ML20154Q195
| ML20154Q195 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1998 |
| From: | Davis W, Letts B NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154Q178 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-98-261 1-97-038, 1-97-38, NUDOCS 9810230169 | |
| Download: ML20154Q195 (25) | |
Text
.
Title:
INDIAN POINT 2:
FALSIFICATION OF SURVEILLANCE TEST RECORDS BY A NUCLEAR PRODUCTION TECHNICIAN Licensee: Case No.: 1 97 038 Consolidated Edison Company of Report Date: January 22, 1998 ,
New York, Inc. (
Broadway and Bleakley Avenues Control Office: 01:RI ,
Buchanan, NY 10511 ll Docket No.: 50 247 Status: CLOSED l l
l Reported by: Reviewed and Approved by:
i l
'c. j L&b v& l~ 1\ L William J. Davis, Special Agent Barry R. Letts, Director 1 Office of Investigations Office of Investigations !
Field Office, Region I Field Office, Region I l
l Participating Personnel:
Kristin L. Monroe, Special Agent
- Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I 9810230169 981021 PShzah8261 b PDR .
WARNING NOTIISS INATE, PLACE IN THENPUBLIC;QOCUtlENT RdOMb I!ktjSS
'sT OF TijIS REPORT .0F INVESTIGA ION SIDE N ITHOUT i
. #1THORI THE PR0/ING OFFICIAL'0F , S IZED T V 06U /
El '
o h@ME (i S /C {iU ,
~
SYNOPSIS On September 25, 1997, the Office of Investigations (0I), Region I (RI), U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), initiated an investigation to determine if a Nuclear Production Technician (NPT) deliberately falsified an emergency light surveillance test record at Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2 (IP2), Buchanan, New York, on August 8, 1997. Once initiated, the investigation was expanded to determine if the same NPT deliberately falsified a diesel generator compressor surveillance test record on the same day.
Based on the evidence developed during this investigation. OI concludes that the surveillance test record for Apaendix R Emergency Lights, PT M49B: and the surveillance test of the Emergency Jiesel Generator, PT W1. both dated August 8,1997, were deliberately falsified by the NPT.
s fb0 PUBLIGb1SCLOSUREWI
' 1" % f,.l T
- d '" OUTAPPRQVALO
RS" % $
I f
i l
l-i THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY i
I I
l l-l l
l-l ,
^
[( 1/Nk, FORI'PtbLIC DISCLdSURE hlNh0lB IPP80 VAL 20$,/
F(ELDS 0RF,{CE DIRECTORh 0FFICE OF \INVES1 GATIONSKREGION I 1 g- s-
_ y s
.y - : _, ,
~
.s .s -
, (
s ~~. .'~'
g, u Case No: 1 97"-038 2
\
. 1
. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Paae SYNOPSIS ................................. 1 LIST OF INTERVIEWEES ........................... 5 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION ......................... 7 Applicabl e Regul ations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Pur)ose of Investigation ...................... 7 Bac(ground ............................. 7 Coordination with Regional Staff .................. 7 Allegation (Falsification of Surveillance Test Records by a Nuclear Production Technician) ................ 8 Evidence ........................... 8 Agent's Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Conclusion .........................20 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 LIST OF EXHIBITS .... ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
. r'l NOTdOR' PUBLIC bISCIOSURE kith 00T / APPROVA4 0FT '
(FIEL'0F8CEbl, RECT %,OFF.ICEOFINVESTJ..,GATIONSijREGION.I x vf. 4 -
- ~ ~ . , . . _ .
, ,.- w .
-C$se'No.'~1-97038 3-
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
,~,,
, \ -
, /,, ,
, f .,-NOTF0QPUBLICDISCLOSUREWITH APPRDVAL(OFI FIELQ OFFICE DIRECTOR,x0FFICE,10F INVES GATIONS, REdION I
/\ y s
's
\' Case x A 'N5I
/ VY-'97 0W ' ~'s' 'N' x(
4 - N.
( -- 'v N . rf
'D'
LIST OF INTERVIEWEES Exhibit BISHOP. David. Senior Specialist. Outage Management Group, Indian Point 2 (IP2) .................. . . 24 & 29
! GASPAR. Joseph, Nuclear Plant Operator, IP2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 HUGHES, Gerard, Testing Manager, IP2 ................ 22 & 23 INZIRILLO, Frank, Manager. Testing and Performance Division.
IP2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 & 31
' T Former Nuclear Production Technician, IP2 . . . . . . . . . 25 Nuclear Production Technician. IP2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 q
QUIRK John,' Senior Engineer, Configuration Management Group, IP2 . . . . 19 Nuclear Production Technician. IP2 . . . . . . . . . 20 & 21 hlb .)FormerNuclearProductionTechnician.IP2 . . . . . . . 27 Nuclear Production Technician. IP2 ..... . . . . . 28 i
1 I
i NOI FQR 'PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL 0F
'FIEL3\0FFICE DfRECT04, OFFICE OF 'INVESTIGATf0NS,^ REGION I
\( sx- -
Case No. 1-97 038\ 5
l l
. 1 i
i l
l 1
l l
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY l
l L
l
'l
- \ \
) , ,. .
/ f lNOTlF0 M BL'C DISCLDSURE WI,THOUT APPROVNL 0F, .
.c FI D FICE IREC , FICE F 1,NVEST GATI S.REGIONI s s,'
\. s '- \ 's ' .
Ca(be N .1-9 -038 -
' N s.
l.
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Aoolicable Regulations Technical Specification 6.8.1(e): Implementation of NRC License Condition 2k, Fire protection program implementation 10 CFR 50.5: Deliberate misconduct (1997 Edition) 10 CFR 50.9: Completeness and accuracy of information (1997 Edition)
Puroose of Investiaation This investi ion was initiated on September 25, 1997, to determine if ower Plant, a Nuclear Production Technician (NPT) at Indian Point Nuclear it 2 (IP2). Buchanan New York, deliberately falsified a %
surveillance test record of Appendix R Emergency Lights, PT M49B, on August 8.
1997. Once initiated, the investigation was expanded to determine if the same NPT deliberately falsified a diesel generator compressor surveillance test record on the same day (Exhibit 1).
Backaround On August 18, 1997. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) resident inspectors at IP2 discovered that a degraded condition existed in several of the Appendix R Emergency Lights in the Power Auxiliary Building (PAB). A subsequent inspection on August 19, 1997, of all thirty-three emergency battery lights in the PAB by Consolidated Edison (Coned), the licensee revealed that several other batteries had low water levels, and/or corroded terminals. On August 22, 1997 Frank INZIRILLO. Manager of the Test and Performance Division n (T&P), advised the NRC resident inspectors that the last surveillance test of
. I the emer ncy pattery li it4 in the PAB had been performed on August 8. 1997, by and B Security logs indicated that both individuals had been in the PAB on Aug)ust 8. 1997, for approximately fifteen minutes each.
INZIRILLO advised the NRC inspectors that the minimum amount of time it takes to perform a test on one battery light is sixty to ninety seconds.
Coordination with Reaional Staff Robert TEMPS, NRC Senior Resident Inspector at IP2 advised that Technical Specification 6.8.1 (Exhibit 32) requires that written procedures be implemented covering activities referenced in Regulatory (Safety) Gu-de 1.33.
November 1972. Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33 recommends written procedures that govern procedural adherence. IP2 Administrative Order (SAO) 133. " Procedure. Technical Specification and License Adherence and Use Policy." Section 5.1.1 (Exhibit 3), states that procedures shall be followed.
Procedure PT-M49B, Appendix R Emergency Lighting (Nuclear), procedure PT M49.
Emergency Lighting, and procedure PT W1, Emergency Diesel Generator, require signatures for completion / performance of all procedural steps.
s t
,, i , <
. APP 40VALOF ,,
, (NOTFORPUBLICDISCLOSUREWITH0
, FIE(D'\0FFkE vy DIR{CTOR, OFFICE (0F IM(EST GATI'ONS p 3p(FtEGIdN/
3 z,,
Case No. 1 97-038- 7 .
As described in the NRC inspection report, contrary to these regulations, on August 8,1997, an NPT signed steps in procedures without having performed the required actions, resulting in a reculatory violations and potential deliberate wrongdoing (Exhibit 33).
At the monthly OI prioritization meeting in RI on November 13, 1997, the De uty Regional Administrator changed the priority of the case from normal to hi h.
Allecation: Falsification of Surveillance Test Records by a Nuclear Production Technician Evidence Review of Documentation Appendix R Emergency Lighting (Nuclea t and Performance Package, V PT H49 ompleted and signed by on August 8,1997, indicating that{r-he and had initiated and comp an inspection of thirty three emergency ba ery lights in the PAB on August 8, 1997 (Exhibit 4, pp. 18 and rg 21).
Emergency Diesel. Generator, bearing M'jinitials, %. Tetst and Performance in sections 3.4.1 andcheck offindicates 3.5.2, sheet, PT that W1, k.
he had perf5rmed a second verification of ttlese attributes. The ment also g contains the initials ) indicating that he performed the initial test and primary ve)rification on August . 1997 (Exhibit 7).
The IP2 Security Reporting Sys m( ) Log for M badge # for Augus , 1997, indicates that was in the7AB fr)om 10:00 a.m.
a.m.: ntered the Maint ance utage Building (MOB) from the PAB and staye' there fore approximately fifteen minutes. Thc icg does not show entering the Diesel Generator Building tDGB), door 214, on August 8, 199 --
(Exhibit 8).
Ihe IP SRS Log for . badge (S) for August 8,1997, indicates that h.
( W was in the PA for a)pproxidiately seventeen minutes, and in th approximately fifteer minutes (Exhibit 9).
The I SRS Lo for NPT M .) badge , for August 8, 1997, indicates that as in the' DGB for tpprox1 ate y seventeen minutes (Exhi t 10). ff %
The IP2 Station Schedule for the week of August 3 9, 1997, indicates that the Operations Department scheduled the surveillance test for the emergency battery lights in the MOB, PT M49, to be initiated on August 7,1997: and the surveillance test on the emergency battery lights in the PAB, PT H49B, to be initiated on August 8, 1997 (Exhibit 12).
, <- i I
ORkPl6LIC:hI'SCL0hphE WhfN0hAPAR(bkl_/bh
)NT Rg()4FFICEDIRECTOR,QFFICEOMNVESTIGAMONS ii t EhD ~ -
.- ' y , j y j Case No. 1 97-038 8
The Test Division (TD) Job Assignment Sheet and Labor Re rt ed by Gerry HUGHES, dated August 8, 1997, indicates that and assigned to initiate surveillance test PT M49B in )were G '
an to co6plete surveillance test PT M49 in the MOB. In addition, .
perform a second verification on the diesel generat rs. PT W1 and PT W5. The
)wasassignedto b, primary tests for PT W1 and PT W5 were assigned to M )(Exhibit 11).
Emergency Lighting, Test and Performance Package. PT H49, signed byMhonEy, August 8,1997, indicates that he completed the inspection of emergency ights in the HOB on August 8, 1997. The test had been initiated on August 7, 1997 (Exhibit 5).
1 Interview of INZIRILLO (Exhibits 17 and 31)
Frank INZIRILLO, Manager of T&P, has been employed at IP2 for approximately fourteen years. Among his current dutie res si e NPTs in the Testin Division (TD), which include r 6 nd their immediate supervi r, HUGHES. -
INZIRILLO stated that he interviewed % ) n August 20th. Mladvised him that the PAB emergency battery light te~st, on August 8, 1997 h8db G, conducted according to the procedure. INZIRILLQ rec led asking % een could you have missed filling the batteries?" did not respond } "howfb INZIRILLO stated that, at the time of the interview. e was not yet fully aware of the scope of the problem: i.e., the number of degraded batteries or the amount of time the NPTs had been in the PAB (Exhibit 17).
AGENT'S NOTES: INZIRILLO pre]ared co ingthisinterview,E/.
and subsequent interviews of Dothh~remorandum ')and .
(Exhibits -15 and g 16).
INZIRILLO stated that he interviewed M
- hehadreceivedthesecuritylogsan@becam)onAugust25,28,and30th,after aware of h 3e of the problem. The security logs indicated that nd ladbeeninthe((
PAB for a total time of approximately thirty minut)es (fift minutes each) on August 8th (Exhibits 8 and 9). INZIRILLO sa,d he knew it was impossible for the emergency light test to have been performed correctly in that short a period of time (Exhibit 17).
In the course of the interviews, told INZIRILLO that he could not remember the specifics of t emer ncf 1i ht est on August 8th, or the amount of time it took them and to perform the test, because th mi have been leap f ging as t performed the test. This statement by lled INZIRILLO to believe that had been involved in the test (Ex ibi .
,7 ) . ~
told INZIRILLO that he only assisted the lead NPTs in the emergency n/
light tests, and that he did not have ultimate responsibility for these tests.
- since he was not a Nuclear Plant Operator (NPO) and is not formally qualified r)L to perform the emergency light test. INZIRILLO testified that, although the TD does not have a formalized list of what surveillance tests individual NPTs
/Y LIC)DISCL'0SURijl W8HbuT AJP /
'FI ' 10T OEFCK]DIRp F0k PU@CTOR, OFl FACE.\ RtGI
%K-OF I fNV l
. 1-97 038 uJ ik', j Case 9
are qualified to perform, he feels that is qualified to perform every6Y.
aspect of the emergency light test, sinc it does not involve configuration g changes to plant systems (Exhibit 17).
are qualified to perform INZIRILLO added that . land (
tests which deal wit s stem configurations because of their previous operations experience. although he is not cualified to operate plant systems, may serve as lead NP on other INZIRILLO testified that the fact that t basec on his expertise.
did not have a formal g rg qualification to perform the PAB test d mitigate his responsibility in performing the August 8,1997, emergency light test in the PAB. It was for thi reason, that IP2 management held him to the same level of responsibility as nd gave him the same suspension (Exhibits 17 and 31).
AGENT'S NOTE: On September 16, 1997, was suspended for twenty -'
days for improper documentation of surveillance test records.
INZIRILLO stated that is qualified to be the lead NPT on the emergencyb' light test in the MOB, nd hat his administrative and technical responsibilities as a lead NPT on the M0B test would be the same as a lead on D the PAB test (Exhibit 31).
INZIRILLO added that the emergency light tests in the PAB and the MOB are normally assigned as two man tests, as are all their tests. INZIRILLO said that the safety of the NPTs played a significant role in assigning two men to the emergency light tests because of the required use of scaffolds and ladders (Exhibit 31).
% )also admitted to INZIRILLO that he was not familiar with the sixty to ninety second light test which is a requirement of the test procedure (Exhibit 4, p*. 5), and that he had not read the test procedure for a while.
INZIRILLO testified that this did not meet his expectations as a manager, in lg that he expected the NPTs to review the test procedure in its entirety prior to beginning every test. He said he expressed these expectations, as well as the need for arocedural and documentary compliance, at group breakfast meetings whic1 are held four to five times a year.
INZIRILLO n September 8th. During the interview, 'd thatdmitted he re-interviewed that he used a st b )ick during the emergency @/.
light test to per arm e or more portions o st, such as checking the water level or activating the light switch. id,this " economical" method D had been devised six years prio wh a former NPT, was working in the TD. INZIRILLO said that dmittedth)attheotherNPTsintheTD did not regularly inspect the bat ery erminals, as required by procedure (Exhibit 4 p. 5), nor did they do the sixty to ninety second light test in its entirety.
I INZIRILLO testified that in preparing for the interview he reviewed the Job i
Assignment Sheet and Labor Report for August 8, 1997 (Exhibit 11), which had been prepared by HUGHES. He explained that the report details the work assignments for all the NPTs in the TD for the specified day. In reviewing '
-a s jh ),
- a ]n/]jNOTFlPUL$DiSCL'0 sod,lWI$16UTARPR0fAh05Y;,q., L/
IFID'0FFICWx. , TO DIR, OFFICE)(;0F Ik~ ST O flA%IONSt
\ / REGIO
~ g"10 ' \
Casi No. 1 97-038
- NM i
the report, INZIRILLO and HUGHES noticed that h )had been assigned to perform a cond rification on an emergency diesel generator compressor in the DGB, responsibility was to visually check a blowdown valve, and to insure at the compressor was in the " auto" position, in accordance with g-test procedure PT W1 (Exhibit 6, 3, 4), The results of the verification were ry to be recorded the t data s vet. INZIRILLO produced a copy of the data .
sheet which has initials, in sections ,4.1 and 3.5.2 l (Exhibit 7). IN IRILLO produced a copy of M )T>RS log for August 8, 1997, which does not showWentering or leaving the DGB on August 8,1997 l (Exhibit 8).
Interview of BISHOP (Exhibits 24 and 29)
BISHOP, Senior Specialist, Outage Management Group IP2, was substituting for l HUGHES on August 8, 1997, as supervisor of the TD, a position he had l previously held for several years. He is familiar with the Job Assignment !
l Sheet and Labor Report, dated August 8, 1997, which had been prepared by HUGHES (Exhibit 11). He stated that he used the document while making ,
assignments for the TD NPTs on August 8, 1997. (
BISHOP recalled that the PTM 49B test assigned to' M ' on August 8,1997, was a " clean test," in thatnot the test was',and M)l a cont '
work which had been assigned on a prior day. He recalled that there was no documentation in the test package to indicate that the test had been started j earlier. Specifically, he referred to the data sheet in the test package, 6/.
which is required to be initialed and dated by the Senior Watch Supervisor (SWS) and the Senior Reactor Operator (SRO), indicating that permission had % I been granted to b in the t t (Exhibit 4, p. 7). BISHOP stated that if the test assigned to and on August 8th had been a continuation, this i tion ate, would have been included in the data sheet, given test package showingto t e teand t init( M . In addition, the test package would contain the results of any previous wo performed on the test. l BISHOP stated that his normal procedure for assigning surveillance tests to the NPTs included a job briefing. At the briefing, BISHOP would discuss the daily work assignment with the NPTs and talk about the safety requirements, or any problems that may have arisen since the last test.
BISHOP said that he gave the test performance package to M ) who in turn returned it to him after completing the tes BI OP stated he reviewed the pu who would then have to 7-test report, signed it, and gave it back to obtain the signatures of the SWS and the SRO, indi ating that they were aware '{
the test h d been completed. The completed package would then be returned to l the TD, by ,)for final approval and review.
BISHOP provided a copy of his log (Exhibit 30) forfugugt8,1997,which indicates that the test had been assigned to(M)and(SMBEL'.)in his mindandthatit6 He stated that there is no' doubt i
that both8,1997.}andhadbeenreturnedcopleted)kneww August M
,f n,
[ 0F 7
y N FOR PUBdIC D}SCLQSU8E WITH0lJT . APPROVAL' /
s iI l 'N ,
E D'18ECTOR10f7FICE/0F
,Aj"$'/{1' '
'j"2 O INVEST, &'
iD l Case o. 1 97 038 ' 1
Interv )
h )had been employed by Coned at IP2 from .
rj[
when he was terminated Jor alleged falsificatio of records.
6 )was an NPT assigned to the TD (p. 11).
AGENT'S NOTE: On was charged with improper documentation of ficial records relative c the August 8, 1997, g-inspectio of Lights in he PAB, and suspended for twenty days. On was terminated after being charged 10.)
with fals ication of records rela ive to the second verification of an emergency diesel compressor test on August 8,1997.
h ) eviewed the Job Sheet Assignment and Labor Report (Exhibit 11), which nad been prepared by UGHE detailing the assign ts r the NPTs in the TD k.
for August 8, 1997, erified that he and had been assigned [by r Dave BISHOP, Acting Superv r] to perform the P emergency light test in p the PAB, and o fi sh the PT M49 emergency light test in the MOB building.
In addition,. aid he had been assigned to perform second verifications on Diesel Generator . PT W1 and PT W5 (pp. 12-14).
was shown a copy of the test procedure for the Appendix R Emergency Lighting, PT H498 (Exhibit 4 dated August 8, 1997. $ ) )which aid thatincluded he was the surveillance familiar test report with the test procedure, having read it many times, and having performed the test in excess k A, of fifty times in the nine years he had worked in the TD. He stated that he L>
would normally receive the test procedure from the supervisor who ssi ced the test and would read the test procedure, checking it for changes.
acknowledged that the ]rocedure detailed the thirteen steps requir d to e performed on each of t1e thirty three lights in the PAB (pp.1416).
perfor)testif ed that there was no way, for either one or two people,F tom th in the fifteen minutes that the SRS log (Exhibit 8) indicates that he was in the PAB (pp. 16 and 19).
With respect to the theseismic specific test testified thatdiscs, procedure,(drometer it rc Hred water level the NPT to remove cover; check hy r battery terminals: and to reco the oltagereadingforeachbatteryoneveryh, test. In performing the test, o shake the battery in order to o serve the testified waterthat the level, andNPTs used to push a stick to' r)L a test switch to activate the lights and record the resulting voltage reading. The NPTs would notate the lights that needed water, and they would come back at a later time to fill those batteries with water and check terminals (pp. 34, 38, 39, 41, 42, and 44).
M) testified that the NPTs have been using a stick to perform the test for five to six years. He said the use of the stick did not keep them from aerforming the rest test, which included a physical inspection of the h .
3attery terminals, testified that he inspected the battery terminals qb every time he did a est, as indicated by the test reports (pp. 35 and 44).
c /(NOT FQR Pl18'LIC pISCLOSURENWITHOUT 'APPROVA 0F -
fk VV O J sFIELD(/ } OFFICE 041ECTOR,0FFICEOfINV
'L/ v ' jj', >
Ca#No'. I:97 038 "
" 12 .
f
identified his handwriting on the test matrix and the test results page Mof )the test report (Exhibit 4, p3. 8 16, and 18), indicating that the test had been performed and that all of t1e necessary attributes on each of the thirty I }{
three emergency lights had been completed on August 8, 1997. He testified that when he completed the test report he believed that the test had been i completed according to procedure (pp. 19-25, 64, and 65).
AGENT'S NOTE: In response to questions if he had performed the h '
emergency light teststatements numerous conflicting in the PAB(pp. on17, August 66, 83, 8,1997, and 84M).]provided
{
With respect to preparing the test report, M f ade the following statements:
" No. No, no, no, no. What I really, I never - I never said that it could be done in 15 minutes. I never said it could be done it takes good two, three hours. But I have - I have to say, honestly I don't know why I did this filling of papers" (p. 24).
"Because I did believe that it was done."
hl, . I: "On August 8th?"
"Yes."
~)
s "Who did it?"
" Beats me" (p. 48).
aised the possibility that the surveillance of the lights in the PAB may have been done by other NPTs prior to August 8, 1997, and that he only transferred tffe results of their work to the test reporc on Au ust 8th. /
saic,that fo lowing his suspension, he had conversations with andi none of whom recalled having performed any testing of the He }- {\]
rg lights, prio to August 8th, which would have been fair for him to report on the August 8, 1997, report (pp. 109 and 117).
AGENT'S NOTE: The IP2 Station Schedule called for the PT H49B test to be performed on August 8, 1997 (Exhibit 12). The test document indicates that the test originated on August 8, 1997 (Exhibit 4, p. 7).
M) testified that he did not know the extent of qua ' cat'ons to aerform the test by himself, and that he felt it was ~ unfair that had EV 3een s nde for twenty days for his involvement in the st cn ug 8. r 1997. tated that when he performed this test with felt t at he as on his own and did not feel they had equal respo sibi ity
, he
'k j (pp. 31 33). .
Mstated that when he filled out the paperwork for the test of the p/
thirtyjthree lights in the PAB he might have confused it with the paperwork ~7-for the test of the seven lights in the MOB (pp. 57 61). rg
' d ^ NOE PUBLICDISGLOSURlEWITHOUT DIR(CTON, s 0FEICE'!OF, INVE'SThG@ATI PR nb0F' [T SJ 8Eg0h
- k. FIELD Case No. l1-9M(1)38
%g OFFJC > "vO.w (t b 't GQL&
13
l -
?
hisoreviewedacopyoftheDieselGeneratorTest,PTW1(Exhibit 6), ,
'and stated that he was familiar with the test, having performed umerous times since he has been in the TD. He identified his initials, steps 3.4.1 and 3.5.2, indicating that he had performed the req under b second verification on August 8,1997 (Exhibit 7).
I testified that he was unable to recall if had personal',y gone to the c l GB bu iding, or if someone had told him the switches were in the correct L -
i position. He stated that he p formed e diesel generator tests, PT W1 and i
PT W5, in the afternoon, after ave him the paperwork covering the primary tests (pp. 66 68 and 8 ~85).
AGENT'S NOTE: The IP2 SRS log ' ica s that was not in the DGB G' on August 8, 1997 (Exhibit 8). had in tiall told INZIRILLO that ~I an unnamed NP0 had performed th second verification for him. This i j % scenario was discounted after 01 interviewed Joseph GASPAR, the only NPO l known to have been in the DGB on August 8, 1997, and he denied performing the second verification (Exhibits 16 and 26).
tfstified that neither HUGHES nor INZIRILLO was aware of, or gave h % approval to, the shortcut used by the NPTs performing the voltage test:
specifically, that the test button was being held in for thirty to forty i
seconds, rather than sixty to ninety seconds as called for in the test procedure (p. 126).
Interview of GASPAR (Exhibit 26)
GASPAR has been employed by Coned at IP2 for eleven years. He is a " Rover" qualified P0andispresentlyintrainingtobecomeareactoroperator.Heh.
first met plevenyearsagowhenhewasassignedtotheOperations ,qf, Division. 'L
'iASPAR stated that he has no specific recollection of the events on August 8, 1997. To the best of his knowledge, he was working as an NP0 and would have been on routine watch, performing safety related insaections. These inspections ma have required him to ent or ss taru the DGB. He denies y-being asked by or performing for a second verification of the Q air compressor s "aut " switch, or to ensure t t the blowdown valve was closed.
Interview ot (Exhibit 28))
h as been employed at IP2 s ce He is currently an NPT assigned to the D, and was a co-worker of )p.5).
k.
hidentified a Job Sheet Assignment & Labor Re] ort (Exhibit 11), prepared I GRES, and dated August 8, 1997, as detailin tie. day's assignments.
estified that on August 8,1997, he and :'were assigned to perfor tests of emergency battery lights in th PAB. PT M498. and in the MOB, i PT M49 (Exhibit 28. pp. 29 and 30).
FOR P0BLID,DISCLOSlfRE'WIIHOUT #EfiO@A i E Y NO[
OFF ICE (DIRECTOR. '0FFICE Ok IWE$TfGATIO IONjI q%se L x .
w - ~ q s. s -
t g s-Case No. 1 97-038 14
I l
l M h tated either test, that he h d no ecollection or seeing perform eitheroftest theonassignment, August 8, 1997.of performingHe
/
denies making an admission to INZIRILLO, during an interview on August 25, 1997, that he had performed the test in the PAB within the fifteen minute time frame that the SRS log indicates that he was in the building (Exhibit 9). He h explained that he was only providing INZIRILLO with possible ways that the tect could have been performed, within the given time frame (pp. 15 17, 27, 30, and 34).
described the emergency light test as a "two trip" test. The first trip")wastouseasticktopressthetestbuttontoactivatethelightsandh/
take a voltage reading, while a load was placed on the battery. If the lights / ,
" shinned brightly," the NPTs assumed that the terminals were okay. During this portion of the test the stick was also used to shake the battery to view g, I the water level. If the water level was low, the NPTs would return to the battery, during a second " trip," to fill the batteries that needed water and to check the terminals (pp. 17-19 and 21 24),
- c. MlaimsthatitwasduringhisAugust25thinterviewwithINZIRILLO, hat hd realized that he had been performing the test incorrectly. He said he had not been aware that the test procedure r quired that each battery terminal Ep.
be physically inspected during each test. said that the method he used to perform he test had been ta ht to bim b he ot er NPTs in the TD. He said that ,)and. all performed the test l
/
the same y (p. 19).
dmits that, although he was given time to read the test procedure prior o performing the test, it was not part of his routine to do so. He ,
stated that because of his qualifications he only assisted the other NPTs whog/
were the lead technicians on the emergency light test, and that they d overall responsibility for both the test and the required paperwork. rg stated that, in performing the test, he relied upon the expertise of e le NPT. He assumed "that what we were doing . . . covered the procedure of the test and what had to be checked at the time" (pp. 25, 26, and 41).
s b ) stated that his background differed from the other NPTs in the TD. He came to the TD from the Performance Division (PD). His expertise was in heat transfer, thermodynamics fluid mechanics, and vibration analysis. He was informed by his supervisor that he was being transferred for the purpose of working on preve tive maintenance testing in the TD. Since his transfer to the TD in 1993, stated he has never been formally qualified on many of D the surveillance tests performed by the TD. He stated that the other NPTs in the TD are all qualified NP0s and had been trained in the majority of the TD est ocedures while they were still assigned to the Operations Department.
aid that his lack of qualifications prohibited him from being the lead on many of the tests, because he was not qualified to operate plant systems (pp. 5 10).
% ) upon being made aware of INZIRILLO's expectations as to how the emergency light test was to be done, estimated that it would take in excess of _
eight hours to correctly perform the test of the thirty three lights in the r{
F0f0 P0i3Lf DIS,CLGSU EWITH0tmAPf}ROVAb0FTi1 (FIELD CENDIRf!CTOR, ;0FfFI 0 wv ,
L G(INVESTIGA7 LyJ p K r qS'. REGI0 i Case No. 1-97-038 15 e-
l l
PAB. To perform the test within fifteen minutes, he stat ~ed that one would be
" leapfrogging, flying," and the test would not be performed correctly. He also stated *that' he does not believe fifteen minutes would have been I
sufficient time to correctly test the seven emergency lights in the M0B l (pp. 31, 32, and 50).
! Interview of )(Exhibit 251 4
)a former NPT. had been employed at IP2 for thirty three years prior o his retirement in 1991. He s h; TD, where he worked with M} pent his last fifteen years as anl M ) tated that he transferred to the TD in 1978, and he was assigned to assist. O qualified technicians perform surveillances on plant systems.
(61acked the NPO qualifications which were necessary to permit him to operate certain plant systems on his own: therefore, his duties were limited to assisting the lead technician in any way (i.e., recording data, data entry 6' into a computer, and preparing work orders).
)recalledperformingtheemergencylightsurveillancetestinthePAB,
'nd stated tha it c id take up to four hours to aerform the test correctly, He stated that was t firs individual he (new that used a stick to l
activate the-1 ght switch. woulddepressthetestbuttontoactivateE th bat y. After thirty seconds,
%e lishts, thereby
) ould reqd the placing voltpgea loa 'on th would record the stabilized value.' M paid that( M. meterwas and con ident hat the battery terminals were in sati factory / condition, contmgent on the lights operating and the volt meter stabilizing when the test button was depressed.
aid that his rol 'n the ight test was to follow the directions of -
he 7 tad NPT.
paperwo k. fully aware th At direction.f$ filled out the c C
all 6 thg.attrguteshacnotbeentestedin accordance with the test procedure. Mexp.laine that he felt uneasy 6 about filling out the paperwork, but 'did so 'at( direction.
aid that all the battery terminals were not checked during every
. st, p rticularly the elevated batteries that required a ladder to reach.
said the use of the " stick test" often preempted the battery terminal C
' denied a more'ecodomi laim i meansthat he assistedM)in of performing he emergency light devising test. He the " s furt er denied ever being involved in trainirg while in the TD. /
lsaid that W came to the with ,N 0 cua (ifications, wh than is own, and, therefore,
' higher,M n technical procedures. /
train (
l l
l
\
m)\ 'e\
, )
3 n ,,
f I i ( t ;) \, 3 . \.b .
, {< "'T/ OR PUBLIC ISC OSURE/WE P0 CZ0F/N11KUT/J S< yxQ --dIOy[
y 'A yX 6, ' F 4 vxx DIRECIOQE
?.
VE Case No. 1-97-038 16
Interview of HUGHES (Exhibits 22 and 23)
'HUGHES has been employed at IP2 since 1973, and he was appointed Manager of EV t1e TD in 1992. In his presgn o ition he has supervisory control of NPTs A
$ ynd( , (rfD HUGHES said that and hereformerNP0swhocameoverto the TD from the Operations Division)with aredious experience in plant systems.Ep All three individuals were " Rovers," whic1 is the highest qualification available for the non licensed NPO position. As " Rovers," they were familiar with plant o>erations and were permitted to perform many of the test 1
procedures w1ich were required in the TD.
HUGHES stated that as transferred to the TD from the PD. g qualifications dif ered om his three co workers, in that he was at ra e' as 'l an NPO and did not have the ex)erierace i perating plant systems. The lack 9 );
of the NP0 qualification prohi aited from being the lead NPT on many of he t ts which called for the opera ion o certain plant systems: however. l was frequently used as a lead NPT in his areas of expertise.
HUGHES was aware that the NPTs used a stick to depress the test button to assist then in the performance test, but said he was unaware that the c use of the stick by( M jand he-)precludedthemfromaerformingother L-required attributes of the test HUGHES was adamant that 1e, as a supervisor. {'
would not have signed off on a test unless he believed that it had been performed according to procedure. He is not aware of, nor has he given approval for, iny other test informalities that may be used by the NPTs.
HUGHES stated that when he assigned a test to an NPT he instructed them to review the procedure. If the NPT did not understand the procedure, or had any questions regdrding the assignment HUGHES stated it was up to the NPT to make inquiries. HUGHES said that, although he feels that he expressed his expectations for performance to the NPTs, he had not stressed verbatim procedural adherence.
HUGHES described his supervision of the TD as " adequate." He opined that since May 1997 he has been " stretched thin " due to the retirement of Andy REID. the manager of the PD. HUGHES explained that both the TD and the PD were separate entities within T&P. When REID retired. HUGHES assumed supervisory control of both divisions, effectively doubling his work load.
HUGHES said the increased work load kept him from performing his supervisory functions as he should have, and limited him to " putting out fires."
HUGHES stated that, as a supervisor, his oversight of his subordinates was insufficient: and that he had too much trust in them, and had been taken advantage of by the individuals he supervised.
Interview of ,
(Exhibit 18) l
'n a hasbeenemployedatIP2since1978andhassp(entthelagtsixyearsas T in the TD. He has been a co-worker of both P )andLVINSONj
[APPli0A 0FM;k
[ ,
65 f ' U C0)CLOSUR WI O
'EIE D FFI i QRs FIC ES .)x 10 , EI J ss u x x ,
4~
Case No. 1 97 038 17 l
1 h stated he is familiar with the PT M49B test and does not feel it is 6 lete the inspection in fifteen minutes, as is alleged Jos ible op
)y and said the use of a stick during the test to ac 1vate he ights and/or hake the battery to view the water level would not b
I sat,isfy the necessity to check the battery terminals, as required the test procedure.
Acent's Analysis The investigation has determined that there were two separate and dis inct situations involving the falsification of performance test records b M[-
at IP2 on August 8, 1997. They include the falsification of an Appen ix R ,{
Emergency Lighting Surveillance Test, PT M49B: and, the falsification of an Emergency Diesel Generator Surveillance Test, PT W1. The two situations will '
be addressed individually.
Appendix R Emergency Lighting Surveillance Test, PT M49B:
Official documents show that the surveillance light test in the wa -
chedu ed to be performed on August 8, 1997, and was assigned to and g/
the same day. Test records indicate that permission to commenc the test was received from the SWS and the SR0 on August 8th.
f he records furthernf) .
submitted by to his lv show that the test was completed, supervisor on August 8th. SRS lo signed, showthat and(M)was in the Pfor a total of fifteen minutes, and tha as 'in the' PAB for a total of seventeen minutes, has m,ade several verbal statements regarding his involvement in the test. On August 20th, twelve days after the test,(M)ppears to have told pij INZIRILLO that he had performed the test according to proc'edure. At the time 7 of the interv4ew, INZIRILLO was unaware that the NPTs were only in the PAB for O a total of thirty two minutes. INZIRILLO was also unaware of the total number and conditioh of the degraded batteries.
In his sworn testimony to 0I on December 2, 1997, M ) contradicted his earlier verbal statement to INZIRI L0 and testified that' he, personally, had not performed the test. Although had been assigned the test, was in the PAB on August 8th, and had complete the paperwork indicating that the O test was completed, he testified that he had no recollection of performing the test.
estified that another NPT may have performed the actual test, at an ear ie date, and provided him with the information which he then transferred to the test report on August 8th. / M jhas been unable to provide the names of any qualified technicians who might have performed a portion of the test. Eg Since official records indicate that the test was assigned and initiated on l
August 8th, any work done prior to that date could not have been used for test /b purposes.
also testified to 0I that it would be impossible for him to have perfo med the test in the PAB, within the fifteen minutes the SRS logs
- p , , ,~ - - ,a .
(
Case No. 1-97 038 18 -
indicate he was in the PAB.' This statement is ccrroborated by testimony from .
Other NPTs M,')and(M), who have said that the test could take -
from t o to eight hours t'o perform according to procedure. In addition, as t tified that he has no recollection of performing the test or
! eein performing the test on August 8th.
Although[%has testified that he has no specific recollection of having '
been assi'gned. Or having performed the emergency light test in the PAB on g August 8, 1997, testimony from his supervisor and circumstant al evidence Cs indicate that he was aware of his assignment to assis ' ~
in the performance of the test.
Based on documentary evidence, the testimony of M and and the degraded condition of the batteries as found by the NRC resident inspector on -
August 17th, and IP2 inspectors on August 19th, OI concludes that th up surveillance test of the emergency lights in the PAB, as reported b on /v August 8, 1 not performed. Therefore, the surveillance test repor prepared by and submitted to his supervisor on August 8, 1997, was inaccurate and co titutes a false document.
Emergency Diesel Generator Surveillance Test, PT W1:
Official documents show that the primary surveillance test of the diesel generator was scheduled to be performed on August 8,1997. The primary .st s was signed t , and the second verification was assigned to idt Both and 'nitialed test records indicating th t the 'sq had' W been performed according o procedure. SRS logs indicate that been in the DCS for ceventeen minutes the morning of August 8th. SRSlo)gs had %
indicate that( . was not in the DGB, at any time, on August 8th.
In his intervi,ew with INZIRILLO on November 4, 1997, had another qualified technician provide him with infortnation required the/'W)to 5if al complete the second verification on the diesel generator compressor. OI has 7 interviewed the only individual who was qualifi verification, and who entered the DGB followJng o perform a second primary test, and g
he has denied performing the test for In his sworn testimony to OI on December 2,1997, M 's extremelyf .
contradictory. He testified that after receivinh the a erwork from he either went to do the double verifications, or someaody told him the verifications had been done. He then stated that he does not recall going b into the DGB to perform the test: but, he believes he was there. In either case, he cites a potential malfunction of the SRS system for not showing him entering and exiting the building.
h Based on the documentary evidence and the testimony of I , 01 has concluded that the secondary verifica 'on o theemergecydiselgeneratork compressor in the DGB, as reported by erformed. Therefore, the portion of he s on August 8, 1997, was notveillancetest and submitted to his supervisor on August 8, 1997, was inaccurate and tonstitutes a false document.
1 . ,o .
i i T FORf 9DB IC DIS LOS E)ITH0 - P80V L F]F l
[ /
FFCfgRE OR,(0 FICE/ f I VES N ,
GA/Tl , ~G,I ,
i v , '
Case o. 1 97-038
Conclusion Based on the evidence developed during this investigation. OI concludes that E the surveillance test record for Appendix R Emergency Lights. PT H49B: and the surveillance test record of the Emergency Dies Gene ator, PT W1, both dated August 8,1997, were deliberately falsified b v
l
,e ,. ,- _- , ,. ,
'I ' D ,o'L ' E(WI P -
OY 'Of r' : o i OI CT , F T I0 i E 10 i
/ //,
l . Case No. 1 97 038
I SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION l 1
On January 26, 1998, William SELLERS, Esq., Senior Trial Attorney, Fraud Section, Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. , was apprised of the results of the investigation. SELLERS advised that, in his view, the facts of the case did not warrant a criminal prosecution and ,
rendered an oral declination. l 1
During the course of the investigation the following information was developed l pertaining to the Test Division: 1
- 1 First, based on the testimony of both nd(W. it is doubtful Cy i that the Maintenance Outage Building .erge cy light t . PT M49, was I properly performed on August 8,1997.
]b Second, based on the testimony of M and, , it is likely that I a number of the emergency light tests have no't been p'roperly performed Ey' l according to procedure, since the introduction of the " stick test," five '
to six years ago.
l Third, it appears that the NPTs have an informal attitude with respect I to ]rocedural adherence, which may be tacitly fostered by management's lac ( of supervisory oversight.
Fourth, the Testing Division does not maintain qualification statements for the NPTs which would specifically identify which surveillance tests they are qualified to perform.
Fifth, NPTs have stated that they do not receive up dated training on plant systems and/or components that they routinely inspect.
')
, , , ~ i
) '
\
Ib0 F 'IICDISCL$SURENI L OlfrAPPROVdL; i
/JE T0f(,0(FIQEOp pa OF
, s e qElGA
,LIpNS / Oyj. -
y If Case No. 1 97-038 21
/
1 I
)
i l
f I
l 1
I 4
1 1
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY l
l l.
i-l.
l i
~ '
~ ' .
(' ,
F F1 D EC R . ,- FF
-IV 0 '4t N
-9}
LCase No. 1 97,038 G 22
l LIST OF EXHIBITS
- Exhibit ,
1 No. Descriotion 1 Investigation Status Record, dated September 25, 1997. l 2 Allegation Receipt Report, dated August 26, 1997.
l 3 Indian Point 2 (IP2) Administrative Order (SAO) 133.
4 Appendix R Emergency Lighting (Nuclear), Surveillance Test, PT M49B, Revision 6 for August 8, 1997.
5 Emergency Lighting, Surveillance Test, PT H49 Revision ll, for August 8, 1997.
6 Emergency Diesel Generator, Surveillance Test, PT W1 Revision 15, effective date February 6, 1997.
7 Emergency Diesel Generator, Surveillance Test, PT-W1, for Data i Sheet Test Performed on August 8, 1997. ,
8 IP2 Security Rcporting System (SRS) Log for M Badge. j, for August 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11, 1997. '
/ L 9 IP2 SRS Log for ' , Badge k for August 6, 7, 8, 11, 12. h.L and 13, 1997.
10 IP2 SRS Log for jBadge( for August 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, bl.,
and 11, 1997. / L 11 Test Division (TD) Job Assignment Sheet and Labor Report, dated August 8, 1997.
12 IP2 Station Schedule for the week of August 3 9, 1997.
13 Surveillance Test Summary Review, prepared by John QUIRK, dated October 3, 1997.
14 Investigation into Surveillance Testing Anomalies, prepared by Victor MULLIN, dated October 7, 1997.
15 INZIRILLO's notes beginning on August 25, 1997.
16 INZIRILLO's notes beginning on November 3, 1997.
17 Interview Report of INZIRILLO, dated November 4, 1997.
18 Interview Report of k ') dated October 21, 1997.
^
$.L
- F0kPuhLhD$SCLOSUREjI l1 DI E(T0y 0F Cp, TgRV4b0FlSkGlQJ T{
bd[F Case i%.197 038 23 /
e 19 Interview Report of QUIRK, dated October 21, 1997, with attachment.
(20) Interview Report of dated October 21, 1997.
21 hore Conversation Record with( $ dated December 3 22 Interview Report of HUGHES, dated Nbvember 14, 1997.
23 Telephone Conversation Record with HUGHES, dated December 8, 1997.
24 Telephone Conversation Record with BISHOP, dated December 3, 1997.
25 Interview Report of( 6 dated November 3, 1997.
26 Interview Report of GASPAR, dated November 20, 1997.
27 . Transcribed Interview of dated December 12, 1997.
28 Transcribed Interview of )datedNovember4,1997.
29 Telephone Conversation Record with BISHOP, dated December 12, 1997.
30 BISHOP's Work Assignment log for August 8, 1997.
31 Telephone Conversation Record with INZIRILLO, dated December 22, 1997.
32 IP2 Technical Specifications, Paragraph 6.8, Procedures and Programs.
33 Excerpts from IP2 Inspection Report 9~7 11, dated October 29, 1997.
~
n p -
' NOT FOR P(JBLI DISC SURE WI OLIT ~ P OV6L OF ? ,' ,
F EL F !! DIRECTO ',' 0F E I T ON9 REGmN/I
/v -
CE C(/I 4 UT7 Case No. 1 97 038 24