ML20235M096

Forwards Synopsis of NRC Ofc of Investigation Rept 2-86-005 Re Alleged Falsification of Health Physics Records at Plant

ML20235M096
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	02/03/1989
From:	Ernst M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Hairston W ALABAMA POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 8902280119
Download: ML20235M096 (3)

Text

-__

Y FEB0'8tel Docket No. 50-348 License No. NPF-2 Alabama Power Company ATTN: Mr. W. G. Hairston, III Senior Vice President-Nuclear Operations P. O. Box 2641 Birmingham, AL 35291-0400 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

NRC OFFICE 0F INVESTIGATIONS REPORT NO. 2-86-005 Enclosed for your information is the synopsis of the NRC Investigation of alleged falsification of health physics records at the Farley Nuclear Plant. We have reviewed this matter and plan no further action.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rule of Practice,"

Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room, nLbh ww Malcolm L. Ernst Acting Regional Administrator

Enclosure:

Synopsis, Case No. 2-86-005 bec w/ enc 1:

Document Control Desk

,y, J. Liebennan, OE Go NRC Resident Inspector i 882 E. Reeves, Project Manager, NRR l gg DRS Technical Assistant EoS

$$ RII: Eld RII RII:DR RII Pg RII:D RII:DRSS

-o /

8@ B c GRJenk ns D erre11 Reyes ibson D lins N / /89 2/J/89 / /89 / 3 /89 / /89 / /89 R$

RII:Np RI g; gy {g 'w ,

arga 2/. /89

'Jktohr 4Whe g Yb '

2/ 3 /89 f L JJ x /s _TE M

o y .

SYNOPSIS On August 23, 1985, the Region II Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC), requested that the Office of Investigations Field Office, Region II (01:RII), initiate an investigation to determine if certain health physics records had been altered, falsified, or in any way changed, to reflect inaccurate information at the Alabama Power Company's (APCO) Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP), Columbia, Alabama.

OI began its investigative efforts after the alleger reported additional allegations / concerns which he felt had either not been addressed during previous technical inspection efforts or new allegations / concerns that he felt should be addressed. The alleger provided the names of 14 former employees who could corroborate his allegations of falsified health physics records at FNP. All .of these individuals were interviewed and the information developed failed to substantiate the wrongdoing matters under investigation.

During this investigation, extensive inspection efforts were being conducted by the Region II technical staff to determine what, if any, records had been changed, altered, or falsified at the FNP. These inspection efforts included, but were not limited to the areas of. alleged wrongdoing. The technical inspection efforts of the areas identified by the alleger did not disclose any records that appeared to have been altered, changed, or falsified nor did the information developed during the course of the inspections substantiate the allegations.

A total of 17 FNP employees were identified and/or implicated by the alleger as either being involved in the falsification of health physics records or having knowledge of the alleged concerns. Initial efforts by the 01:RII to interview the FNP employees met with resistance from FMP management and APC0 retained counsel. The issue involved the atterney for APCO insisting that he represented all FNP employees, both present and former. Attempts by the OI:RII to contact FNP employees off-site to determine their willingness to talk to OI were unsuccessful. An apparent conflict of interest regarding legal representation caused additional extensive delays in the investigative process. The licensee demanded that corporate counsel represent all employee's, both supervisory / management and non-supervisory groups. After l

extensive discussions, the licensee eventually hired outside counsel to represent its employees who were not considered to be part of management, but continued to place restrictions on the interview process which were unacceptable to 01.

l OI was compelled by these circumstances to subpoena the non-management employees to be interviewed. However, the attorney for the employees

- indicated that his clients would not comply with the subpoenas and filed a motion with the Connission to quash the subpoena. The Commission denied the motion and the issue was taken tn U.S. Federal District Court in Montgomery, Alabama. The presiding judge ruled that the subpoenas would be enforced and issued a protective order under which the interviews would be conducted. The 11 non-supervisory employees were interviewed with retained counsel to determine their knowledge of or involvement in the alleged falsification of health physics records at FNP. All of the non-supervisory employees denied Case No. 2-86-005 1

{o, 9 ,.

any knowledge of any wrongdoing with regards to radiological or health physics issues at FNP.

The seven supervisory / management employees were subsequently interviewed with APC0 counsel present regarding their knowledge of or involvement in the alleged falsification of health physics records at FNP. All of these individuals adamantly denied knowledge of or involvement in any efforts t9 falsify or report inaccurately any radiological or health physics matters.

All pertinent record reviews and personal interviews have been conducted. The status of this investigation is CLOSED.

• • t%

1: -

,r'e Case No. 2-86-005 2 w___-__-_________. . _ _ _ _ _