l ,ji1 .i i

g i  ! l!.

!ijeill l ispl Is , Tg,it , ipa nnllt'-~ I iel isi

=

ii!!!L!iti q !H,,hy dlh Iljionl!

l ljl, lisheli l1 liililli![.i! p l

=

Ijili !jl'l unp'!: !Ifj g{I j 6 i 6

.l ii.{i

i. ' iri a '!.r.,7 n i

!i$1hinlil

!1 il!l>  ;!110111l.

il jlill!!11j  !] "A j @,, l l ,

!  ;'iii"Imli' l '

WL ' -

r~

jh{u 1l!?!?f'EllPbit lj iiw !}j' j[)I '

! lbx !ni!Ili!iq}ill!!!!MilhI!y!ltrlie

!!il!!!illi iAi Fi !!

,- n r-w , - - , - - + - --e, -- ,-