ML20245E923

Forwards Synopsis of NRC Investigations Rept 3-84-012 Re Baldwin Assoc Document Reviewers Accepting Bogus Documents or Coercing Individuals to Accept Bogus Documents. Allegations Unsubstantiated.Issue Closed

ML20245E923
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	08/03/1989
From:	Greenman E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Hall D ILLINOIS POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 8908140052
Download: ML20245E923 (4)

Text

__ - - .- - _ __ - . _ _ _ _

'9 ***?u UNITED STATES -

i/, rg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y.

- l; .- ,S . * '

• REGION lit k U 799 ROOSEVELT RO AD if cocu ELLyn, stumois som

(

AUG 3 1989 bocket No. 50-461 Illinois Power Company ATIN: Mr. D. P. Hall Senior Vice President Clinton Power Station Mail Code V-275-P. O. Box 678 Clinton, Illinois 61727 Gentlemen:

The purpose of this letter is to forward the synopsis of the NRC Office of Investigations (01) Report 3-84-012 which reviewed eight separate allegations.

None of the eight allegations were substantiated. In one of the allegations involving the issuance of oral changes to procedures, one isolated instance was identified where an individua1'provided oral changes. Subordinates failed to act on the' oral changes and therefore no violation of procedures was

[ committed.

Our review'of 01 Report 3-84-012 has been completed and we consider the matters addressed in the 01 Report closed.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of

' this letter with enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. .

.We will gladly discuss any questions you may have concerning the OI report.

Sincerely, h7 AL Edward G. seenman, Director hDivisionofReactorProjects

Enclosure:

01 Report 3-84-012 Synopsis See Attached Distribution

"?

8900140052 090003 DR ADOCK 0500 4 1

,(

r. -

- c ,..

Illinois Power Company. 2- AUG 3 1989 Distribution cc w/ enclosure:

L J. S.' Perry, Assistant Vice president l

D. L. Holtzscher,_ Acting Manager,

Licensing and Safety.

-Department 1-._

TOCD/DCS/ARIDS)2G 1.icensing Fee Management Branch l -Resident Inspector, RIII *

o. B. Hickman, NRR Project Manager J..W. McCaffrey, Chief,-Public

-Utilities Division David.Rosenblatt, Governor's Office of Consumer Services Sheldon label,' Esquire, Schiff,-Hardin, & Waite Chairman of DeWitt County Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________.._____m_______._____

i 1

~ ~

SYNOPSIS I

On May 11, 1984, NRC Region 111 (Rill) requested that an investigation be initiated concerning allegations that d' cument reviewers in the Baldwin Associates (BA) Document Review Group R RG) were accepting " bogus," i.e.,

falsified, documents or coercing othert to accept bogus documents. ,

Furthermore, PJll requested at investi 9ation regarding an allegation of a threat received by a Lead D C ---t keviewer in the DRG Electrical Group.

The Lead Document Reviewer was an employee of BA, a contractor for the licensee, Illinois Power Company (IP), at the Clinton Power Station (Clinton),

Clinton, Illinois.

The lead Reviewer made the allegations during a Sunday morning telephone call to the NRC Duty Officer. Subsequently, the lead Reviewer refused to meet with the NRC Senior Resident inspector (SRI) at Clinton to discuss the allegations.

The SRI treated the' allegations as valid and notified NRC:Rlli.

The Lead Reviewer was later terminated from Clinton by EA due to falsification of his resume. The Lead Reviewer filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against '

BA and IP and alleged he was unfairly terminated. Based on this allegation, the Lead Reviewer met with NRC:RIII representatives. The Lead Reviewer, however, refused on two occasions to be interviewed by NRC Office of Investigations (01) investigators. Based on this lack of cooperation, this matter was upgraded to an investigation. (The resume falsification is being j investigated under NRC:01 Case No. 3-85-009.)

(-

Shortly after the Lead Reviewer filed his lawsuit, a former Level 11 Document Reviewer wrote a letter to RIII saying he had been unfairly terminated from his position at Clinton. The Level 11 Reviewer also alleged that BA management used intimidation / harassment, imposed a quota system on reviewers, and misused a Generic Resolution (GR) program. These allegations were incorporated into this case.

During the course of the investigation, eight separate allegations were raised by various individuals. The first ali aation claimed that document reviewers were albwed to cheat on their certification exams. This allegation could not be substantiated. The second allegation involved the alleged threat against the Lead Reviewer. It could not be substantiated that the threat actually occurred. However, even if the threat did occur, all evidence indicates the threat was not related to the Lead Reviewer's job; rather the threat was a result of incidents involving the Lead Reviewer's personal life.

The third allegation' claimed that reviewers in DRG were accepting or coercing others to accept bogus documents. Due to the lack of coopec tion by the i Lead Reviewer, it was assumed that the Lead Reviewer felt tne GR program was improper, in that it did not properly address deficiencies, thus any acceptance of documentation citing a GR was, in fact, improper. While other reviewers also felt that the GR program was misused or false in its own right, the allegation of accepting false documents could not be substantiated.

f Reviewers also alleged that BA:DRG supervisors were reviewing and improperly

( accepting travelers over the objections of the reviewers. The reviewers felt the supervisors were " buying off" packages on a wholesale basis. This allegation also could not be substantiated.

Case No. 3-84-012 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - _ - - - _ - - - - _ - _ _ _ - - - . - - _ __ _ - -- (

l l

4 1

. . 3

' Some reviewers also cited instances where BA:DRG supervisors " falsified" welding certifications, material certifications, and Certificates of Conformance. The reviewers who made the allegations could not provide any specific information and the allegations could not be substantiated.

It was also alleged during the investigation that BA:DRG management imposed quotas or " bean counts" on the individual reviewers to accelerate production.

BA management admitted tracking work production to determine manpower needs and to determine scheduling goals. The allegation of using bean counts to encourage or force accelerated production in lieu of quality could not be substantiated. The allegation that BA:DRG management intimidated and harassed document reviewers could not be substantiated. The intimidation / harassment cited by the Level II Reviewer pertained to a nickname placed on him and his relatives, which he felt was intimidating. This nickname or moniker was used by both management and fellow workers. Other incidents or examples of intimidation / harassment appeared to be perceptions of certain managers' management style as opposed to blatant intimidation / harassment. None of the reviewers who made this allegation admitted that the intimidation / harassment affected the quality of their review work.

The allegation was also made that BA:DRG supervisors improperly made oral changes to written Ip procedures. One case of a Level III making improper oral changes to procedures was substantiated. The Level III was counseled not to issue oral changes, and no reviewers were found who actually followed the oral changes.

During the investigation, it was alleged that there was collusion between a DRG Level 11 Reviewer and IP Quality Assurance to " buy off packages." This

('

allegation could not be substantiated.

A DRG Level III Reviewer and the aforementioned DRG Level II Reviewer alleged that they had been terminated unfairly. In both cases, the allegations could not be substantiated.

t I

i i

l l

l' Case No. 3-64-012 2 j