ML20212K414
| ML20212K414 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Fermi |
| Issue date: | 08/15/1985 |
| From: | Hayes B, Kalkman J, Pawlik E NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212J657 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-202 3-84-019, 3-84-19, NUDOCS 8701290071 | |
| Download: ML20212K414 (19) | |
Text
w :. x :.u::.;, g,n,;;a :;vm..w.w. 's e vnd b.~r: i.,*'.x 79 *
-..c ~. :
.. < -~mpr e r
-3 q.
.O-~r w.,: v.v -
=.m mxh: x.a.
~
.1;Eb hfhf h h$ff hff.E w w$
~
khffh s
4 w 7 m,je. m,n.d &..,g.,. CASE N,.o/3.
mer w. we..o..,
c.
.... w w3. %,g:
.A, ~.. 2
..n.
.,.....s..
m~.
. p :. m....
w.,...
,,., yH u.,S y.. :- :.
n,r
..u,
.n z.y.,..n.7.,.
n g.p%..;;M3.*d*fh*g+[x-Y'5b-$h M <;d;.uw&.%
m-m,..
.:.p. w ; p. g +.;p m ; z. p..
p/M$
,.3.5.*f. m.,. w. p.. d
.t...
~
. ;,M+. :.,4...~..t f;.g_ mg e.,.,e&..ga,
o,,
. y...
~,m,M m: ;r
., a :.
y !. '...
c g
U I
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7,W...iffM.s,6.M..@..a. M..., o,A C h. m.e
..tg1I.4,,
i I
- 'I
'Af
. 7 *,
" + ".
NS[ *
[
']
'f%
- (
h C
g [.
./
.g
~ Report of Invest.
t.-@M..,gg::&}W i
iga ior
%,, y.. H r.3..
!y..,.., ;,: K,. ' n..
IS
~
' Enr'100 Fermi 2.'
g;m,..Q...,.
4.:.:;z,m;. '.%-7V ", g ". " E..~._ W
.n
. p.p..
~
.t.
n.
%,~.
N
@;..',*h., *'. s.
y 7.,;Q. 4 s ev.%Mm.[
g9 l,Q &y
- y,'s.%,..;;9.yQ.%.*.+ 2 ***
q-Q:.
t ~.~:..w;.- %,
7, 2 977..
.py.wm.'g4g,;;.gg ngd.y;;g.:p.y;,y,.
., : 5.Ms.ig.w.g:::
T_,.y.:,
..g.,
p,.. ;
.w b-...P.
Alleged Falsification of Non~destructi.veW5. %z.. 7 pip Examination Inspection.. RecordspAlleg..ed Failure W@M Construction-Deficie'ncyMM@portableW
'to Notify NRC of Potentially)Re n w.v bbM #@g@a.M TV sh W. W-u[h...- a,.
-..a, p w u ;=. : ;.
pm %
o.-
,i
- n
?
~-y c.;.
- un:.5, m.w.m.-r m o y.
A p e x,:..:4 % g +,;, m.a: q.a.n.eg.pwhy;eg
~
ug.e
-n,.;y:
.~.muew
.. ;:.t.u.
.r. > s. y ~
w%my.z 2:'
q.g a -
J;..A...:m..W.7 ' %,.ly.R.. m&tm'%. Y. }. 4%Q.t.M.r.
.m. y e
7:
ay Wkdj> 3 r5MMW iM&~.s n..
nw /q'.G,s J..%,,,&m.r.Qyyp
~ ~.
-A m......enw.
.@y.%.cm o v : m v n...
sw%,: ? 6;w;2.. s.. -Q:,d ' g* ),. Q;.
-(eJ.(.. 4.v :
n
, +;:,9&.rry.p..v,.~;
,.... '":i.,~+.Qh,.w.
2.-
$ 9 5 i
's @ e d O
..y;t Rk gI
..qd d.., U.N 5 w M. -... m'Of
.M, $&y
< s.
p w
.s..
a
$. M;~.f.-, y.
M... fed 4 '
u8%q,.p's',.%: s,y.w_&gscQQs d
iM
-w
~
}^y^l.
- f y*s
. C.. t y%'.- r.?r
~ 5 n.y "
%:.g.9&. n i.;6 K %g~,
-r
^,:.s l
r
~.:-
s g-p:..
,,;yf g'ify l
s*
=
- ...?.
! R'6. Office of Investigations.J.ifFMMG"' M46' 7 MrF
'eh dd %
M,,..y&...#.m#. $. 4c..ac4.m..:1.n.i,q..'4Fdfr$
'iT
.w
@. a dm.. a -eported by 01:
- a
+.e,....
w u..
.l.T'6.,'},&,w+4.&r?
c
..#m:W
3111+n.2:, ~
4r,. a..
~.. pA.,T
~~
t i &. 0. &.&
- <? <b:-I~
O'
~
$"*^**.
'80
\\
/
.w, x
e
< r,.'. '."&
4
"-9 4
& q ".
.%,u
.?
~
v.
g'%f y&;-~:? p e n y
f
^*C' e
~
t v.
T... M
~;,. m 7@Y g.f.
~
M3M:
.Qr.
c%w%..
w.u t
?
L i ;
l s
g A
A
.A.
b.c.d. e 3
! w.
4
- Q;r.* h. %'Ey ft. P3 e.
a
'PbQy?% qb n
'g,w 8
i-a d,c,. 8701290071 870116
- P
" ' ' ^ '
~'
e-s s
~
h' 2
2%
GARDE 86-202 gM '
/
- J g~ ' y p.
a b.h
%%,..... W,.h.. D..
A
. {.;%,
s -
s
, fy
~*
- w. 't.*.s l
C.
h %'% &N:,? %e 9,p'
~
7'
- d *
'i.
,r. "
I N
r7 4
5 P
g,.3 1
+
t,9 i u
ggh%
- y ;
s.
- m:n. W.
s
~ ;, p* ?
u o
.g..
.t t
+
\\ *. 3 V.,,t 5 s# r. e.wsW' '. ' *
- e' 'y,.t
- g. h.., W ?.,.p,*,,y.' '% Ma. ~ 2, O j u ~s,x'**'~*E.,**$..
N'
y** 0-
\\ %Is
. '".' *l
. v.:,
4 se L ' *.'25 ' ::..~"d:L2 L.L s. 3 E'.T 26'.^
e a
s
Title:
ENRICO FERMI 2 ALLEGED FALSIFICATION OF NONDESTRUCTIVE EXAMINATION INSPECTION RECORDS; ALLEGED FAILURE TO NOTIFY NRC 0F POTENTIALLY REPORTABLE
' CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY Licensee:
Case Number: 3-84-019 Detroit Edison Company Report Date: 8/15/85 Detroit, MI Control Office: OI:RIII Docket No. 50-341 Status: CLOSED Reported by:
Revi ed by:
- X/L niu>u / '>
James N. Kalkman EugWe T. fawlik '
Investigator Officeof[ Investigations Director Office of Investigations Field Office, Region III Field Offi
, Region III Appr e y:
}
dn W. Mayes f
Office of Investi' ati[ons Director Participating Personnel:
L R.C. Paul, Investigator 01:RIII H.G. Walker, Senior Investigator, OI:RIII J.M. Jacobson, Reactor Inspector, RIII
~ J.W. Muffett, Reactor Inspector, RIII j
P. Byron, Senior Resident Inspector, Fenni WARNING l
The attached document / report has not been reviewed pursuant to l
10 CFR i 2.790(a) exemptions nor has any exempt material been deleted. Do not disseminate or discuss its contents outside NRC.
Treat as "0FFICIAL USE ONLY."
1 i
SYN 0PSIS On November 28, 1983, NRC Region III requested the Office of Investigations (01) investigate the alleged falsification of nondestructive examination (NDE) records and the failure to notify NRC of a potentiall construction deficiency at Detroit Edison Company's (Deco) y significant Fermi 2 Nuclear l
Construction Project.
In July 1984, OI began to investigate those allegations of wrongdoing against Nuclear Energy Service Company (NES), the NDE contractor at Fermi 2.
An NES NDE Inspector, at his termination exit interview with the Deco SAFETEAM, stated that he identified two ultrasonic examination (UT) inspection reports which contained his name; however, those inspections were perforned and signed by some unknown individual. DECO Nuclear Security conducted an investigation of that NDE record falsifi-cation, identified one of the alleged falsified documents, and determined that inspection report to have been forged. OI investigated further by reviewing all UT inspections performed by the alleger, and although no additional forgeries were identified, testimony was received from the alleger whose name was forged, stating that he would on occasion pre-sign blank inspection documents to allow uncertified NDE inspctors to complete inspections in his absence.
It is suspected that the alleger was aware of, and in fact, a willing participant in the record falsification incidents reported to the DECO SAFETEAM by requesting that an uncertified NDE inspector perform the subject inspection and suggesting that he use a pre-signed inspection document to report the results. The extent of the falsification via the use of pre-signed documents is indeterminable, although it was stated by the alleger to have been only a couple of instances.
01 also investigated an alleged failure to notify the NRC of a construc-tion deficiency in that Daniels International Corporation, (DIC) general contractor at Fermi 2, required NES to trim radiographic (RT) film of the reactor jet pump RT inspections to remove the presence of potentially defective welds. 01 determined that Deco addressed the jet pump weld issue approximately one year before the allegation surfaced. At that i
time General Electric Company (GE), the reactor designer, analyzed the allegedly defective jet pump diffuser to adapter welds and concluded those welds were not pressure boundary welds and not subject to ASME code requirements. GE also concluded that the presumed deficient tail pipe to diffuser manufacturer's welds were approved at the factory and thus were not subject to RT NDE. However, this was contrary to what the NES inspectors believed both at the time they performed the jet pump NDE, and when they were directed to remove the jet pump tail pipe to diffuser welds-by trinning them from the RT film.
4 Case No. 3-84-019 1
ACCOUNTABILITY The following portions of this ROI (Case No. 3-84-019) will not be included in the material placed in the PDR. They consist of pages 2 through 14.
i 4
1 r
l l-l l
l l
Case No. 3-84-019 la
e TABLE OF CONTENTS Pag SYNOPSIS............................
1 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS.....................
3 INTERVIEWEES..........................
4 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION....................
5 Allegation No. 1 - Alleged Falsification of Nondestructive Examination Records...
5 Allegation No. 2 - Alleged Failure to Notify NRC of Construction Deficiency.......
7 WILLFULNESS / INTENT.......................
9 CONCLUSION...........................
11 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION....................
12 LIST OF EXHIBITS........................
13 Case No. 3-84-019 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Allegation No. 1:
Falsification of NDE Records 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XIII, Quality Assurance Records 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.71, Maintenance of Records, Making of Reports Atomic Energy Act, Section 223(a), Violation of Sections Generally Title 18 USC 1001, Making or Using a False Statement Title 18 USC 371, Conspiracy to Violate Federal Statutes Allegation No. 2:
Failure to Notify NRC of Reportable Construction Deficiency 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.55(e), Conditions of Construction Permits Atomic Energy Act, Sections 223(a) and (b), Violation of Sections Generally l
l Case No. 3-84-019 3
I
. - = _ _.
INTERVIEWEES Beech, David Document Examiner, Michigan State Police (Exhibits 13 and 14)
M_~
Former Nuclear Energy) Service NDE Inspector (Exhibit 32 Nuclear Energ Service NDE Inspector (Exhibit 23)
. s_
Drew, John P.
Supervisor, Investigation Unit.
DECO Nuclear Security (Exhibit 35)
Nuclear Energy Service NDE Inspector (Exhibit 33)
Nuclear Energy Service Project Manager (Exhibit 3) 1 i
Secretary (Exhibit 9fervice Former Nuclear Energ S Former Nuclear Energy Service NDE Inspector (Exhibit 1) eech, Stuart H.
Director, Nuclear Security, DECO (Exhibit 34)
Former Nuclear Energy Service NDE Inspector (Exhibit 5)
Former Nuclear Energy) Service NDE Inspector (Exhibit 10 Former Nuclear Energy Service ProjectManager(Exhibit 24)
Former Nuclear Energy) Service NDE Inspector (Exhibit M.
l 4
i o
Case No. 3-84-019 4
1
._.,_-._________._-.__--______.________________e_---.--m,_
_ - -.. ~. - -,...,.. ~.. - - - - - - - -
i DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Allegation No. 1: Falsification of Nondestructive Examination Inspection Records by Nuclear Energy Service Company On May 31, 1983, NES N Inspector, reported for work on the day shift at em r
t that time was the only certified ultrasonic examination (UT) Level I inspector employed by NES at the Fenni 2 project. On that date, Wismer & Becker Company made an urgent i
request ES to rform a UT-thickness examination. NES i
Manager assigned the UT-thickness inspection to (Exhibi 1, 2, an 3)
~
Apparently, as sick on May 31, and only worked 5 3/4 hours that day, asked a
, to perform the Wismer & Becker UT-thickness in ection, a he would leave a pre-signed blank UT-thi ness ins ction form fo to complete with the inspection data.
was not certif erfonn UT i ns; however, he di conduct t UT-thickness inspect h Mr.
approval and returned to the N 5 office find that had not lef a pre-signed inspection fonn.
compli ed gned ins tio fonn No. 5296 and took hat docu nt to(
'gave the ins c to the NES secret ry obs ved her sig name to that report.
ed tha and er pectors also observed alsif t inspect on document. Several NES inspectors stat tha s known to sign docurrents for NES ager Mr. REN ZELL, a so sig ~ inspectors' names on occasion.
alleges tha signed name to his RT Level I certification, hich was a so bac (Exhibits 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8) 3 denies havin report falsification. g any knowledge of the UT-thickness inspection He stated that on May 31, 1983, he was in the ield mo of the day. He recalls assigning the UT-thickness task to I
but that did no find out the details of the forgery nc ent ti after alleged the violation at his SAFETEAM xit meet stat ents r in direct contradiction to w
in tha (Exhibit 3
-directed the violation.
{
denied any knowledge or participation relating to the UT-
~
ickness eport forgery and stated th t ibuld never sign an inspec-tion report u stances.
[' admit d ning inistrative documents for with his pennission.
sed to be interviewe by 01 subs quent to 01's initial ontact w' in the early stages of this investigation.
(Exhibit 9) i b
n ne and August 1983 advis that 9
had prepared the UT hickness report i
- bsence, d not review, pursue the matter at that time; however, during he identified two forgeries of his signature; one on ocumen the May 31, 1983 UT-thickness inspection and the other on an A-Scan or Shearvave inspection. That second alleged forgery has not been located.
(Exhibit 1)
\\[
Case No. 3-84-019 i,
j 5
l l
fonner N S Shift Supervisor, recalled that in late l
umer of 1983, ood fr nd of his, telephond him at the Zinm;r Nuclear ect, w ere was then ing,a related thatt ad aske to sign a document knew should not ave s gne ted that he did not uir he specific documen however it is now speculated tha referring to th ed as also stated tha ickness inspection repor again telephoned se w
er and ated l
t DECO Nu lear Security wanted to sign a statement.
could not recall any specific discuss on, however, he dv not to sign any statement.
(Exhibits 10) nA 12, 1983 emplo ent with NES wa te advised H S Project Manager and hat e was g ng to the NRC or the DECO S
- ETEAM with he y vi n
and o r allegations of quality concern. Messrs and f peop' e wo( d e asked
'not to talk t the NR cause "a lot up get ing ' nto trouble."
id, however 4, and 11), discuss his allegations with the DECO SAFETEAM.
(
bits 1 lr0n S tember 7,1983, Deco Nuclear Security began an investigation of the all ati of record falsification. Their investigation determined
'that did perform the falsified UT-thickness inspection No. 5 96.
With the assist a Mi igan State Police document examiner DECO prov name was in fact a forger They 1the gh not admitting forgery, y.did sign el d that name o nspection
- o. 5296 and based that conclusion on cooperativeness and refusal to sign a statement.
(Exhibits 12and13)
In June 1984, NRC:01 began an investigation of the
. inspection record falsification. O! requested that D and A-Scan inspections perfo prov de a i UT-thickness for examination. A review of those reports, which states re not all inclusive of the inspections he performed, was completed with the assistance of Sgt. BEECH, document examiner Michigan State Police. No additional forgeries enti ed; however, one A-Scan inspection No. 276, containing signature was dated a da at NES payroll records in was absent from work, ated that the inspection re as inadvertently misdate.
tted to havin ned UT inspection forms which he gave to use if he was absent and NES was pressured to perf It is suspe the A-Scan inspection No. 276 may be one of those pre-signed documents.
(Exhibits 1,4,14,and15)
Case No. 3-84-019 U
6
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Allegation No. 2: Alleged Failure to Notify NRC of a Potentially Reportable Construction Deficiency On or about July 2,1981, Nuclear Energy Service (NES), the NDE contractor at Fermi 2, performed radiographic examinations (RT) on 20 reactor jet pump diffuser to adapter field welds and determined many of those welds to be rejectable per ASME Code. The results of the jet pump RTs were documented on Enrico Femi Deviation Disposition Request (DDR) (W)6616, 6616A and 6616B. Based on those DDRs rejectable indications, Deco directed the problem to General Electric Company (GE), the reactor designer.
(Exhibit 16)
On July 30, 1981 DECO initiated a potential construction deficiency action to NRC followed by a report on August 5, 1981. That 50.55(e) only addressed the diffuser to adapter welds.
(Exhibit 17)
On November 19, 1981, GE prepared Nonconformity Report No. 81-DDR(W)66148.
GE's analysis advised that "all original radiographic indications asso-ciated with jet pump weld joint number 1-20 were interpreted by GE NDE Level II and found to be within the acceptable limits of the ASME Code."
GE also noted that " jet pump diffuser to adapter welds are not pressure l
boundary welds and therefore are not required to fall under the mandatory jurisdiction of the ASME Code." On Januar 22, 1982, GE also prepared FieldDeviationDispositionRequest(FDDR)yKH1-258, which described dye penetrant examination as the acceptable method of NDE for the rejectable diffuser to adapter welds.
(Exhibits 18 and 19)
On February 2,1982, D. K. MUSKE, QA Technical Director, Fermi 2, wrote a letter to GE advising that while radiographing several jet pump diffuser to adapter welds, the horizontal factory weld directly above was inadvertently radiographed. Those factory welds (diffuser to tail pipe) showed indications to include porosity, elongated porosity and crater crack.
(Exhibit 20)
On February 8,1982. DDR(W)6614C was initiated. That DDR recomended the acceptance of some jet pump welds and the re-radiograph of the jet pumps to be turned over for permanent record. On or about March 31, 1982, NES ord. NES inspector and others perfomed at date ch 31, 1982, several welds were rejected.
recalled that the day following the shift that radiogra hed welds, he rect ved a ote from
~
the'NES Project Manager directing himi o trim thejetpump)filmsoas o remove the a acent factory we 1
to tail pipe whi a
to be ASME rejectable. When returned to work advised that' id nit t i an film particularly to remove r table we
- s. {
land state that they observe the unw te Ids fr t
jet pump RTs, c ntrary t recollection.
also stated the DIC, required NES to t that fi m.
It
[I Case No. 3-84-019 7
appeared to Messrs and that DIC wished to r
cover up a safety-r late E Code construc on deficiency. Apparently, those inspectors were not aware of the dispositions of DDRs (W)6614A, B, and C, and the correspondence between DECO and GE, p(Exhibits 3, 10, 21, resumably causing them to misconstrue the motive for DIC's request.
22,23and24)
On May 26, 1982, Deco closed the 50.55(e) which reported the jet pump diffuser to adapter weld deficiencies to the NRC stating that repair work on the defective welds has been completed, however the final NDE of those welds was not performed until August 1982.
(Exhibit 25)
On August 8-9, 1982 NES perfonned PT and UT examinations on the jet pump diffuser to adapter welds es requested by GE FDDR XH1-258 and DDR(W)8177.
(Exhibits 19 and 22)
On September 23, 1982, subsequent to the closure of the jet pump 50.55(e),
which reported deficient jet pump diffuser to adapter welds, GE responded to DECO's February 2,1982 concern that the diffuser to tail pipe welds were " qualified by process control and thus no radiographic inspection requirements were required.
It is not appropriate to impose an RT acceptance criteria at this time." Neither GE, NES, DIC, nor Deco, during this entire episode, notified NRC of the potential diffuser to tail pipe deficiencies.
(Exhibit 26) t On April 15, 1983, approximately one year after the final NES radiograph i
of the jet pum. Deco SAF received a Quality Concern Report (QCR) l, No.83-010 fro NES NDE Inspector, relating to the apparent cover of deficien elds by DIC and NES. The DECO SAFETEAM responded to that quality concern by citing prior GE documentation as to the acceptability of the factory welds.
(Exhibits 23and27)
On August 12, 1983, alleged to the Deco SAFET pump film had been trimed to dispose of rejectable weld ad l
no direct knowledge of the alleged incident. Apparent ad
[
seen portions of jet pump film, which were retained by or l
future reference.
(Exhibits 1 and 11)
~
On February 5 and March 19, 1985, at OI's request, NRC Region III Staff conducted inspections into the jet pump RT film triming incident and determined the allegation satisfactorily addressed and dispositioned by DECO.
(Exhibits 28and29) i
[
Case No. 3-84-019
WILLFULNESS / INTENT Allegation No. 1: Falsification of NDE Records i
1.
as the only NES certified Level II UT inspector on site at me of the alleged violation. He also had an extremely poor attendance record.
1.
admits pre-signing UT inspection document for ES roject Manager.
2.
was advised b and prepared T-thickness No. 5296 in abe.ence.
3.
ailed to report the forgery when notified by M I
assigned UT-thickness inspection May 31, 1983 to 2.
knew was leaving work early because of illness.
3.
suspects signed
,name.
4.
requested tha ot go to llRC or SAFETEAM with allegation.
I states requested him to perform UT May 31, 1983.
2.
states suggested that he use pre-signed document.
3.
admits performing UT-thickness No. 5296 wit 4.
gb n
name to Inspection 5.
state as known 'o sign others' names.
t
~
6.
rved numerous inspection documents pre-signed by ts g n former NES Project Manager 2.
refused to discuss forgery.or provide statement to Deco.
l f
Case No. 3-84-019
~
3.
refused interview with OI on record.
4.
c t Zinne Nuclear Power S at on re:
equest d gn document.
acknowledged action was
~
inappropria e.
.I i
l i
i.
Case No. 3-84-019 1
10
CONCLUSION Allegation No. 1: Falsification of NDE Records Based upon the direct and circumstantial evidence developed DECO and ei ti ations 01 concludes tha I,
and
~ willfully collab te e
9alsi NES UT thicL% ens nspe on report No. 5296 dated May 31, 1983. Also, bared upon1 own admission, 01 concludes that NES may have used pre-sign nspec on documents, i.e., the suspect Wismer & Becker UT examination report No. 276 dated April 17, 1983, to
~
submit UT inspections perfonned by uncertified inspector. The extent of NES' use of pre-signed documents is indeterminable from a physical review of the inspection documentation.
Allegation No. 2: Alleged Failure to Notify NRC of a Construction Deficiency 01 has not developed evidence indicating a willful failure by DECO or DIC to notify NRC of a reportable construction deficiency re:
reactor jet pump tail pipe to diffuser (factory) weld deficiencies.
Those deficiencies were apparent when Deco reopened 50.55(e) Deco Number 31, which addressed the defective jet pump diffuser to adopter (field) welds; however, the problem was directed to GE, the jet pump design engineer.
3 01 does, however, question the perceived motivation at the time DIC directed NES to remove that portion of the RT film which identified the deficient tail pipe to diffuser welds. All of this activity occurred prior to DECO obtaining GE's analysis that concludes that the tail pipe tTdiffuser welds were qualified by process control, whereby dye penetrant and visual examinations were the manufacturer's NDE requirement.
Case No. 3-84-019 O
11
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION On February 27, 1985, during an interview with 01 fonner NES NDE Inspector, alleged that through hea y u onnation, her former NES NDE Inspector and Shift Supervisor.
. as said to have conducted NDE inspections at Fermi 2 w
without ac cing co the d
ically collect the inspection data (drylabing inspections).
offered no rroborati evidence although he related NES Pr ject Manage and former NES Inspector ould corroborate h allegati n.
~~
~
(Exhibit 30)
On February 28, 1985, 01 and Region III Staff contacted Both individuals stated y ha o direct knowledge of abin inspections.
recalled that he also drylabing, but scoun d the rumor as sl did not hear of the allegation and stated she perceived as an excellent inspector and honest person.
(Exhibit 31 Based on the interviews with a'nd 01 does not anticipate additional investigation of NES drylabing inspections unless
. requested to do so by RIII staff.
01 Reports of Interview with four individuals contacted as a result of this investigation and whose information was not addressed in this report are included as Exhibits 32-35.
This investigation has developed inf tion ind ble I, violation Fed al Criminal aw b and Under t e circumstances, a c of the inal eport'of nyes on will be referred to the Department of Justice.
f i
f Case No. 3-84-019
)
12 t--
o l
'l LIST OF EXHIBITS 1.
Testimony of ated November 29, 1984; Reports of Interview dat d July 9, 984 and December 17, 1984 2.
Wismer & Becker Company Request for NDE dated May 31, 1983.
3.
Testimony of dated February 27, 1985; Statement dated September 12, 1984.
4.
Nuclear Energy Service payroll records re:
5.
Statement of dated September 12, 1984.
6.
Nuclear Energy Service NDE inspector certification list.
7.
Wismer & 8ecker Company UT-thickness report No. 5296 dated May 31, 1983.
8.
Nuclear Energy Service NDE certification forl 9.
Reports of Interview with dated July 9, '.984 and January 7, 1985.
- 10. Report of Interview with dated January 29, 1985.
- 11. DECO SAFETEAM allegation No. 385 dated May 23, 1984
- 12. DECO Nuclear Security Report of Investigation dated November 11, 1983.
- 13. Michigan State Police Laboratory Report No. 13265-83 dated September 15, 1983.
- 14. Michigan State Police Laboratory Report No. 14125-84 dated November 8,1984.
- 15. Wismer & Becker Company UT Examination Report No. 276 dated April 17, 1983.
l
- 16. Enrico Femi DDR No. (W)6616, 6616A and 6616B.
- 17. Letter from DECO to NRC dated August 5, 1981.
4 18.'GeneralElectricCompanyNonconformityReportNo.81-DDR(W)6614B dated November 19, 1981.
- 19. General Electric Company Field Deviation Disposition Request No. KH1-258 dated January 22, 1982.
- 20. Letter from D. K. MUSKE to General Electric Company dated February 2, 1982.
Case No. 3-84-019 f
13
I' l
i'
- 21. DECO DDR(W)6614C dated February 8,1982.
- 22. DECoDDR(W)8177datedMarch 31, 1982.
l 6
l
- 23. Report of Interview wit ated February 27, 1985.
i l
- 24. Report of Interview with ated January 16, 1985, t
- 25. Deco letter to J. G. Keppler dated May 26, 1982.
- 26. Letter from General Electric company to DECO dated September 23, 1982.
- 27. DECO Quality Concern Report dated April 15, 1983.
i-
- 28. NRC Inspection Report No. 50-341/84-59 dated February 15, 1985.
4
- 29. NRC Inspection Report No. 50-341/8501 March 19, 1985.
- 30. Reports of Interview with dated September 12, 1984, January 7 and Febru 27,
- 31. NRC Allegation ATS No. RIII-85-A-0039.
32.
Report of Interview with ated January 7, 1985.
- 33. Report of Interview with dated February 27, 1985.
- 34. Report of Interview with Stuart LEECH dated December 14, 1983.
i
- 35. Report of Interview with John DREW dated December 14, 1983.
L Case No. 3-84-019 14
onee kw.
.ANasellTAL SUP 8/23/85 ftk (Name, ofilce symbol, room number, initials Date -
huondins. AsencyItoet>
L Euaene T. Pawlik 2.
3.
S.
Action File Note and Retum Approwel For Clearance Per Conversation As Requested For Correction Prepare Reply Circulate For Your Information See Me l
Comment Investigate Signature cwinetton Justify ap4ARns i
l A complete cony of the Report of Investigation entitled, "Enrico Fermi 2: Alleged Falsification of flondestructive Examination Inspection Records; Alleged Construction Deficiency"'(3-84-019)y Reportable Failure 'to Notify flRC of Potentiall is enclosed.
Also enclosed is a copy of the memoranda which transmitted said report.
Enclosures:
As stated DO NOT use this form a c0RD of approvels, concurrences, disposals.
C,,,.
=. and similar actions FH004:(Name, org. symbol Agency /rost)
Room No.--41ds.,
Rooer A. Fortuna, D'eputy Director, 01 yestM 41 (Rev. 7-76) gO-88J88 seet-sor FP""
- C
- sro, un o - nLin om
)
'\\
}
l
i DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE madJ..
- vich i
g-ET Detroit Edison Company 2l7 f
Ooc u'u s Ps
. BEECH Fermi-2 j
[
u a
iY j i Jy~ ',
S 2000 Second Avenue f'
' * "v *...r.'.....e...o 33
-13
". d.,
. _o.
7 g,,
u i:
3 "' 6-r 3
E i&~
k I-k, k,
gy
\\
John P. Drew J
' e svoerv.sor L*"':';."1,;'
3l3-CElo~SJ/5~
- 3c v'
1";!;';,, n.,, ve.,2 h
[
M.a Detroit e400 ~ o_. ~,os..,
c Edison fic;rg;ma'"**'a y,ek q c( D E pA~
NI i
Stuari H. Leach, CPP h'.
t".':.' s s u,.,,
i i
1-bE$5?f':,"l oetroit Edison EiG #e"0,"'8'"
/
/
f..:
i
/
]
v 5
r.
9 em a. - w+
^ -
~
~
- ^ ' '
_ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - _ - _ _.. -