ML20137H173

Investigation Rept 4-95-015.Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Investigated:Alleged Deliberate Failure of Contract Employee to Perform Daily Response Checks on Portable Contamination Monitor

ML20137H173
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Saint Vrain
Issue date:	08/17/1995
From:	Armenta J, Williamson E NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
To:
Shared Package
ML20137H118	List: ML20137H113 ML20137H133 ML20137H173 ML20137H237 ML20137H247 ML20137H255 ML20137H265 ML20137H295 ML20137H311 ML20137H320 ML20137H353
References
FOIA-96-434 4-95-015, 4-95-15, NUDOCS 9704020084
Download: ML20137H173 (16)

Text

- - . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

h# -).k '#.' f s. . "

i

. 9'P4*,6f Q"

.y sy ' ' ..a,

~d > .1

] s a ~i,. . v . .

. ,m.v 4, - . , h ... *.,2 k it 1 . e - . tv?8'(g e, .Ati

- ,. t,178 - i'\;M. i ...

i - .

A S- E. 02:~ . is ;;.s;...

. . . . ..~:.,. -

, . [ e

.y g . * .' .

n_ l . * ,

w; - ;Y m .... )

l .p . ,

f m..~.:..+mn e

Se w u m m ; . .m =.m,.m. . v...w  ; d. &g . ,d . ,. n , e.. /

] N ~' ~

-...y,.4 ..

%MM VWwsMmmew x e u4Reportp@fJnvesbaaGon% a M ,p M M.:

p w .. .

w a & %. 2 f a. y) w'6 4 4 4 y;. ;.mn.:.

.ms M$i wM,.:

gw m :dd{,@

9 "

i s @wp% ,

. . N ..

FORT

. ., ST. c.g .VRAIN:

3. v .r.% w .

• .QWT.

..~.y:

o.v,. :. -

h(.U wfv 2 .;

L., , f;h g..h)f .

. .; ..f~y o

.j.j .c l,4 .f,.:

p . ., , . . . . ..

.s .. .:,- 3.,. . ... .  :.r . ..

l M:dALLEGED DEUEERATE FAILURE OF. CONTRACT EMPLOYEE 4 l

..g;:.3 3e

~

. x m y t y % w ::.g O. . p. H~.4.. H. . u W W .< - - g .

j ryC ;TO PERFORM DAILY RESPONSE CHECKS ~ ON PORTABLE W. r .

.p v

y . .;: .

.g. .

. ,; . n . . :. .g..y . , . g : ,, ; .

Sh NCONTAMI' NATION MONITOR 2.u,:u.=..N:

kN, .

a-h a N NYNb

t. % . .m. ... . . , .. ~ ~. e ;. . +~ .2.: a. ?... n. ..g.:w~. :w.:w ...

.v .. - 9 c ... w'.,-..m.

, c. .  %*;,

. . s. m.v. .. w.. . t. . m. .:.. ., 44 ,.n.,,w .s... ..w* <s .,4: , .~.+ .

&m. ,s . .. -. .

a. ,.. n u ,:

n. .

y.- wx .u

. .- n ..  :

.+.ww .:",r W::3k g *' .

..r

. , -.. . w, . *:b .$ .ab,~  ;.1 ny:r g:g,. -*#8 i

lee.- . . , , , . .

... w':,. V .

. ' . . w .n.a.

4 .7 i

~ ....

w s %v. . .n,v ,2,.

,v,

, . . a.s,.. . . . . . .

.:.~.

r..g ~

.s.

. m...e.

. ,u.g. .

5 ._ . . ..m

w m."w ay,r

. 4- v +m

. .. , ..x.. .

pA.. .

~

,, , . . . . . . ~. .u_ , r . . .a.

m. . . : . .

• .2. r., 2.:hy,.ws.7 .. n. . ., .

rh &.-..* m

! ..:g.a.  ;, w c :w. . .

, y.gwh.<e%s w. . .

l

, o, 3 e.  :~ . .

m .y  ;

.... j,

_ gq

,,,. 4 .... p w.  : g , g,, y . .pw; y..;(..z. .

9 e

{ l' 's ..' **j' +

p/ "k * ,i '

.. 1

• j' s kl

,$8. N' i

W.4 . Office of Investigatio~ns 4;98M. aM MfW).N. . .- ..MN '

~

,x

. v.y. L-

c

. ,. d. . ,. e.

. g. n. g.wf ;; f2 ,,;.

n ,:.y ~.x-

>4

. ,e u:,... e.

\

J, Reported.by 01: - RIV S l. *cirM,,..p.Wl&

~

I> ' '

' ~

j , ,

\ ,ky,:.h... . .; ,

.. ,  ; . \=.1%&b...n. .M.m. ..W8&,w..,tl

, a. . . , . .~ . s. , ..

.s

. . . .+ e' h%i..d:M,1%.<,:,,&,

, . .. ,f,W:,n. . <

. ,,;s.; .y. i?.. ..Jkw-; ~ d .: 4 7af s.l ,n~.s a.i 4ijJg~g ?.n. a.' " rJv]

.: (,, 'g*).h+b.ty_

• .q*3 Q,4 T ..}Aq% * ,d~;.t. .,s,,, .9 ^.* ~ 4*

f  : ., < .. . .

lVy,a. '-Q'? m. : +a:Vfyd.%QQ%..n$_QT

~ u . ' (.$9. 8.T Ah%Q.'Bff.Q+@W19.Q:.V.-

e

. . ,,4 .s.w.,.  : .... w .. w .- - -

.&s.';.t..:.x

f .' b $,.., $ .  % d .9"<s,8.m.Nh%h k

h h hh};

~*

ak

.mh+ .

b+r5 M ,.!? Q i@dy% @w' g:w

.m: ..~e

..  : ygworn w w w"-v. y  ;

; N. + . ?.,F. r.M t . ,v. y

a, ypa,.M.

,1 yy .. . . n. , . .r..., -

D,e,.'z..l w

.. ,..we. :. w

b. @.n %E . ,Mg.p ,u.n.

y.-ry.p :~.n 2

hz N w.kr .:a . +~. . - u.. .. , . . . er.

~ .

l' q,,% ~ :,% -

.y. ;%M;:s,;&gw.+%. 49h%L %g;'i;m. i 4,: G...:.. -

j w ?,s . ,.n n.. c.zy M a % f. $ . p:bg M.9 6 h-lQ., .Mu . e , r. . ,

s. w . s y ;dyg s %.4 ,g.. C. f

~. .m . . c. . ...

a nkc,..

! . . indWWE ." .. y, . ,%,,,..k.%.C x.;; ..c w, u'~ %. r.. . ~ 2. . . ., . s.

n' c .

. Q-. .

ym . .. y ..,mm< s ,.. . . .

); Q ".l:._ (

• . . ' .;:. d' .N ' . . ".) ,'*.3-QyL.R:'

j y,, n;. ,

f',..:f. j'?

t : E 9704020084 970324  ;.M f r'..ect e c: $ c't & d;.% s 9tdMa;.h.%

... cd f$.:W

!i pon FotA

! SAURO96-434 . .

PDR

_-,_.m . -. . . _

_,, ,, a,a . ookA -=-b v- - ' '" ' ' ' ' " ~ ' ' ~ _ _ __- - - . . - - . . . - - - - -

n. n -o n, g. n

. fk!bf,Y' ~. .?

~i

,g hJ>' N -7. l

S'. , . eng-~.V ,

L - n , A. :C,ASE nom 445cis . ee '

r w m wg m?W1 pk .5 g. ...

+ 4. .  ;,

l .

m 1

%w' 9 . 8 m.

.6 ,

54 T. -

jg ,

]

i dmilt&sptsieme '

" s . .w.  ? 3p4d/A Ad&WW@g~ 1 n

g%ideair .wvw w R . w w m, l esio n 7

~-c.C ,,d p W W W  %~/

. o...

! qwmmmwwwws@M 3 h.W% Report ofJnvestig$fffff ation w ~

A 1,

.c.

. . .. , w 5f .-.

w u ..

. . n. r . ~ m... ~

~

/.

i

-w$p: ... ~,.,.70RT ST. VRAIN: ' ~@a . ,~.. y.,a er d .E ..,g%qm.p@A@. W .,... W ~ .' M 7.&' .

n o.t.*( .

... ~

cm*. m.; .,2. We-

. m  ;

unw s e - p . ..y

s ' c 4

- y ,, f t 3,  ;- 'c-t / y..:q;.f;(n.:a u,.a. 4

.s m V .

• u, q - , ; f,g;.r:yf

- : ~< . - . , ~ y- ~f}tf$ . - ,

! N aA I

% M. LLEGED DELIBERATE -

. . . . , -:.y n , ,.

FAILURE .. .%pygyya OF CONTRACT / 2EMPLO' FEE n y ' 'TO PERFORM DAILYR ' ESPONSE CHECKS 6 NRTABLE ' E .

.u: . w wa, a w

.s . . , . .

m. l l

.i.:'P f. ..a .Q [my.[.n,:V . - :.

@ *c2 CONTAMINATION MONITOR

! . ;.O I

'? Y. . .

4 g ,.n s

4-t54

.g s e**.

v .= ..? -

4, [. - .1

,,, .y . ..w. 6 r. e, i g ' *

• e 5' ,

.4 s > ,',,'g 1.'y .~ j , gs'.dd2" *16.g.ej, 3 .U g, .'

'. - - . N. , 'd., 7, r .

,g..

• • W '. 9' M.t g." >

5

• 'i*',',P~8*2.

-t-

, ,, ,  ;? .,'..d. .

i l

g.. v3 .w

-r .<

. c .

% . . .- 4v

. .. . v

d. e . . . c -

n.

.,M~g., . . , m. . ,. n'*a. .s. . .

,.'(. , p s

.t - :t *

%u;

. a - -

Y,. 'A;n. <sMg< ??,;.:n e.W, n.,n,lM .w, 4. 2

%. y -

y -- .. - >

3 .Jl . .,

~, .. . as. . . r. s. .".;,24.A,te.

s.,

. .. .>u t.

+...

p.. . .

n.

-, . &.. o.a .., ;.u. ,4, :s

. , *;aw.y .c,.14. .n.

=.* .r..x.

, c. .,

~

. . , . . .w . *. d.;.{ . , c,8,; .

r *: '

s .

..a..~,,,-)...... ('

,.e."

. , V. ,, *-

...:.fs nn ,. t. .T , r,,,, ,

D.. ,: Office of Investi9ations 4 N. - .,.@- .N. ,t.n.MP d..,,7,; W .'rc t. -.

.K

... .M..

. ~-

. .. . ..A. M.., .

~ o..i .. ..

...m.. .

s "; .

, ,. ... ,' *:. ,..,?.. . .

, <r. . 1.ar v ...m.*

e i - , oc ~ .

^ .

1

,/ Reported by'Ol:

%M.f ~

RIV g . s. -  :-

... y, ~. a. .< .. .~.,m,

.v.

w.;a,,,e ~ q,.gm ,... .:.M. ,tv a.p q.a,W - g ..r.: ,.

. : o .e ,

....s..

t

.r a e

, y. ,,  :, .- T, **-. . .  : , .ag .a ;' ywu..,

• x - - . .

{. '-7t. -- h.'7'r. y :p'"~.r ';.,. ,..~;@~~ s { W -

b  !

OR y.:.g - .g w.y .' < L.9).. Q A.(?y W . Y f.f Yf$.l f' .

e. -.

.% 5?.> - ff, ,. f,j'e - +. <!% - ,

' , T, R3{  ; , ^

- l M.,..e.:b .i .j.f.@^W,Q . 9 .a .u e E, -Q',; .W.,2 f . Kc5,':."M.W'

r '. C :.+.. p.' /

.w .+ . ... . . .,r 8p 4 wA .w '

+. . - - . o v .

v <w..

n .. ,s. , .s. . .e.m. .e.e , e *;;w. s .p,, .. ,., w;.e%. ,, ,. :N~w: . .%,gp,  ;" go.,, a,7 .. .. s; .; .e. , .

v. 0 ~ ,

. ..- 7 s .

,,j~+e 4  ; ,

.h ; y? , . a W.,

.- ., 1 ,

.. ~

- f.;p'

?.

v &. . :

~

~> . .. . .. . ..

. . ., u. . . . . .n....p*h.

w,e . 4.,s.  ; .

W,,,'

' l'. .s,:.%,,e. k#-.

• p.;-g,.%., 1. W W y .':3,p  %<

w o .w,af

< g ',..e.

....-c. p

&.9,, 2. ,;. , . .

l -

-r , , .. s, . *a;

. .%. . ' .g t'o

• Iy* y. 2. J, .. g

' * *7 -

.5 G , .:.y. s. c ,-

'u e , e, . *. . ,. ,

~ . g- :, -

.' p;;.3, n. y. l+ ..'

• y . v~~

m gg ,a.,, y. .,,. ^,;., ,r.4 ,-l q . .: . ,

t.

.< 4 a. - ,, .

, 4 e.,.6 A v,,

... . mm. a .. p.a = cfr,.<;.

gap -~ " m%.Ms. m.4.  %. v. > r s.y ; .. ;.s ,:1

.s L

k4. ~4, .-

,./- ...

. , 9,~:. - . .

p~ %, .

-.* a , .y

. u

~ a

,,.;. Jy .y . ., s ,,

.o ;m .7.m;2:

. .~ . - . . ..

7 ~~ a p; &-a,p y.,,_. . ;. n . , ~ _,

. n'; .,, ,

L.

~

w

.. .., . . . c. - . . .

.- _ . , . , ,v.

. S . .cs.y ; . . *.

a,

/-

J 9704020004 970324

<.'C; M.W- ?" " ^'i9.", ". .c

.?. - / '

E PDR FOIA . "'t*~**g"#j#4p' SAURO96-434 PDR

j i

l t

i i l I

i

Title:

FORT ST. VRAIN:

ALLEGED DELIBERATE FAILURE OF CONTRACT EMPLOYEE TO PERFORM -

DAILY RESPONSE CHECKS ON PORTABLE CONTAMINATION MONITOR

{

Licensee: Case No.: 4-95-015 Public Service Compoany of Colorado Report Date: August 17, 1995 P.O. Box 840 Denver, CO 80201-0840 Control Office: 01:RIV Docket No.: 50-267 Status: CLOSED Reported by: Reviewed by: ,

n -

E Jor athan' Armenta, Jr. , InvbstigairJr I. L. Williamson, Director Off' ice of Investigations Office of Investigations Field Office, Region IV Field Office, Region IV WARNING

/ f ,

The attached document / report has'not been resiewed pur uant o

. 10 CFR Section 2.790(a) exemptions nor has any exempt ater 1 been deleted. Do.not disseminate or discuss its contents utsid NRC.

Treat as "0FFICIAL USE ONLY." \* 't/

SYNOPSIS

. On April 18, 1995, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Investigations (01), initiated an investigation to determine whether a radiation protection technician who was an employee of Scientific Ecology Group (SEG) and a contractor on site at the Public Service Company of Colorado's (PSC) Fort St. Vrain (FSV) Nuclear Generating Station, failed to perform daily response checks on portable contamination monitors and a beta gamma counter. .

Based on the evidence developed during the investigation and review of the licensee's internal investigative report, it is concluded the SEG radiation protection technician deliberately failed to perform response checks in accordance with procedures.

1 I

J e i i

Case No. 4<95-015 1

1 I

4

s . .

4

.l t

i 1

y J

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY l

t 1

1 Case No. 4-95-015 2

1 l

i  ;

i i

• r TABLE OF CONTENTS -

l' i

. [Rgg

SYN 0PSIS....................................................... l'  ;

i i

DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION....................................... 5 1 Allegation (Alleged Deliberate Failure of Contract .

I l Employee to Perform Daily Response Checks on l l Portabl e Contaminati on Moni tor) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 i Appl i cabl e Regul at i on s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 I Purpo s e o f Investi gat i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 )

. Background............................................... 5

! Coordination with the NRC staff.......................... 5

'. Review of Licensee's Internal Investigation Report....... 6

{ Add i t i onal I n fo rmat i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

, Closure Information...................................... 7 i

i SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION....................................... 8 LIST OF EXHIBITS................................................ 9 i 1 1

d i

i 1

i I  !

l T

4 i

. i

. i i

/ l

Case No. 4-95-015 .

3 l 1

l l

i 1

t i

i l

l I

l s

i 1 l l 1

I i

l l l

, i I

i F

l

)

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY l i

l 1

l 1

l l l i I

t I

~

l l

l t

I l .

l Case No. 4-95-015 4

t I

l DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION, Alleaation .

Alleged Deliberate Failure of Contract Employee to Perform Daily Response Checks on Portable Contamination Monitor Applicable Reaplations 10 CFR 50.9: Completeness and Accuracy of Information (1994 Edition) -

Plant Procedure: 5.4.1 [ Amendment No. 85]

Puroose of Investiaation This investigation was initiated to determine whether John RAY, Radiation Protection Technician, Scientific Ecology Group (SEG), a contractor on site at the fort St. Vrain Generating Station (FSV), Public Service Company of Colorado (PSC), failed to perform daily response checks on portable {

contamination monitors and a beta gamma counter (Exhibit 1).

Backaround On November 14, 1994, John RAY started working for SEG as a radiation protection technician (RPT) and was assigned noncritical instrumentation work at the site [FSV) such as daily instrument response checks and simple 3 instrument repairs, but not critical instrument calibrations. During the next '

3 months, RAY worked on day shift [with no observable inadequate work practices]; he then transferred to the night shift in February 1995.

During March 1995, fellow SEG RPTs went to RAY's supervisor, John KEITH, Instrumentation Coordinator Supervisor, with concerns about RAY's working practices. These RPTs also presented KEITH with a list of issues, including concerns about potential " paper discrepancies" and sleeping during work hours.

KEITH went on back shift duty on March 27 - March 30, 1995, to observe RAY's working habits and some of the original concerns were subsequently substantiated by KEITH's week long observation. Consequently, the licensee deemed it necessary to initiate an internal independent investigation to determine if RAY had deliberately falsified any documentation during his work shifts.

Coordination with the NRC Staff On April 17, 1995, the NRC:RIV Allegation Review Panel requested the Office of Investigations to conduct a review of the licensee's internal investigation report to determine the adequacy and completeness of their investigation.

On April. 18, 1995, an investigation by 01:RIV was initiated to determine whether an SEG employee failed to perform his duties and specifically if daily response checks on portable contamination monitors and a beta gamma counter were conducted.

Case No. 4-95-015 5

I i.

INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: Since the NRC:RIV Allegation Review Panel i . recommended the licensee be allowed to proceed with their internal investigation, 01:RIV agreed to hold its investigation in abeyance'

, pending completion of SEG's internal investigation report. It was also agreed that at the completion of SEG's internal investigation, a copy of

- , 3

< the report with supporting documents would be furnished to 01. This

report would then be reviewed by 01 to determine what, if any, additional investigative action was required.

i Review of Licensee's Internal Investiaatio'n Report (Exhibit 2) l '

i' During February and March 1995, SEG employees, within the Instrumentation Support Staff, began to perceive a declining level of attention to detail by RAY. Examples of poor performance included sloppy paper work, instances of failure to complete required record keeping, and less than adequate daily

checks of portable instrumentation. These concerns were brought to the 1

attention of their supervisor, KEITH. KEITH conducted detailed in-plant observations during RAY's work shift beginning on March 27, 1995 through March 30, 1995.

On March 30, 1995, as a result of the in-plant observation by KEITH, RAY was removed from all instrumentation work and not allowed to perform any response i;

test duties. RAY wa's informed there were concerns regarding his current performance in his assigned duties and was told to meet with Mark ZACHARY, 4

SEG's Final Survey Operations Supervisor, on April 3,1995, to discuss the-

- specific activities which he would be authorized to perform (Exhibit 3). RAY l was not permitted to work the weekend of March 31, 1995. RAY did not meet

] with SEG management on April 3, 1995, but he met with them the following day

on April 4, 1995.

l On April 4, 1995, a meeting between RAY and SEG management personnel, who

included KEITH, ZACHARY, and Harvey STORY, Radiation Protection Manager, was

held, and it was decided to suspend RAY from all work duties and prohibit him i

3 from coming onsite until a full investigation had been completed. The decision was based on the evaluation of RAY's night shift instrumentation activities (Exhibit 4).

On April 5,1995, Michael LAVER, Senior Radiological Engineer, from the SEG l Oak Ridge office, arrived onsite to conduct a complete investigation of RAY's

, activities and perforra a root cause evaluation. This independent i investigation provided the licensee with information about RAY's inadequate

and inappropriate work practices, including an admission from RAY during an interview with LAVER that he [ RAY) slept during working hours. RAY, according ,

to the investigation report, admitted to sleeping during work hours because he  !

j was sick, but did not tell anyone that he was sick because he did not "want to let anyone down" and because there would be no one else to cover nights if he .

! did not show up for work. The investigation report stated that RAY admitted e

using t;he wrong radioactive source once to perform daily su.vey instrument

! response checks [ correct source was checked out, but the wrong source was used -

i j in the field]. SEG issued a radiological occurrence report [ attached as part l of the investigation report) on the incident. j l

Case No. 4-95-015 6

i

l l

4 The internal investigation report concluded that RAY used poor judgement and exhibited inadequate and inappropriate work practices, including dereliction of duties. According to the investigation report, RAi did not fail to perform j

. instrument response checks; however, due to poor record keeping techniques <

conducted by RAY and inattentive detail, the documentation indicated  :

inconsistencies that generated inaccurate information. The investigation '

report also concluded there was no indication that RAY falsified any documentation or intended to deceive his employer.  ;

INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: According to the daily response test form located at the continuous air monitor, RAY conducted an acceptable response test; however, he did not check the paper supply in the chart recorder and did not label the chart paper with his initials, current date/ time, and indicate a " sat" or "unsat" response test. Failure to perform response checks in accordance with procedures constituted a violation of FSV's Procedure FSV-RP-INST-1-307.

RAY was asked to return to the site on April 5, 1995, to be interviewed by LAVER; however, before the interview, RAY requested to meet with ZACHARY and STORY. RAY indicated to ZACHARY and STORY he was willing to cooperate with the investigation, but he told them that he had decided to pursue a career i opportunity outside the nuclear industry and would be submitting his i resignation. No reason was given for his decision.

On April C,1995, RAY submitted his resignation to pursue employment ,

elsewhere. During the exit interview, RAY was asked if he had any safety or I quality assurance concerns. RAY provided a signed statement indicating he did  !

not have any concerns.

Additional Information The licensee maintains that the findings of this internal investigation report support termination of RAY's employment; however, given his resignation, no l additional corrective actions have been identified for the issues addressed in i the initial allegation. Other findings identified during the investigation l that were not part of the initial allegation do require corrective actions as

' described in the investigation report.

Closure Information Based on the evidence developed during the investigation and review of the licensee's internal investigative report, 01:RIV concluded the allegation that the SEG radiation protection technician deliberately failed to perform

. response checks in accordance with procedures.

d Case No. 4-95-015 7

e .

SUPPLEMENTAL-INFORMATION .

On June 28, 1995, William P. SELLERS, Esq., Senior Legal Advisor for Regulatory Enforcement, General Litigation and Legal Advice Section, Criminal -

Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Suite 200 West, 2001 G Street, N.W.,

• Washington, DC 20001 was apprised of the results of the investigation. ,

Mr. SELLERS advised that in his view, the case did not warrant prosecution and rendered an oral declination.

l 1

i i

l i

4 e

Case No. 4-95-015 8

l l

LIST OF EXHIBITS ,

Exhibit' i No. Description 1 Investigation Status Report,-dated April 18, 1995.

.', 2 Licensee's Internal Investigation Report, dated May 23, 1995.

3 John KEITH's Memorandum to J.-Sn RAY, dated March 30, 1995.

4 John KEITH's Memorandum to Mark ZACHARY, dated April 4, 1995.

)

l l

4 4

1 .

l 1

l 1

I Case No. 4-95-015

9 I l

l

i

< . I s ,

9 INVESTIGATION STATUS RECORD

, Case No.: 4-95-015 Facility: FORT ST. VRAIN

. Allegation No.: RIV-95-A-0054 Case Agent: ARMENTA Docket No.: 50-267 Date Opened: 04/18/95 Source of Allegation: Licensee (L) Priority: N (J. CALLAN, RA:RIV) l Notified by: WISE, SAC:RIV Staff

Contact:

CHARLES L. CAIN Category: WR Case Code: R0 Subject / Allegation: ALLEGED DELIBERATE FAILURE OF CONTRACT EMPLOYEE TO PERFORM DAILY P.ESPONSE CHECKS ON PORTABLE CONTAMINATION MONITOR Remarks: 10 CFR 50.9 Monthly Status Reoort:

04/18/95: On April 18, 1995, Public Service Company of Colorado (PSC) at the Fort St. Vrain Hui. lear Generating Station (FSV), reported that a Scientific Ecology Group [ contractor on site] employee, an instrument technician, had failed to perform daily response checks on a 6A and IB portable contamination monitors and a beta-gamma counter. The licensee also notified NRC:RIV staff that an internal independent investigation had already been initiated to determine if the SEG instrument technician had falsified any documentation or intended to deceive his employer. This technician was assigned noncritical instrumentation work at the site such as daily instrument response checks and simple instrument repairs, but not critical instrument calibrations. He was on day shift for about 3 months with no observable negative behavior or work habits. He then transferred to the night shift about 2 months ago.

The licensee relatd they had identified, during March 1995, that coworkers went to this technicians's supervisor, the SEG instrument coordinator / supervisor, with concerns about the technician's work habits. A list of concerns were presented to the supervisor, including concerns about " paper discrepancies" and sleeping during work hours. The licensee has reported that the instrument

, technician has resigned and is no longer on site. Status: FWP

. [ Field Work in Progress] ECD: 07/95 EXHIBIT /

cAstno. 4-95-015 Pace / cf ! rages e

l ll

. l FSV WNA-IbrT-94-1510

Frum

H. Carson Calton WBS 2.1.2 w!N: x !159 l

. D se: February 28,1994 1 subjece Group Sessions Feedback and Actions To: All WT Employees I appreciate all of your participation and feedback over the past weeks in our group sessions.

A lot of comments were received that have and will continue to be evaluated and appropriate action taken. Below is a summary of what I felt were the key points that were discussed or reiterated and actions that came out of these sessions:

4 i

• Communications and Conduct 4

] Pomts ,

o Clear, open communications by all in a professional manner.

l o Everyone be at their work stations on time and work their full shift; work proactively j with each other not reactively. '

o Everyone expected to work within the project programs with no exceptions.

i o Respect the role each person performs; follow their directions.

1 o Weaknesses or problems identified that can not be corrected in a timely manner should be escalated to supervision.

o Harassment, threats or intimidation of any nature will not be tolerated; disciplinary

e. ion will result for any incident =.

o If the'e are questions, please ask for help.

o An open door to supervision and management always exists.

Actions o RP's will join the Monday toolbox meetings once a month  ;

for discussion on ALARA performance and allow i opportunity for dialogue. Zhart o Management will hold or attend penodic sessions for i dialogue. Calton/ Hug / Parsons  !

g' F1YttSt

• ROR Program ED.lall o

Purpose for this project is to identify and correct programmatic and personne deficiencies regarding the RP program.

o Management uses it to evaluate trends; RP's use it to support their legal o to protect our radiation safety. ,

o '

No quota exists for the program; each ROR is independently evaluated with the appropriate corrective action determined by management, not the RP departmen -

management is also responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of the corrective action. i o

Anyone can initiate an ROR; where individuals are involved, the program focuses) repetitive or blatant violations and disregard. '

o Completed ROR's can be reviewed in the ALARA o# ice.

Actions 'l o '

Gather feedback from the parties involved immediately after an ROR is initiated to avoid surprises.

o Zhart/ Dieter -

Receive feedback from involved parties for recommended corrective actions.

o Sexton Expedite evaluation and closure of the ROR.

o Sexton Ensure the initiator receives a copy of the completed ROR.

o Sexton Display all ROR summaries at the access point. Zachary o

Review ROR's each month during toolbox meetings. Zhart '

In closing, open and professional co=*==lemaans continue to be ti.e key to a safe an project. He WT management is committed to evaluating your feedback and acti; '

manner to ensure weaknesses or problems are properly dealt with. Working together, we have achieved outstanding results to date regarding industrial safety, radiation safety, '

performance. I know we all remain commined to achieving continued project excellence

/ '

H. Carson Calton, Director  !

Fort St. Vrain Project i

'1VitSI

j .

! k (A H C UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. he o R EGION IV 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 400 I

i AR LINGTON, TEXAS 76011-8064 l

D:DRSS DRA RA SJCollins JMMontgomery LJCallan l

03/28/94 03/28/94 03/28/94 i

PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION OF EVENT OR UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE -- PNO-IV-94-012 This preliminary notification constitutes EARLY notice of events of POSSIBLE safety or public interest significance. The information is as initially received without verification or evaluation, and is basically all that is  !

known by the Region IV staff on this date. j

-l EVENT NUMBER: N/A TYPE OF FACILITY EVENT DATE: March 25, 1994 Power Reactor  ;

LICENSEE: Public Service Company of Fuel Facility  ;

Colorado Research Reactor I FACILITY: Fort St. Vrain Hospital Transportation ,

Materials i Well Logging  !

X Other LICENSEE EMERGENCY CLASSIFICATION: j THIS INFORMATION IS NEEDED FOR 1 MATERIAL LICENSEES ONLY Notification of Unusual Event ADDRESS: Alert CITY: Site Area Emergency  :

STATE: General Emergency l ZIP CODE: Not Applicable DOCKET: i LICENSE:  !

CONTACT: William L. Fisher (817) 860-8215  ;

SUBJECT:

FALSIFIED RADIATION SURVEY RECORDS DESCRIPT, ION:

On March 25, 1994, Public Service Company of Colorado (PSC) management reported to Region IV that certain radiation survey records h d been falsified during late 1992 and early 1993. Apparently, from September to December 1992, radiation surveys related to the release of material from the FSV site were not documented, but were documented fictitiously at a later time. Similarly, .

i 9 a

PN494012 -

1

, in'early 1993, radiation surveys related to radiation work permits were not documented, but were documented fictitiously at a later time.

l These findings resulted from an independent investigation performed for the Scientific. Ecology Group (SEG), one of PSC's three decommissioning i contractors. Two SEG personnel have been placed on administrative leave 1 because of their involvement in this matter.

i j PSC indicated its intention to stop all work inside radiologically controlled 2 areas, effective March 28, 1994.

i

, Short-term corrective actions planned by the licensee include additional training for site personnel, reviewing all active radiation work permits for-  :

completeness, and expanding the independent investigation work scope.

]

The state of Colorado wi11 be informed.

J The licensee does not plan to issue a press release. Region IV received notification of this occurrence by telephone from PSC management at 3:30 p.m.

on March 25, 1994. Region IV informed NMSS on that date.

This information has been confirmed with a licensee representative.

l l

l 1

.-