ML17191A720
| ML17191A720 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1998 |
| From: | Grobe J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Kingsley O COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| 3-96-036, 3-96-036S, 3-96-36, 3-96-36S, EA-96-493, NUDOCS 9806150157 | |
| Download: ML17191A720 (7) | |
Text
"
- I\\
EA 96-493 Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley President, Nuclear Generation Group Commonwealth Edison Company ATTN: Regulatory Services Executive Towers West Ill 1400 Opus Place, Suite 500 Downers Grove, IL 60515 June 9, 1998
SUBJECT:
PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE (NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATION REPORTS 3-96-036 AND 3-96-036S)
Dear Mr. Kingsley:
On July 1, 1996, Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) notified the NRC that the examination for reactor operator and senior reactor operator, due to be administered by the NRC on July 8, 1996, at the Dresden Nuclear Station, appeared to have been compromised, An investigation of the circumstances surrounding the compromise was conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations (01). The 01 investigation _determined that two applicants for NRC operator licenses (one for reactor operator and one for senior reactor operator) were responsible for compromising the NRC examination. Both individuals were subsequently prosecuted for criminal charges relating to the compromise of the NRC examination. Both individuals plead guilty to those charges in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The synopsis of the 01 report is enclosed. A summary of the essential facts developed during the investigation and a discussion of the regulatory requirements are also enclosed.
Based on the results of the 01 investigation, an apparent programmatic problem with the'overall security of materials related to an NRC reactor operator examination was identified and is being considered for escalated enforcement action in accordance witti the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600. The apparent violation involved two examples of compromising the integrity of the NRC
- examination.
No Notice of Violation is presently being issued for the apparent violation. In addition, please be advised that the characterization of apparent violation described in the enclosure may change as a result of further NRC review.
A predecisional enforcement conference to discuss the apparent violation will be scheduled at a later date, in the Region Ill office. The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement
~806150157 98~7 PDR ADOCK 030~DR v
p
..- i L '2---*,
_;. t:.
~
- 0. Kingsley 2
conference does not mean that the NRC has determined that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. This conference is being held to obtain information to enable the NRC to make an enforcement decision, such as a common understanding of the facts, root causes, missed opportunities to identify the apparent violations, corrective actions, significance
. of the issues and the need for lasting and effective corrective action. In addition to the specific apparent violations, please address your views on the concerns described above.
In addition, this is an opportunity for you to provide any information concerning your perspectives on (1) the severity of the violations, (2) the application of the factors that the NRC considers when it determines the amount of a civil penalty that may be assessed in accordance with Section Vl.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy, and (3) any other application of the Enforcement Policy to this case, including the exercise. of discretion in accordance with Section VII.
You will be advised by separate correspondence of the results of our deliberations on this matter. No response regarding these apparent violations is required at this time.
In accordance with 1 O CFR 2. 790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this investigation.
Docket Nos. 50-237; 50-249
Enclosures:
As stated Sincerely, Original Signed by John A. Grobe John A. Grobe, Director Division of Reactor Safety *
. *v See Attached Distribution
~o~,uf-.
ttJ,r;~~\\~i DOCUMENT NAME: G:DRS\\DRE060j8.DRS OUS CbNCURftENCE)
To receive a co of this document, Indicate In the box: *c* =Cop without attachmenUendosure *e* = C OFFICE Riii Riii Riii NAME Mleach:jp MRing*
HClayton Jlieberman DATE 06/ /98 061 /98 061 /98 06/b/98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
1
- .)
- 0. Kingsley 2
a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean that the NRC has determined that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. This conference is being held to obtain information to enable the NRC to make an enforcement decision, such as a common understanding of the facts, root causes, missed opportunities to identify the apparent violations,
. corrective actions, significance of the issues and the need for lasting and effective corrective action. In addition to the specific apparent violations, please address your views on the concerns described above.
In addition, this is an opportunity for you to provide any information concerning your perspectives on (1) the severity of the violations, (2) the application of the factors that the NRC considers when it determines the amount of a civil penalty that may be assessed in accordance
- with Section Vl.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy, and (3)' any other application of the Enforcement Policy to this case, including the exercise of discretion in accordance with Section VII.
You will be advised by separate correspondence of the results of our deliberations on this matter. No response regarding these apparent violations is required at this time.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this investigation.
Sincerely, John A. Grobe, Director Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos. 50-237; 50-249 *
Enclosures:
As stated See Attached Distribution r\\
I DOCUMENT NAME: G:DRS\\DRE060_8.DRS To receive a co of this document, Indicate In the box: *c- =
wllh attachment/enclosure "N" = No cq OFFICE Rill c Rill.
Rill Rill NAME MLeach:jpP)i'N~
Jlieberman RPaul JG robe DATE 06/o.s198 061 /98 06/ /98 061 /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- 0. Kingsley 3
cc w/encls:
M. Wallace, Senior Vice President D. Helwig, Senior Vice President G. Stanley, PWR Vice President J: Perry, BWR Vice President Distribution:
SAR (E-Mail)
D. Farrar, Regulatory Services Manager I. Johnson, Licensing Director DCD - Licensing M. Heffley, Site Vice President P. Swafford, Station Manager F. Spangenberg, Regulatory Assurance Manager Richard Hubbard Nathan Schloss, Economist Office of the Attorney General State Liaison Officer Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission Project Mgr., NRR w/encls C. Paperiello, RI 11 w/encls J. _Caldwell, Riii w/encls B. Clayton, Riii w/encls SRI Dresden w/encls DRP w/encls TSS w/encls DRS w/encls Riii PRR w/~qcls PUBLIC IE-~w/encls Docket File w/encls J. Goldberg, OGC e/encls B. Boger, NRR w/encls GREENS IEO (E-Mail)
DOCDESK (E-Mail)
L. Gerke, OCA i
~*-:.-, ( \\ 1 ( '
~ *.J l.I 'J u
- e.
SYNOPSIS This supplemental investigation was initiated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Office of Investigations, Region III (Rill), on October 16, 1997. regarding an allegation that a Dresden Nuclear Power Station (Dresden) bargaining unit employee (Reactor Operator (RO) candidate) deliberately assisted a management employee (Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) candidate) in compromising both the NRC RO and SRO examinations at Dresden on June 29 and 30, 1996.
Based upon the evidence developed during the investigation. it is concluded that the bargaining unit employee (RO candidate) at Dresden deliberately assisted the management employee (SRO candidate) in compromising both the NRC RO and SRO examinations.
r, L,
~I RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION The following information was obtained from the statements of two applicants for the July 1996 NRC examination for licensed operators.
On Saturday, June 29, 1996, two applicants for NRC reactor operator licenses were studying in
- the Dresden training building and decided to obtain their performance and progress evaluations prepared by the various instructors for each student. The applicants entered the unlocked.
second floor office of the ComEd training instructors, found several evaluations, and decided to look for additional handwritten information regarding each student. Each applicant said it was common knowledge that keys for all of the instructors' desks and cabinets were in a secretary's desk in that room. The applicants entered the unlocked office and found the keys on an instructor's desk and in a desk that was occasionally used by a secretary. The applicants unlocked the cabinet and searched each file. Towards the back of the cabinet, the applicants found a folder containing questions they felt were relevant to their study. The applicants saw the words "NRC Exam Bank" on the cover sheet of the questions plus a future date. At that point, the applicants believed that they were looking at surplus questions that had been prepared by the NRC, not the actual test questions, and copied the questions for their personal use. On Sunday, June 30, 1996, on~ of the applicants returned to the second floor of the Dresden training building to make another copy of the examination. This applicant said that he mistakenly left the copier on the setting for double-sided copies. The applicant placed his copy of the NRC examination in the machine, started the copier, and then went to a window to watch for anyone returning to the training building. When the applicant returned to the copier, he realized that it was making double-sided copies. The applicant stopped the machine, reset it for single-sided copies, and restarted the copier. The applicant said thathe failed to realize that some of the copies were in the bin for double-sided copies. On July 1, 1996, a ComEd employee found the double-sided copies of the NRC examination in the copy machine.
Subsequently, ComEd reported this incident to the NRC.
In addition to the above, on June 3.0. 1996, the applicants reviewed an alarm printout for the
- simulator which one applicant had found in a trash bin. This printout showed the validation runs of the NRC examination that were performed on the reactor simulator. The applicants analyzed the alarm sequence on the printout to determine the simulator problems that the NRC had developed for the simulator part of the licen.sed operator examination.
Unrelated to NRC regulated exam materials, as early as November 1995, at least one of the applicants felt the training course for operator licensing had become very stressful, since the stakes were high in that program. At least one of the applicants made copies of the following ComEd. examinations by searching the various instructors'.locked desks and filing cabinets:
In late 1995, the examination for Training Course Module 11.
In approximately May 1996, the Dresden Emergency Operations test.
A certification examination that contained four parts: the written part, the simulator part, a portion of the administrative part, and the part pertaining to in-plant Job Performance Measures.
REGl)LATORY REQUIREMENTS 10 CFR 55.49 requires that applicants, licensees, and facility licensees shall not engage in any activity that compromises the integrity of any application, test, or examination required by 10 CFR Part 55. On June 29, 1996, a copy of the written examination was left in a container readily accessible to the applicants. On June 30, 1996, materials pertaining to the content of the dynamic portion of the NRC examination were left in an unsecured location. As a result, the facility licensee appears to have engaged in activities which compromised the integrity of the NRC examination required by 10 CFR Part 55, in that examination materials were not properly secured against unauthorized or premature disclosure of the test materials, as license applicants were able to readily obtain and copy the NRC examination which could give them a potential advantage over other applicants, wh1:m the examination was administered by the NRC.
This is an apparent violation of 10 CFR 55.49.