. 9 t.IRCr iU,4. a-v4- I

I ,

United StatesNuclear Regulatory Co

.. t..0j ~ ~ A-d. ,."

q- 4F

'.Rep8>rtofXofflv3'tlgatl-n.

.- PERRYNUCYLEAR NTATION

Deliberate"1 Vilato..'n fTehIca 6frcIfcatiomn1:cI o

... ~ ~ 1 .' ' .I. -'i: ,''I'. ''e ;ft''.. " " : '' , ,

.�1

9.

� �

v �

� �

* ,a�a*�'- *

..

IOffice of Investigations

II

Reported by 01:R11

.

.ntornation in this record was delwedIn accordance SIth lb ~freedom of Inh tUonAct, exemptions I 7 z'qiFOIA_ 21V0 5?:2?

Title: PERRY NUCLEAR POWER STATION

DELIBERATE VIOLATION OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONREQUIREMENTS REGARDING OVERTIME, AND DELIBERATEFALSIFICATION OF OVERTIME RECORDS

Licensee: Case No.: 3-2002-031

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company76 South Main StreetAkron, OH 44308

Report Date: October 6. 2003

Control Office: OI:RIII

Docket No.: 50-440 Status: CLOSED

Reported by:

William C. Franz, SpecialOffice of InvestigationsField Office, Region m

Reviewed and Approved by:

Richard C. Paul, DirectorOffice of InvestigationsField Office, Region III

WARNING

DO NOT DISSE TE, PLACE IN THE PUB'I' DOCUMENT ROOM ORDISCUSS THE CO NT OF THIS REPORT 0 TESTIGATION OUTSIDENRC WITHOUT AUTHOIIY OF THE FFICIAL OF THISREPORT. UNAUTHORIZED ISCLOSIJRE MAY RES T IN ADVERSEADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ANDOR CRIMINAL PROSEUTION.

SYNOPSIS

This investigation was initiated on October 23, 2002, by the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Office of Investigations, Region mI, to determine whether Atlantic Group (AG)contractors and/or Perry Nuclear Power Station (Perry) supervisors deliberately violatedechnicalspecification requirements regarding overtime and deliberately falsified overtime records inviolation of 10 CFR 50.5, 10 CFR 50.9 and Perry Technical Specification 5.2.2.e.

Based upon the evidence developed, this investigation did substantiate that AG contractors andPerry supervisors deliberately violated overtime technical specification requirements regardingovertime and deliberately falsified'overtime records.

NOT FO IC APPROVAL OFFIELD OFFICE DMREAR, OFFICE OF INVES I4ONS, REGION II

Cas N. 320-3Case No. 3-2002-031 1

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

NOT FOR ŽPLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OFFIELD OFFICE DIREdT4 R, OFICE 0 TIGATIONS, REGION m

Case No. 3-2002-031 2 \

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paoe

SYNOPSIS ............................................ 1

lIST OF INTERVIEWEES. 5

DETAILSOFINVESTIGATION. 7

Applicable Regulations .7Purpose of Investigation .7Background .................. . ...... 7

10 Interview oill ...... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 7Coordination with Regional Staff .. 9Coordination with the Regional Counsel .9. .. ...... 9ReviewofDocumentation .. 9Evidence .. 11

-1 C, interview .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . IX 117- Interviewo .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 1 2

cInterviewo -. 13le.sInterview w.. .. ... .......... .. ... ... ... 131 ,.Interview o ... 15

e- Interview o. . ... 16Inter.ew o.. .. 17

tlPInter vew o g g .. . . . . . .. . .. ... . . . .. . .. . .. 17- Interview o f _M : .. . .. . .. . .. . ..........................., 18

Agent's Analysis .20Conclusion .21

SUJPPLEIMvENTAL INFOR.MATION .23

IIST OF EXHIBrIS .!.............................*..25

NOT FOR P IC DISCLOSURE VITHOUT APPROVAL OFFIELD OMICE DIRE R OFFICE OF TIGATIONS, REGION IlI

Case No0. i-ZAUY-V1I 3

THIS PAGE LEF BLANK RNTENTIONALLY

NOT FOR C DISCLOSURE `ITHOUT APPROVAL OFFIELD OFFICE DREC OFICE OF TGATIONS, REGION IllCase No. 3-2002-031

4

UIST OF INTERVIEWEES

ExhibitNo.

Zl9SEPlt o- ** *. ............................................. . -.. 20

............................................................... 1

.171 aR __v _M -- -------............... . .. . . . . .. 1

N C .........................D

1 = ..........................

..... ..................... ,,.19

FIELD OFFICE DIRE , FFCE OF'N TIGATIONS, REGION III

Case No. 3-2002-031 5

TIRS PAGE LEFr BLANK INTENTIONAJ.Y

NOT F PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OFFIELD OFFICE D CTOR, OFFICE ON17STIGATIONS, REGION M

CaeN. *-023 6

Case No. 3-2002-031 6

DETA]LS OF INVESTIGATION

Applicable Regulations

10 CFR 50.5: Deliberate Misconduct (2001 Edition) _10 CFER 50.9: Completeness and Accuracy of Information (2001 Edition)Perry Technical Specification 5.2.2.e

Purpose of Investigation

This investigation was initiated on October 23, 2002, by the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC), Office of Investigations (01), Region m A ), to determine whetherAtlantic Group (AG) contractors and/or Perry Nuclear Power Station (Perry) supervisorsdeliberately violated technical specification requirements regarding overtime and deliberatelyfalsified overtime records in violation of 10 CFR 50.5, 10 CFR 50.9 and Perry TechnicalSpecification 5.2.2.e.

Background (Exhibit l)

17, 2002, Doug SIMPKINS, Resident Inspector at Davis-Besse, was contacted byho was employed by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) at 7

Davii-Besse ~indicated that in March 2001, he visited Perry as a peer coordinatorin cthe MOV Program ary contracted with AG to perform maintenance and an overhaul of thevalves. AG utilized workers from Adecco/Tad (a laborp endor) to g

A_

personnel. According t one of these stated at a___*._ .,:L L__ ~L- .,. .. 1 a_ - _ +:_ -e .. _ -_ J:- L:L.._-

morning meeuing wiul Lie ugminrs that he would CLnunu Lu WorK uma C,(CUlL Ur[ UnLu Mnrnext week, thereby ec i e overtime limits for safety related work. i dhe 7expressed concern t and the others sent that this could not be don aida e was present as a witness to the incident

" Pater asked for the time sheets frbm the contract workers and found they had worked theexcessive overtime and then falsified the time s

n the issue, but when this CR was also classified as afailure to file an overtime deviation, d the CR was reopened. -l

indicated that FENOC counseled the AG employees sue, but ey also stated,fying time cards is not that serious of an is s u.'

John WOOD Site Vice President, and informed him of the situation. The issue was eventuallydropped af _ hibit 1). 7

Int "ryew o

__-_ Hatat ti me, he overheard a

NOT FOR> BPZJIC DISCLOSURE VVTTHOUT APPROVAL OFFIELD OFFICE DIRE OR, OFFICE OF I GATIONS, REGION m

f..?' t 1an A'sfl1 '7%_UQFC INVU. - W-V I

rX .rts et -

conversation between e Mlt week, and theywanted to get in as many hours that week as possible. They also dis ssed Fat they would like

cause the plant was very strin ent about giving overtimedeviations dng outage not to worry abbq t covertime and that they would be "administratively creative" with their time keeping. At thistime, a d

nTe nil __ 00Ed~nt - thata qm

kean foun not turned in an overtime deviation for 7c.

Agent's Note: According to Perry Technical Specification 5.2.2.e, overtime deviationsare required to allow employees or contractors to exceed 72 hours in a 7-day period ruleand are usually approved and/or disapproved at the Outage Director level. This rule wasdesigned to ensure that personnel conducting work on nuclear related equipment were notmentally fatigued and were capable of performing their tasks safely and effectively.

The next day, camein andalso 7Cworked on his T h ey had 1 Xenough people to do the test already set up for that shift covertime deviation, but he did not. March 19 200 d told hiimthat he had concerns about what indicas well asove dio reviewing their timethatincorrectly submitted the cards and that hesent tem back toAdecco/Tad's Lead Contractor ro ct ionn. , '

_hclardsa th tm ttal to -s-k-rtthe overtime devition. On arch 22, lindicating thatthey failed to get the deviations, but that there was no problem with the submittal of the timecards. who w- stated that his conscience had been 7cbothering him, reopened the CR and entered the facts as they actually happened (Exhibit 2,pp. 6-9, 11-12).

Gostatement. tate,,..,_ U _ _ _oweev w as not in trairwentatement was made. The time was approximately 6:30 p.m., during shift turnover.

during a discussion with Perry supervisors, stated that since the outage was endingand he had to travel on a certain day, he would not get 40 h t week and would notreceive a full per diem check. The conversation then led t saying that he could workon his day off, and the supervisors would not have worry aani ijpe deviation,since it d be admi rtively taken care of. _ ;.-r

_a kd out of the trailer. After the shift turnover meeting,

NOT FOVUBLIC DISCLOSURE1 WITHOUT APPROVAL OFFIELD OFFICE D)ECTOR, OFFICE O STIGATIONS, REGION III

Case No. 3-2002-031 8

ireturn thgL e trailer and that was 3Khq iMMPIM Idcame loon the ir d ay s of fis 1 c.

was Uluevrt r had ALdyp edthat they had enough people, even wi .adjusted the time cards by putting the 1 hours worked on off to anothe y ichshowed no indication of working more than 72 hours that w ee it was thesupervisor's responsibility to ensure that the 72-hour rule was not exceeded, and if so, to submitan overtime deviation request to plant management for authorization (Exhibit 2, pp. 18-26).

1 c

Ut

VWbu

-?a i'icr.

7 l C '4'

a

o falsify his overtneX s0 believed thaw *tew~sh the facts by justifying t

He was n6t aware of any kind of favortism betwqexcept for previously working at Perry as a contractorshave d'usted e time cards on his own unless instructed b

h(Exhibit 2, pp. 29, 31-36).

Coordination with Reaional Staff

On October 7, an Allegation Review Board (ARB) was held on this matter, but the NRC staff didnot have all of the relevant information for OI to make a decision on accepting this issue forinvestigation. This information was subsequently provided to OI on October 23, 2002. At thisARB, it was determined tha Actions potentially violated Perry TechnicalSpecification 5.2.2.e and 10 CFR 50.5 (Exhibit 3).

Coordination with the Regional Counsel

This investigation was initiated with the concurrence of NRC:RElJ Counsel Bruce A. BERSON,M-___I I

Review of Documentation

The lice ce vided OI:Rf with a copy of prepared onThe report indicated tha _ their day

off, exceeding 72 hours in a 7-day period, without an overtime deviation. The Corrective ActionBlock indicated that the time cards submitted for the week of Accattlyreflected the hours worked by tho dividuals (Exhibit 4).

NOT FOR>PLJBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OFFIELD OFFICE D CTOR, OFFICE OF T ESIGATIONS, REGION m

Case No. 3-2002-031 9

11 C:

ewith a copy13pe report revealed that on March 19, 2001, at the

same time the time cardb for the contractors for the week of - were submitted forthe week inqusin ____ 1

eyeed 1c4the time sheets for the days in question, found them to be incorrect, and returned them to the

al h U_ w h o corrected and submitted the time sheets for processing IC(Exhibit 5).

_S~a-_= puruant to a -meeting involving RFOS personne meeting,errors made during these events, management expectations, and ways to prevent recurrence werediscussed (Exhibit 6).

The liesee urnished i copies o cards c'_4me car d showd he vokd 12 hours on Hond

mecards werethe corrected versions of actual hours worked by _on teir days off 7 -(Exhibit 7).-

Agent's N T cards showed tha t 1id notwork on jrespectively, whic were their designated days off thatweek3The licensee claimed all attempts to locate the original time cards wereunsuccessful.

Iii 1*n I Ip=Z gi Vewj 'W7

raUi ith a copy of a policy regarding falsification of records signed by 7 oWOOD. The policy notification, effective October 1998, stated that any employee who falsifiedrecords, reports or forms, or who knowingly signed any document known to contain falsematerial, would be subject to immediate discharge (Exhibit 10).

On August 12, 2003, FENOC provided OI:IR with a response letter pursuant to a request forovertime deviation and time card record information. The letter indicated that after FENOC'sreview of the overtime deviation database and microfiche files, no approved overtime deviationsfo rfIA u - ing RF08 were found. Furthermore, a review was also conducted I C

| __ _ _ ,

NOT FORFIELD OFFICE

WITHOUT APPROVAL OFf4NVESTIGATIONS, REGION III

Case No. 3-2002-031 10

of the time cards submitted b lurng that period. FENOCacknowledged that no other time ca ated, except for those previously provided toOQERE covering the week iExhibit 11).

Evidence

The testimony provided during the interviews was reviewed regarding the allegations involved inthis investigation. In addition, documents related to the allegation, which are listed in theReview ofiDocumentation section of this report, were also reviewed. Copies of the interviewsand documents obtained by OI:RM are attached as exhibits to this report.

IntirJiew

tated that he was at Perry d RF08 forvalve testin . WhiUworkl n E aMonday morning day shift, he ov raking to

Jo about time cards. At this time, ade the statementthat he would be trave ig to the AG that week and was going to indicate time worked on histime card, even though he would not be on site for the entire week. He could not remember thesupervisor, bu a nd the supervisor went back and forth over issue.ended up working the entire shift thday. He did not hear hoW and the supervisordecided to do the a erwork believed the conversation took Dlace on a Monday atapproxirat s also thought therewere~ resent when made the statement, but could

* not remember who they were (Es

urther stated that wha ctually meant by his statement was that since he wastraveling at the end of the week, it should not matter on his time card that he would come in andwork on his day off. However, to s knowledge violated the 72-hour windowat the other end of the shift. The 72-hour window meantore than 72 hours could not beworked within a 7-day period without a waiver. Tkknowledge, Perry did not grantany waivers (known as overtime deviations) because they felt they had adequate man ower. Itwas his understanding that nO one was allowed to work a 7-day pe ri o d s 7a,

belLeved it wasw h o told eind there wde nse ( overtime deviati2, pg that outage. In

fa t was pretty sure it w because he said they were going to do theoutage with a 6-day window:.- no dvain(Ehbt 12, pp. 8-11).

also stated that he was surprised to s o e in that day, because it wastalked about the day before that he was going to off. assumed they had an overtimedeviation since the job they were working on carried on for. ew days from shift to shift. He justthought that they wanted to get the ne and wante do it. was not apart of the conversation betwee and the supervisor, butall abouttraveling, not being there for the rest of the week, and time cards, mad wonder what

NOT FO<kIUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OFFIELD OFFICE DMRCTOR, OFFICE OF IfTIGATIONS, REGION III

Caseo. - 20201-1* 5. _ _vv v_- .,

they were doing. There may have been deviations in other groups for people working 7 days aweek of which he was not aware (Exhibit 12, pp. 15-17).

Interview off

_ _ _ _ dl ld a s beivdto have work~ead ontheirdays off, exceeding the overtime limits. Furthermore, Pey management did not get an overtimedeviation fdr Fet 1 atcs t how wn.

, cince thes was somen th at tookplace on tth shift, it was brought to is attend the tri u

toi.Hoeeeaaesblee that they should have takeunh comment wihoro w ee se riotsl sinc

_-Xc

(gExhibit 13, pp. 1346).

overtime devi ain how we do busmiess here." However l id not put nmuch credenc i_,tatement and took it just as a jolting comment. He never saw

_i Die ~cards or schedules that week because Mhey were on the ft ?cbelevuld have probably their time3

_ _ t hy shuld ave taken steps in the trailer to turn theconversation wior ensure that Perry expectations were being met. -At thetime on l e e y Statement to be a flippant comment and did not respond -7Cto it. Gevere later bel l oe htte should have takcen the comment more seriously sincethey had alIready proce ssed at least three overtime deviations during the course of the outage(Exhibit 13, pp. 13-16).

_ecause that week J no

ty were ramping down their contract force to the point of having minimal staffing available todo an on any Vein =day_.

!_ Myfriendship or personal relationship with eitherk'He stated h ad worked for Perry during fourth

outages devauscntaor vtte they had a .very high regard Ifox_abilities, organizationally and work-wise, and had a lot of confidence in him. From a contract

ethtvri It was not until a we or two n-hate~w~tha~toverzt~imedeviavti~ocnps-werenotsubmnitted f _e 1

he found outEven though n pe overtime and time card isswa

NOT FORIPFUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITH APPROVAL OFFIELD OFFICE LECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIG REGION III

Case No. 3-2002-031 12

I-Ic.

ON-( E - bit 13, pp. 17-22, 26).

Interview o ta

tated that e 7C

wsnt res nil o vrhours because he was on a different s owever, ? c

neJ mco notrecall gorning iiand 7Cexceeding the 72-hour rule by working on Tuesday, I He was not responsible for

mbutbelieved it was the adenied hearin ake the statement of "administratively correcting

or adjusting' overtime. He knew a discussion in the volving time sheetsand overtime, but did not take part in that discussion (Exhibit 14, pp. 4-8).

further stated that while he was standing in th he did hear parts of aconversation about somebody exceeding the required or allowed amount of work time.Nonetheless, he did not talk with anyone directly about time card issues. He did remember

out th mwith the time cards and that someone came 7Cin on what was su posedly their day off. Did not recall signing any time ars,

L UVhe usual y left that up to Perry Administration.believed that there were oetme deviations submitted during the outage, but was unaware ofhow many. He submitted at least one, but could not remember who it was for. According to

the 72-hour rule prohibited anyone working on safety related equipment to workmore than 72 hours in a 7-day period without having a deviation in effect. He was unaware of 7 cany personal relationships betwee _xeptforcordial business relationships (Exhibit 14, pp. 15-19).

Interview o

stated that he knew b7

remembered a group of supervisors, consisting o theCShtalking about the valves during shift turnover.. He recallandtake about having to work overtime in order to fix valve, but none of th qu ed

about it at that time. He did he use the term "innovative timekeeping"instead of "administratively corrected," regarding overtime. He took that to mean that someonewas comm in on their day off and agreed that it meant to submit a time card that was false.Hostatement as a serious concern at the time, becausethings are said in th hat are known to be unintentional. He questioned the fact thatif someone was going to do something like that, why would they verbalize it (Exhibit 15,pp. 3-8).

NOT FOR Pi)BI1- DISCLOSURE¾E'THOUT APPROVAL OFFIELD OFFICE DIRECTO6RQFICE OF IN STIGTIONS, REGION III

nAP~ 2JAA~n nl2 12 --1-U0% A NWa . - VL J .L-F

7c

had no intention of signing an illegal time sheet. He emphasized that he would not havesiIgnedoff on a falsification if it were his kid's report card, and certainly nt e nuclear indusry. Hewas not aware of wh anvrtie deviation was not submitted fo. nd since he was 7cunaware that it was ha , y off, he never questioned him about it. Accor t

although It would not have been hard to get an overtime deviation fcould have had someone else do the valve wor hsteadysacknowle at even after signing off o. e card, It was really unclear towhvas supposed to be working ceeded his hours. Howeverassumed that e put in an overtime deviation f(Exhibit 15, pp. 8-14).

lso stated that it was discussed among the supervisors that something was wrong and -7 C-they needed to put in an after-the-fact deviation. They also needed t rite a CR and correct.thetime sheets because no one would sign an incorrect time sheet. Itime card didaccurately reflect him working ove eon those days and they did put in a 7odeviation after-the-fact. However, was not sure why the deviati ever took effect,but believed it could have been an oversight. He recalled tallcing t about doing thedeviation accurately to reflect the time and making sure thaey rybody suffered through theconsequences of so ehntatwas not right. He an vrldy a onzingover the matte who tookwas really more th~d mitted, resulting in the internal investigation,that they screwed up and that-the overtime issue should not have happened (Exhibit 15,pp. 14-18, 23).

acknowledged tha me card for the weekoas nochanged or altered and accurately reflected the hours worked b and that there was anafter-the- act deviation put in effect. For record purposes, after-the-fact deviations can be done.

lieved that he would he had more responsii to put inan overtime eviation fo but expected citheookwhg norm yakes the lead to step u Problem was thateas

g for someone else to take the responsibility. vas unaware whethehad an overtime deviation, but if anyone's time card reflected overtime a deviation was 7odone. He acknowledged that there should be' docmentation showi ldeviation.Furthermore, he reiterated that none o overtime cards were falsified and reflected thehours worked (Exhibit 15, pp. 24-28, 32-33).

Agent's Note: On July 30, 2003, Tim MATTHEWS of Morgan Lewis (FENOC lawfirm) sent OI:Rf a letter indicating tha w s being reresented by counsel afterhis interview on June 19, 2003. The letter stated tha ad not prepared for theinterview and ave inaccurate and incomplete information. After having refreshed hisrecollection equested an opportunity to clear up any potentially incorrect

NOT FORMLIC DISCLOSURE wflI9-UT APPROVAL OFFIELD OFFICE D CTOR, OFFICE OF AVEStLGATIONS, REGION m

Case No. 3-2002-031 14

information. MATTHEWS was advised tha ould provide additional 7Cinformation to OI regarding this issue. To date, nothing has been received by OI.

Interview -C

stated that he kne 7 CthorHe MOV r7 C

. =Z U | m~~e ievelBdsgeDuring e turnover meetin d remember

ersation about working a seventh day, which usually was the day off. He neverhear se the term "administratively creative," but something more like "creativetimekeeping. At that time, he thought the term was m e but realized that being silentafter a statement like that was the wrong thing to do.& . elt that if any one of the

_ r present had tol at they would something like that, then the Cissue would have been resolved. Furthermore, whe was talking about doing theovertime, someone should have proposed processing an overtime deviation (Exhibit 16, pp. 3-9).

>tated that he an - were the but he was c-ultimately responsible foAlthough he held himse o onsibe for whatoccurred, any e ftculd have challen ged statment.According to riginal e C were Cincorrect. the issue was raised by.ah statement 1cS'ICfat the time, they imnmediately pulled the time cards and ha ore back in and changethe times. Once the time oards were corrected, showed himself working over 72 hours'for that week. i did not believe thaan overtme deviation was submitted after thehours were corrected. ame in and worked ov rtime on his day off, oOWNe in and worked overtime on his 1

ng e umber talking with_WFbout the fact that the trme cards were turned in incorrectly (Exhibit 16, pp. 10-16).

A also stated that as in the wing shift turnover, but did 7 cnot know whether he heard statement. However a part ofpulling the time sheets and reviewig them. I _ _

Ii- I ought thatc and changed not only no_

&nw whetsubmitted his own original time card or if it was done bCtated that everybody was working different hours and had different days off, and

since a lot of things were going on, the monitoring of horo e of those things that heput a lot of time into. As a result of the overtime issue slaas not reprimanded, butinstead attended a meeting wherl ked to th bout what the had done andabout not meeting management's expectations. He later admitte that he 01maintain control of things like he should have (Exhibit 16, pp. 18, 20-23).

NOT FORMIC DISCL EWITHOUT APPROVAL OFFIELD OFFICE DIRECTQ, OFFICE OFGIONS, REGION M

Case No. 3-2002-031 15

- druitted that the time card issue, was not handled right and there should have beenan overtime deviation in effect. He remembered hearing a statement de by an AssistantOutage Director that overtime deviations would not be easy to get. ontended thatthe level of difficulty in getting overtime deviations depended on the need of the person involvedand the cZticality of the job. However, he also implied that options did exist other than having

ome in without the overtime deviation. They could have either not perfohned thetests or used other people instea -. emphasized that annot let schedulepressures allow them o Iake those kinds of bad judgements. He did not know of any personalfriends hi b upervisor resulting in favoritismtowards eved as a hard worker who was only

soo-oti * tahn ls Tuy na s _tt 61--l sow -r ;n: U1s U Hart .n sLw;11U;1MLUJL U I1l C LULIr U1C JUU IUJLl-. enb JU

lieved was not done very we (Ehibit 16, pp. 28I LU r1~11 JLUUL UUW.&L l11l W1IUL4I

Interview o--

stated that he knewas one of the 7-participants in thee He believed that dung RFOi

as made aware of the fact thatd overtime on M which violated the 72-hourn7-day rule.

ie &d nobeie there was an overtime deviation in place at the-tim.aae in on hisday o expected each Project Manager to. know what type of work resources they had,and to a imster all of the required working hours and any other company functions that tookplace. He acknowledged that a falsification of overtime records would not have been takenlightly by the company. However, he was not aware of any time cds being falsely submittedand had not seen a time card until prior to being interviewed, did not know anythingabout the time cards being returned f o correct (Exhibit 17, pp. 6-11).

'7c-

-I'C

It:

.QAAUI4 also stated that based on a review of the CR documents, I

was made as to an after-the-fact overtime deviation f'Rnot customary, but they do happen based on exigent circumstancepolicy to have overtime deviations approved in advance; and if thinvestigation was required as to why it did not happen.reprimanded b ut the iIq ati was sent to his emp]think that the situati vas handled paware eoo si s gone. levertheless,(1RF09. not rceive any information on the overtime I

super ui after the CR was written. EBe did have one counand told him that the results of their meeting would be documenetrecord as an indicator of performance (Exhibit 17, pp. 12.-16).

he believed that a correction! After-the-fact deviations are C.*s. He knew that it was Perry

were not, then a CR andVwas not counsele rloyer to handle. l did not11 but by the time he was madeid work at Perry duringimatter from the p ci ants orselin session wi-d enoers nnel

ilsification occurred due toa falsification occurred and it

APPROVAL OF;ATIONS, REGION I

ther stated that if it was determined that a deliberate fiincorrect time cards, then termination would result. However, if a

OFFICE OF

Case No. 3-2002-031 16

was aetermined to be est mistake, then there probably would be some form of minordisciplinary action. . serted that Perry does n t tolerate the falsifigon of documents,which have resulted in terminations before. orked 1 C

j-I ~L he never ad any instances of impr ritis i r atebehavior. As the I'

hlbhd _ H ngS X 1~recalled 24- 6)adby W O OD who ker vho ran th When he replied that 7s

_X l vae that he kne but never heardhim mak the statement "administratively crepe" or anything of that nature. He believed thatheyM UM wark o~bSnt in thathat..e a o aware oa n

d rememberr whether he was suosed to b

__He did have thefauthoi tto me sheets, but could not recall any concerns expressed babout working on I )r having exceeded the overtime rulefExhibit 18, pp. 5-10).

enied ever stating or indicating to somebody that there would be no overtimedeviations at Perry during RF08. The information regarding the time sheet issue was onlysecond hand information anore did not deal with time sheets, excppt ford theoth _ iyer dealt wxcept during shift turnovers and didnot have any discussions wi orking overtime. Additionally he never e rdabout any discussions or concerns among"W erIregarding overtime issues. However, the need to a e to the rule of working over a 7-daperiod was discussed during the outage. _ ad no knowled e of , the

),eing involved in submitting else time cards. Althou ved th henever made the statement about no overtime deviations, he knew that their policy discouraged theuse of overtime deviations. However, there was a process by which it could be entered andapproved (Exhibit 18, pp. 10-12, 15-16, 18-21).

Interview -f

w _ ?9 ~t AtiEtame, he worked as a

NOT FOR PUB DISCLOS THOUT APPROVAL OFFIELD OFFICE DIRECT ,OFICE OF TESTIGATIONS, REGION m

Case No. 3-2002-031 17

v i 7 r i lid not recall if he worked overtime on his dayoff o. Hwevet, if he did,e made lure that it was not over the 72-hour rule

lii.b eer wo over 72 hours in one w eas not aware o f S evervoai te2-oroetme rule ad I~ld not rcl _ orked overtime on his day

el at with him '7Csince he w o The reason

ne~ver got wplv ersations was that he always reported to the_ g ME.(xib it 19).

he knew nothing about overtimedeviations or how th.He was responsible for preparing his ow sheets, but - .

turwed them into ho he believed signed off on them. ev r eaany comment about being "administratively creative" with his timekeeping, nor

dtell him to make adjustments to his time sheets concerning overtime. In fact,he could not recall being a part of any discussion involving overtime or changing of ti heet.

as unaware of any changes made to his time sheet for the week o _`csince it was the last week of the REO and As far as he recalled, no Qne fromPerry ever contacted m r;egarding his work schedule or time sheets after leaving.was unsure who really worked for at Perry, and found it very difficult to track whowas supposed to be working for who during so many shift changes (Exhibit 19).

Intervigw of

stated that in March of 200 be

'as nt s butl _He believed that a.

wlened ever making thestateiment "administratively creative" or any similar statement of any type. He comprehended thestatement to mean marking up time sheets in some incorrect manner to skirt policies that were inplace. kn ew the statement as "creative timekeeping," and first heard it used by his

Jim McCOY, who was on the night shift during RFO8 (Exhibit 20,pp. 7-13).

further explained that since McCOY resided out-of-State, Adecco/Tad had rules aboutworkin at least 32 hours per week in order to et per die time, McCOY told

iat he brouhtup the idea toth *1-!about working his day off and indicating it on the shortened

week's time sheet to make sure he had the 32 hours who was also present, said thathe would do it as well since he was in the same situa At that point, ,*hen thought

NOT FOR PU C DISCLOSURETHOUT APPROVAL OFFIELD OFFICE DIRECT -IOFFICE OF TIGATIONS, REGION III

Case o. 32002-31 1Case No. 3-2002-031 is

that if the subject was broached to Perry supervisors during the turnover and nothing was said,then either the 72-hour rule or their approach must not be a big deal. He also thought thatwhether his hours showed up as straight time or overtime, it did not make any differenc hispay, because straight time rates were cheaper to the client than overtime rates7Ctat when he came in on Monday or Tuesday, he worked 7 days straight and exceeded they72-hour limit. The reason he came in on his day off was because he believ Mat Pery neededhim tnd nobody else was available. Nonethelessknew that Sk1he bent the 72-hour overtime policy and was not trying to justify it (Exhibi2, pp. 14-20).

Agent's Note: According to Perry personnel, McCOY was not employed by the AGduring RF08, but worked as an independent contractor. Attempts to find McCOY havebeen unsuccessful at this time. Perry is in the process of checking database records todetermine McCOY's employment status on the MOV Project during RFO8.

stated that getting an overtime deviation would not have been as big of a deal as hethought, and if he would have asked for a deviation, he would have definitely gotten one. Afterthe outage was over, he found out t.t Perry approved hundreds of deviations in the past, andvery seldom disapproved any. had overtime deviations written for him at other owerplants and realized that he had made a mistake at Perry. To the best ofJhis Q ksl eA1Mk

ewthatbothh cwere coming in on their days off. They were also aware that working on Monday,he would have exceeded the 72-hour overtime rule. During that week4 out in en 12-hourdi s, which added up to 84 hou rs knew for aac

,were aware of the hours worked by him an - -bause of the original timesheets. Althou h Perry supervisors insinuated that they made a mistake regarding the overtimehoursndicated that he knew better (Exhibit 22, pp. 22-27, 29-30).

W ialso stated that while denying ever using the term"creativedml in he did notwant to indicate that he never used it in ajoking way. W he _ _ _&nd McCOYsubmitted their original time sheets, they showed ha o hours worked on their days off andmoved those hours to a different day of the week. who collected the incorrect timesheets originally turned them int but he refused to sign them. However,

was willing to sign the time sheets a they were incorrectly submitted. Afterbout the incorrect time sheets being turned inall

Sat home and told himthat the time sheets needed to besorrected and that anafter-the-fact overtime -deviation needed to be written. ediately came in and

&becaushe werereunavailable to correct the errors. After resubmitn the ne time sheetsj

t~u~ags~SIeel eved that, who was t h y 1110MMINWN wa %Wr-

unaware of the time sheet changes. Nonetheles - -

not get rerimanded by FENOC forexceeding the overtime limits, but did attend a meeting led b; , , WM

NOT FO LIC DISCLOSURE OUT APPROVAL OFFIELD OFFICE D SRFFlCE OF TJGIONS, REGION m

Case No. 3-2002-031 19

considered a coaching session. also received no formal reprimands from the AG, buthad apologized profusely to everyone involved for the wrongness of his actions (Exhibit 20,pp. 32-33, 35-38, 42-43,49-51).

AMent's Analysis

As a result of the evidence developed throughout thinvestigation, it can be concluded thatAs_ apWoderately violated technicalspecification requirements regarding overtime and delibera ly falsified rtime records atPerry. According to the documentatiopersonnel exceeded overtime lims without an overtime deviation su mitte

orked on their days off during their week of work,exceeding 72 hours in a 7-day penr o7disclosed that inap priate oversight and supervision of the job and contract employees were

ors ma d i eseevents, management e.xpectations, and ways to -I 0prevent recurrence were discussed. discussed managementexpectations and ways to prevent recurrence, but no disciplinary action was implemented.

Perry Consultant Em I eTfne Cards Sheets, specificall drnthe en'o 0i X

-- _~~ = , X

shdehowed, Da -off worked.. -In suporto themited- an ia Th e 7c_

e-mall le it a ead more knowledge 1regarding the overtime isiseis it Pe indicated; The e-mail also i~e§.soe concern on the part o egarding these matters. The e-mail f W ?C '

tcinjpointed out concerns about the integrity of Perry supervision and covering Shefalsification of overtime records. Periy policy notification letter, signed by FENOC VicePresident WOOD, clearly established the company's position in relation to the falsification ofrecords. It indicated, "Any employee who falsifies records or knowingly signs a documentknown to contain false material, shall be subject to immediate discharge."

The Perry response letter, pursuant to a request for overtime deviation and time card recordinformation, showed that no overtime deviations were in effect at that time. It alsoaclkowledged hat after searching for any additional time cards (orginaljnshe

none could be located. After interviewinr vCt could be derned that they lacked culpabilit i s matter. Althoughay have been in th at the time of ornment, there was no 7c

testimonial or documentary evidence supporting that he actually participated in the falsificationof overtime records. Furthermore, since he did not supervise either of the contractors, he would

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OFFIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION III

Case No. 3-2002-031 20

not have been ultimately res n ible for submitting the overtime deviations. Although accordingto the e-mail it appeared that e ore than he actually indicated, there was no 7 cevidence supporting a nexus betwn the false overtime records.i

R~ %1 as not, 7aware of the overtime matter until the CR. wa s w itn. ould nothave artici ated in the events that occurred in th and wond have expected his

to supervise the required working hours as well as any othercompany cons that to place.

Althou= /fdneofte outa! akowledged being present ink th g f-_uringttemet but disiiss t as a joking comment. However7

did ikow tha wor r days off without having a overtimedeviation in effect. According towas also involved in the changes to theoriginal time sheets. According to it was not necessary to have both

work overtime o their a n d co. d, ave either not performedsp lsed other eople instead. Bo admitted to knowing that

W n 1W vor vorked on their days off without an overtime deviation. They also cadmitted that the pverbme issue was not right and there should have been a deviation in place.

haeging the original time cards and admitted that1 - asiahiinv ol ,li6however, denied that any of the time sheets were

si e ithey reflcted the actu ours worked, and there was an after-the-fact deviation put intoeect Jacked credibility since other testimonial evidence proves the existence oforiginal time sheets. The OC database search also verified that no after-the-fact deviationwas submitted. Whiled having any knowledge or involvement in this matter,

-o esse o e cI onic overtime records an implicate

Conclusion

Based ugon the evidence developed, this investigati did substantiate tha

deliberately violated tec0iniS specificaio requirements regarding overtime and deliberatelyfalsified overtime records.

NOT FOR pLIC DISCLOS THOUT APPROVAL OFFIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF frWESTIGATIONS, REGION m

Case No. 3-2002-031 21

TEIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

NOT FOLR P C DISCLOSlREIOUT APPROVAL OFFIELD OFFICE DIREC 0I FFICE OF YNV IONS, REGION III

Case No. 3-2002-031 22

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMAflON

On September 23, 2003, William P. SELLERS, Special Counsel for Regulatory Enforcement,Fraud Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., advised that inhis view, the case did not warrant prosecution and rendered an oral declination. =

During the course of this investigation, interviews conducted disclosed potential allegations offitness-for-duty violations. Based on the information obtained, it was discovered that analtercation occurred between two contractors during RF08 atPerry. This information wasforwarded to the RIE[ staff for review of any potential safety or technical concerns and is notincluded in this Report of Investigation.

4 A..

ORCCE

OFinI

23

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONAILY

NOT FOR PaI DSCLOSURE ŽElOT APPROVAL OFFIELD OFMICE DIR ECGAFICE OF VG , REGION M

hi- q mrnn nq i MA. -- - I

base fed . J-,kUI-vj I Z.lt

ExhibitNo

LIST OF EXHIBTS

Description

Investigation Status Record, OI Case No. 3-2002-031, dated October 23, 2002(1 page).

Id 2

3

17c- 4

Transcript of Interview of _a-urED 7 pages).

ARB Allegation Action Plan, Allegation No. RM-02-A-0 171, dated October 2,2002 (5 pages).

(2 pages).

prepared won _ £(3 pages).

liM(2 pages).

P Consultant Employee Time Card Sheets sho.- - o ours worked for the weeks o1j

q,8 pages).

IdC,6

lQ CtslC! A 8

*h ,-4. Ai 9 E-mail fro m_ _ _ _P- (1 page).

10

11

Perry Policy Notification Letter regarding falsification of records, endorsed byWOOD, effective October 1998 (1 page).

FENOC response letter pursuant to a request for overtime deviation and time cardrecord information, dated August 12, 2003 (ipage).

t)(,12

r) ,13

'\ c,.14

'e. 15

Transcript of Interview S I U N ( 25- F pages).

Transcript of Interview of1Aj 33 pages).*.,; -rc S a f r

Transcript of Interview o J 5 pages).

Transcript of Interview 0 5 pages).

NOT FORB PYLTCDISCLOSUL1 THOUT APPROVAL OFFIELD OFFICE DIRECTO OFFICE OF INSTIONS, REGION m

Case No 3-2002 03 1 2Case No. 3-2002-031 25

16

17

18

19

Transcript of Interview 38 pages).

Transcript of Interview oj . 4I5 pages).

Transcript of Interview o l(22 pages).

T7c

. ...

Interview Report of| _ l 2 z I page).

20 Transcript of Interview I60pe(60 pages). Is

NOT FOR PUB A LOSURE WITH APPROVAL OFFIELD OFFICE DIRECTO CE OF INETTG N III

LIn 2 ommn -2n i orAren 'k%OaaC LO4U. -VUJ TVW