ML20137H247

Summary of 950405-06 Meeting W/Utility at Fort St Vrain Re Stier,Anderson & Malone Rept.Attendees Listed

ML20137H247
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Saint Vrain
Issue date:	04/12/1995
From:	Robert Evans NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Cain C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML20137H118	List: ML20137H113 ML20137H133 ML20137H173 ML20137H237 ML20137H247 ML20137H255 ML20137H265 ML20137H295 ML20137H311 ML20137H320 ML20137H353
References
FOIA-96-434 NUDOCS 9704020108
Download: ML20137H247 (4)

Text

prafg UNITED STATES l A

, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGloN IV g 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUlTE 400 f ARLINGTON, TEXAS 760114064 APR I 21995 MEMORANDUM T0: Charles L. Cain, Chief Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards ,

FROM: Robert J. Evans, Health Physicist Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch hh Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD AT FORT ST. VRAIN The purpose of this memo is to document the details of a meeting held at FSV on April 5 and 6, 1995. The subject of the meeting was the Stier, Anderson, and Malone report. The attendees of the meeting included myself, Jon Armenta, Investigator, Office of Investigations, Mark Malone, Attorney at Law, and Don Warembourg, Consultant to Public Service Company of Colorado. The primary purpose of the meeting was to allow the OI investigator to question one of the

report authors, Mr. Malone, about th.e accuracy and validity of the report findings. I attended the meeting as a representative of this Division to assess the report findings for any new public health or safety concerns.

4 The law firm Stier, Anderson, and Malone was contracted in February 1994 to independently determine whether an atmosphere of intimidation and harassment

, existed at FSV. This independent investigation began during March 1994.

During the early stages of the investigation, an SEG employee came forward with information about documents that were potentially falsified. The charter of the independent investigation was then expanded to include this second issue. The independent investigation report was subsequently submitted to the NRC on March 27, 1995. The SA&M report consists of a 328 page report with 4 appendices. Background information, such as transcripts, were not submitted with the report to the NRC. The background information is available onsite for NRC review.

Of primary concern to OI was the records falsification issue, therefore, more time was spend discussing this issue than the harassment and intimidation issue. You may recall that the records falsification issue included the backdating of 20 radiation work permit survey records and backdating of 14 release survey forms in early 1993. On August 4, 1994, the licensee and licensee representatives presented preliminary findings about the records falsification issue to the NRC during a management meeting held in the Region IV office. Buried deep in the 87 page presentation document was a 3 sentence description of a third falsified document that the NRC had not been previously informed of.

During September 1993, survey documentation was apparently falsified to support the unconditional release of the hot service facility plug (this multi-ton plug is a cover for the hot service facility, vhich is a pit where ,

high radiation and contamination work was performed). Since this issue was 11 9704020108 970324 PDR FOIA SAURO96-434 PDR r ou 1usm an

t j t( .

! Charles L. Cain $ relatively new to both Jonathan and myself, a large percentage of the meeting

time was donated to this subject. I concluded that a final, comprehensive i release survey was apparently not performed by SEG personnel. A safety 4 concern currently does not exist because the plug was independently surveyed l by PSC personnel in April 1994 and July 1994

delayed for a period of time because a crane w(completion as necded to of thethe turn survey plug over was i so the bottom could be surveyed) and the plug is currently in place in the reactor building.

l 1 One other potential issue identified during the rtiscussions of this section of the report was the question of how many people were involved in this third records falsification incident. Although one person was named in the report as the responsible individual, it is unlikely that this person apparently falsified a critical survey record without at least one other person knowing about and perhaps condoning the activity. Since the same individuals that are involved in the first two blocks of falsified survey records were involved in the third incident, pursuing the idea of "who knew what and when" would be time consuming and appears to be unnecessary.

Overall, the SAM report was well written. Although subjective in nature, I disagreed with the conclusions drawn in one section of the report. Starting on Page 100, the report analyzed the events surrounding three asbestos incidents to determine if these incidents helped create an atmosphere where i personnel were inhibited from expressing safety concerns. The conclusion  !

(Page 109) was that "the asbestos incidents both contributed to and evidenced 1 the perception some workers had that.MKF management favored production over safety...this perception, in turn, reinforced the existing belief by many workers that it was not wise to express safety concerns if doing so would be viewed by supervisors as slowing production." I suggested to Mr. Malone that the writeup in the report did not support this conclusion. Mr. Warembourg agreed with my observation and suggested that the author (who was not Mr.

Malone) was presenting his (the author?s) perceptions, but not the workers' perception. Regardless, the conclusion of whether or not workers were harassed or intimidated at FSV is not significantly affected one way or another by this section of the report.

Several minor report discrepancies were noted and reported to Mr. Malone. For example, on Page 29, the report claimed that PSC notified.the NRC in writing of the apparent falsification of radiation survey documentation on or about March 28, 1994. The reference for this statement was actually an NRC preliminary notice; therefore, this sentence was determine to be inaccurate.

Another discrepancy involved interchanging the use of the words " regulations" and " guidance" to describe NRC documents. The SAM report, Page 38, used the ,

term " regulations" when the words " guidance" or " policy" were more j appropriate. I sent Mr. Malone NRC documents that discuss the differences  !

between' regulations, regulatory guides, and NUREGs to clarify which are i requirements and which are cuidance documents.

One other subject briefly discussed involved the four workers who may have been terminated for bringing up safety issues. Mr. Malone was asked if he or ,

other members of his team knew why the four workers were not rehired at a  !

later date when MKF needed a few additional workers. This issue was not i l

4

~ . . ,-

s .

4 Charles L. Cain pursued by the investigation team, in part, because the subject did not surface during interviews with these workers (3 of 4 were interviewed, the fourth could not be located).

• Finally, Mr. Malone wondered if he should revise the report to incorporate our observations and resubmit it to us via the licensee. I suggested that it was up to PSC to decide if the report should be revised and resubmitted, noting that the NRC's final conclusion about the issues raised in the report probably would not' be influenced by a revision. Mr. Warembourg expressed concern that the SA&M investigation was "way over budget" and seemed to suggest that PSC ,

did not want to spend any more time or money on this investigation. I left l the site with the feeling that PSC is now waiting for Region IV to render a i conclusion on the harassment and intimidation, and records falsification '

issues (i.e, the " ball's in our court" now). l l

i l

l 4

i O

i

~

, s. I e  :

Charles L. Cain l t

cc: l S. J. Collins, DRSS  :

R. A. Scarano, DRSS ,

C. L. Cain, FCDB i R. J. Evans, FCDB  ;

J. Armenta, OI l W. L. Brown, RC l

R. Wise, AC i FCDB File  ;

DOCUMENT NAME: 0:\FCDB\RJE\ Meeting.fsv i I

e P

h t

i I f I -1 i

i l .

1 h

i l

r  !

{

l l

6 5

4 i

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