ML20137S208

Discusses 940325 Telcon from Listed Licensee & Contractor Personnel Re Rept of Falsified Survey Records

ML20137S208
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Saint Vrain
Issue date:	03/28/1994
From:	Fisher W NRC
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20137S172	List: ML20137S169 ML20137S208 ML20137S233
References
FOIA-96-434 NUDOCS 9704150058
Download: ML20137S208 (4)

Text

. . .

l to j i -

6 ,

i HEMORANDUM FOR: File ' March 28, 1994' FROMi WLFisher i

SUBJECT:

Fort St. Vrain Report of Falsified Survey Records

'It'about3i30p.m.onMarch 25, 1994, Bob Kirspel and I took a telephone call l from the following Public Service Company of Colorado (PSC) and contractor  ;

personnel: j j

Mike Holmes (PSC)

Don Warembourg (PSC) i Ted Borst (PSC) i C Calton (Westinghouse) e l

E. Parsons (SEG)

W Aug (MK Ferguson) l M Fisher j S Chesnutt The purpose of the telephone call, according to Mr. Warembourg, the principal l spokesman, was to notify Region IV that certain radiation survey records at Fort St. Vrain (FSV) apparently had been falsified by certain Scientific Ecology Group (SEG) employees, as described below.

1. -An independent, 3rd party investigation is being conducted for PSC.

(The scope of this ongoing investigation was not described.)

2. Separately from the above investigation being conducted for PSC, SEG hired 2 independent investigators to review records management systems at FSV. That investigation found discrepancies in:

o radiation surveys concerning releases of material from the site in late 1992 and c radt:tien surveys concerning P.adiation Work Permits (RWPs) in early 1993.

3. PSC believes that, during both Periods, radiation surveys were performed appropriately but survey records were not maintained.

o Regarding the 1992 releast surveys, PSC has concluded that:

o procedures had not t;cen followed and o records were falsified, o Regarding the 1993 RWP surveys, PSC has concluded that:

0 there had been a failure to follow established procedures and o there had been apparent falsification of records with intent to deceive.

4. Regarding safety significance, PSC believes that:

i I

9704t50058 970407 L PDR- FOIA SAURO96-434 ,PDR a

t t

f f,.  :

3

o. necessary surveys had been conducted and o there had been no overexposures or personal intakes of radioactive .

material. l S. Corrective actions: -

o Westinghouse temporarily suspended work in controlled areas last ,

night (March 24),

o Pending PSC providing.(to Westinghouse) appropriate criteria,  !

there will be no release of material from radiologically controlled areas (RCAs).

o' Training of affected personnel will start Monday, March 28.-

o SEG is expanding its review into other areas.  :

o' Certain personnel will be placed on administrative leave because I of'their involvement in this matter.

o PSC is issuing a stop work order (to stop all work inside RCAs) {

effective Monday, Harch 28. l o PSC has asked Westinghouse for an overall records review "to clean ,

up the whole records system."

o Finally, PSC is asking SEG why PSC should have confidence in SEG management onsite.  !

6. PSC expects to learn results from its 3rd party investigation (see #1.)

in 2 or 3 weeks. l

7. PSC is uncertain whether to issue a press rele'ase. (Later, PSC told Joe ,

Gilliland that they would issue a press release o/a March 28.)

8. The matter started to come to light in early March 1994, but PSC did not learn of the falsification until the week of March 21.

9. The SEG investigation had identified 3 "pr"ary olaye"" in the i

falsification of survey records.

10. PSC does not yet know how many shipments during the September-December 1992 period were affected by the falsification. The SEG investigation so far has reviewed 15 release records. Survey and record requirements during this period were specified by the "old" PSC decommissioning plan run by SEG. j

11. PSC believes that possibly all RWPs in 1993 (approximately 100) were i affected by the falsification. Records related to only 1 RWP have been reviewed so far. Survey and record requirements during 1993 were specified by the new decommissioning plan. j t  ?

i l

1 s- l

( l

.4-., ..

12.- 'The' Westinghouse representative asked whether a Ptrt 21 report'might be appropriate. .I said I did not know, but that if so~we would accept this telephone report as.the initial notification required by part 21'. .

I l

J f

I i

)

l l

l I

i i

i f

i l

l i

i 1

(

(

ALLEGATION ASSIGNMENT FORM Allegation Number

Ed-44-4-002%

fim! Facility or r e -[ ORT 67 YR41d -

DLeaW at ARP meeting on: 3fMliy Assigned to: DRP, DRS, DRSS, SAC Bmoch: ,

OIinvolvement? f/ c3 OI tracking number:

ARP instructions /g'Ma c: k r$ kbddw ([ hm Cs W %x.A., DE snb (M mm, !N LV k (L W m L b.

u o

$w .

ARP Chauman Date:

i Allegation Resolution Plan (return to the SAC within 10 days of ARP meeting):

i i

Submined by: Date:

cc: Allegation File, ARP Meeting File, OI