ML20214S816
| ML20214S816 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1983 |
| From: | Hayes B NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214S759 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-188 NUDOCS 8609300107 | |
| Download: ML20214S816 (5) | |
Text
,
'~
~
. E bd* *%
'4 umTED STATES Denton
+
f,'e
,, j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I]eYoungV WASHINGTON. D. C. 2055s
'g.
[
bCunnin9%
October 20, 1983 1
/00 t
'/Y MEMORANDUM FOR:
Thomas E. Murley, Regional Administrator Region I FROM:
Ben B. Hayes, Director
SUBJECT:
Office of Investigations SEABROOK STATION UNIT 1, FALSIFICATION OF NON-DESTRUCTIVE EXAMINATION (NDE) RECORDS at the Seabrook Station, Unit I concerning the caption gation confirmed that one radiographer employed by Pullman-Higgins (P The investi-site radiographic firm, had not performed certain NDE tests and in fact fa the fied NDE Inspection Reports.
that anyone in P-H management was aware of, or attempted No additional investigative activity is contemplated by this office rega d e incident.
these allegations.
r ng
.J A copy of this report has also been provided to the Department of Justice their' prosecutive, review.
perTnission of the Director, 01.Neither this memorandum or report may on a need and right to know basis. Internal NRC access and dissemination may be e
Enclosure:
as stated J.Dircks, EDO (3 copies) cc:
R. K. Christopher, 01:RI 8609300107 060925 PDR FOIA GARDE 86-188 PDR
$r
&a, C7
.~
SUMMARY
On May 9,1983, the Acting Regional Administrator requested an investiga-tion after the licensee (Public Service Company of New Hampshire) reported on April 29, 1983, that a welding inspector employed by the Pullman-Higgins
~
Company (Contractor) was possibly involved in procedure violations during Nondestructive Examination (NDE) for both safety related and non-safety related welds at the Seabrook Unit I and 2, Nu' clear Generating Stations.
On April 18,'1983, approximately two weeks prior to the licensee's notifica-tion, the NRC Seabrook Senior Resident Inspector (SRI) received an anonynous allegation that identified a Pullman-Higgins (P-H) NDE Technician as responsible for record falsification and further alleged. that the technicia.n's super-visors were attempting tc cover up the falsification.
Accordingly, this investigation was initiated to determine if there was actual falsification of P-H fide records and if true, to determine what ' action the P-H management took towards identi fying and reporting the wrongdoing.
i The NDE technician (Subject) identified by the anonymous alleger was inter-viewed by the reporting investigator on May 22, 1983.
He said that in April 1983, he became aware that the P-H management was investigating alleged improprieties concerning his NDE workmanship (liquid penetrant and magnetic particle exam-inations).
He said that on April 21,'1983, his P-H,NDE certifications were pulled by P-H management and he was. informed that he would not be allowed to perform any more NDE inspections until the P-H investigation was complete.
He said that during this time, P-H management indcated to him that they suspected that he had completed inspection reports without ever doing the actual inspections.
When questioned about the allegations by P-H management, Subject said he continually denied the allegations but did admit to occasional procedural violations regarding some of his liquid penetrant inspection.
He said that on April 27, 1983, his employment was terminated for " poor workmanship".
Subject stated that he did not know of anything which could account fo r the P-H findings and further stated that he never falsified any NDE reports and "on i
-.-c.,
--__._n, -., - -, - - - _., - - - -
every occasion" did his assigned work " accurately" and " honestly" and to the best of his ability.
i Subsequent interviews with P-H onsite management personnel and P-H NDE technicians, determined that Subject's questionable tide inspections were first brought to management's attention in January 1983 when-a reinsnection of a weld, previously accepted by Subject, was found to have rejectable in-Managemant and technician interviews indicate that this incident d
s.
did not, at the time, raise suspicions of record falsification or suspicions that Subject was not conducting his assigned inspections.
However, in accordance with applicable procedures, on January 28, 1983, P-H reported the incident in a supplement to the appropriate nonconformance report to United Engineers and Constructors (UE&C), the architect at the Seabrook Unit 1, for corrective action.
UE&C reviewed the supplement and sent back their disposition dated April 11, 1983.
The disposition required P-H to " spot check other acceptable liquid penetrant inspections performed by the individual responsible for the initial liquid penetrant inspection performed on th'is weld...
to verify that the discrepancy between the initial and subsequent liquid penetraat inspections is an isolated incident." Prior to receiving the afore-mentioned disposition, during the late March and April 1983 time period, the P-H Quality Assurance (QA) Manager initiated reinspections of samplings of Subject's f(DE work.
The reinspection involved both liquid penetrant (LP) and magnetic particle (MP) inspections and the res0lts of the reinspections in-dicated that Subject did not properly conduct his assigned flDE inspections and may have falsified P-H NDE inspection reports; however, when interviewed on several occasions by P-H management personnel, Subject continued to deny that he had either falsified flDE reports or that he had not done his assigned work.
The aforementioned information was verified through interviews of P-H management personnel and nonmanagement employees and through a review of related documenta-tion.
It was further determined that the licensee was notified by P-H in early to mid April 1983, that they (P-H) were conducting an investigation into a potential problem concerning t4DE inspection violations by one of their (P-H) f;DE technicians.
The P-H QA manager said that based on Subject's adr.itted failure to follow written procedures, and reinspection results,
/
i terminated Subject's employment on April 27, 1983, and notified the l
yicensee of the reasons behind the temination on the same date.
gg of the P-H NDE site management personnel, supervisory personnel and NDE technicians were interviewed and other than the instant investigation, all denied being aware of any other actual or suspected falsification of records.
I Information obtained during several of the aforementioned interviews indicated i
that Subject may have provided false information on his P-H job application and ' resume regarding his formal education and previous employment.
Contact with an-educational institution and a past employer listed on the above men-tioned documents, determined that Subject did not have a college degree or previous NDE certifications as listed on these documents.
It was further i
learned that Subject's employment with a previous NDE employer resulted in termination for a " falsified radicgraphic film report".
~'
I On June 21, 1983, Subject was reinterviewed by the reporting investigator and I
initially denied that he had falsified P-H inspection reports or that he had not done all c f his assigned inspectinns.
After approximately 35 minutes of 1
being interviewed, Subject admitted that he had falsified "a good number" of P-P. MP and LP NDE inspection reports. He said that he did actually perfom, and accurately document, all of his assigned safety related NDE assignments; however, he said he did not perform all of his assigned non-safety related tide assignments but did submit the reports which falsely documented the work as being completed and acceptable.
He further admitted that he had lied on
)
his P-H job application and resume regar.
s formal education and previous i
ti3E certi fication.
He said that no one, tr. clude P-H management, was aware that he had falsified P-H llDE inspection reports.
This investigation determined that Subject, a P-H NDE technician, did falsify P-H NDE Inspection Reports, however, there was no indication that P-H manage-ment was either aware of, or attempted to cover up, the wrongdoing by Subject.
P-H reported the first noted inspection discrepancy to UE&C on January28, 1983; l
}
4
-a---
_,, _,,, - - - - ~ - ~
' " ' ~
3 s
cpenced investigating the discrepency in late March 1983, prior to receiving ggC's corrective action; when their (P-H) investigation raised suspicions g wrongdoing, they promptly notified the licensee of the ongoing investiga-tion; and when their invesitgation was complete on April 27, 1983, they 5,nediately notified the licensee of the results.
Interviews with all of the technicians in the P-H NDE Department indicate that the falsification I
gas an individual, isolated incident.
This investigation is CLOSED.
e
=e N
I l
f '
s.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 1555 Connecticur Avenue, N.W., Suite 202 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)2324550 March 18, 1986 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST FWi.DOa2 Of tNFoeggy Director Ac~; RgggteT Office of Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission M '((g-/ [f
[a])d Id 3-1N6 Washington, D.C.
20555 To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C.
552, the Government Accountability Project (GAP). requests copies of any and all agency records and information, including but not limited to notes, letters, memoranda, drafts, minutes, diaries, logs, calendars, tapes, transcripts, summaries, interview reports, procedures, instructions, engineering analyses, drawings, files, graphs, charts, maps, photographs, agreements, handwritten notes, studies, data sheets, notebooks, books, tele-phone messages, computations, voice recordings, computer runoffs, any other data compilations, interim and/or final reports, status reports, and any and all other records relevant to and/or generated in connection with'I.E. Notice 85-97, entitled " Jail Tetm for Contractor Employee who Intentionally Falsified Welding Inspection Records," dated December 26, 1985.
This request includes all agency records as defined in 10 C.F.R. 9.3a(b) and the NRC Manual, Appendix 0211, Parts 1.A.2 and A.3 (approved October 8, 1980) whether they currently exist in the NRC official, " working", investigative or other files, or at any other location, including private residences.
If any records as defined in 10 C.F.R. 9.3a(b) and the NRC Manual, supra, and covered by this request have been destroyed and/or removed after this request, please~ provide all surrounding records, including but not limited to a list of all records which have been or are destroyed and/or removed, a description of the action (s) taken relevant to, generated in connection with, and/or issued in order to implement the action (s).
$5f W $.! Y h h
b l
t
\\
~
- y.
GAP requests that fees be waived, because " finding the information can be considered as primarily benefitting the general public," 5 U.S.C. 552 (a) (4) (a).
GAP is a non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization concerned with honest and open government.
Through public outreach, the Project promotes whistleblowers as agents of government accountability.
Through its Environmental Whistleblower Clinic, GAP offers assis-tance to local public interest and citizens groups seeking to ensure the health and safety of their communities.
The Environ-mental Whistleblower Clinic is currently assisting several citizens groups, local governments and intervenors in Texas concerning the construction of the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant.
We are requesting the above information as part of an ongoing monitoring project on the adequacy of Region IV and the NRC's efforts to protect public safety and health at nuclear power pla'nts.
For any document's or portions that you deny due to a specific FOIA exemption, please provide an index itemizing ~and describing the documents or portions of documents withheld.
The index should provide a detailed justification of your grounds for claiming each exerption, explaining why each exemption is relevant to the document or portion of the document withheld.
This index is required under Vaughn v. Rosen (I), 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974).
We look forward to your response to this request within ten working days.
Sincerely, 0dl fm...).,,b -
Billie Pirner Garde Director, Environmental
~Whistleblower Clinic i
l
_