Junk Plant Pilgrim: Forged Signature On Safety Document Not A NRC Violation

Where the hell are we heading!!!

Mr. John Dent, Jr.
Site Vice President
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
600 Rocky Hill Road
Plymouth, MA 02360-5508
SUBJECT: NRC INVESTIGATION REPORT NO. 1-2015-008
Dear Mr. Dent:
This letter refers to the subject investigation by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Office of Investigations (OI) involving the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (Pilgrim), owned by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). The investigation,

Was the former planning manager fired for cause?

which was completed on December 18, 2015, was conducted, in part, to determine whether a (former) planning manager at Pilgrim caused Entergy to violate NRC requirements related to work planning or risk assessment. As described below, the NRC determined that the circumstances of the case did not result in a violation of NRC requirements.
The non-outage work planning process at Pilgrim is conducted in accordance with Entergy procedure EN-WM-101, “On-Line Work Management Process.” The scope of work for a given workweek is finalized 16 weeks before the start of the actual workweek. After that point, any proposed scope changes must be documented on a form (Attachment 9.1 to the procedure). The form records the desired work scope change and its impact (manpower and operational), and requires signatures from designated Operations and Work Control contacts.
In October 2014, Pilgrim staff identified that six forms authorizing work scope changes included signatures for the Operations and Work Control personnel that had apparently been forged by the planning manager. Pilgrim staff initiated an internal investigation and notified the NRC of the concern. The NRC conducted an independent investigation of the matter to determine whether the planning manager’s actions resulted in any violations of NRC requirements. In particular, the NRC evaluated whether the planning manager caused work to be performed without being properly evaluated for risk, as required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.65(a)(4).
Based on the evidence gathered during the OI investigation, the NRC concluded that, although the planning manager forged the names of Operations and Work Control personnel on the forms, this action did not result in a violation of NRC requirements. Specifically, the NRC determined that the work scope changes did not involve or potentially affect the performance of safety-related equipment; and that the planning manager’s actions did not cause the licensee to improperly perform unplanned work, remove required work from the schedule, or fail to perform a required risk evaluation.