ML20035B578
| ML20035B578 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/18/1993 |
| From: | Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Jordan E Committee To Review Generic Requirements |
| References | |
| IEIN-92-030, IEIN-92-30, NUDOCS 9304020178 | |
| Download: ML20035B578 (5) | |
Text
.
o March 18,1993 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Edward L. Jordan, Chairman Committee to Review Generic Requirements FROM:
Frank J. Miraglia, Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
DRAFT GENERIC LETTER 93-XX, " VERIFICATION OF PLANT RECORDS" NRR requests that the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) waive formal review of the enclosed draft generic letter.
The enclosed draft generic letter provides licensees with the results of the NRC inspections conducted under TI 2515/115, " Verification of Plant Records."
The draft generic letter reminds licensees that enforcement action will not be taken by the NRC for violations identified as a result of licensee reviews initiated in response to Information Notice 92-30, " Falsification of Plant Records." It also provides the bases for the NRC not taking enforcement action against the individuals involved.
However, the generic letter will serve to put licensees and individuals who perform safety related work at licensed facilities on notice that future violations involving falsification of plant records may result in enforcement action against not only the facility licensee but also against the individual (s) involved.
The proposed action is subject to CRGR approval because it presents the NRC enforcement position on a generic issue to the industry. However, we recommend that formal CRGR review be waived for the following reasons:
1.
No new requirements are imposed on licensees.
2.
The generic letter does not put forth a new regulatory interpretation of existing requirements (10 CFR 50.9, Completeness and Accuracy of Information, and 10 CFR 50.5, Deliberate Misconduct). The NRC has already taken enforcement actions in the past for violations of these requirements.
Rather, the generic letter explains to the public why the NRC is not taking such action at this time, but will in the future.
We request that you respond to our recommendation for waiving CRGR review at your earliest possible convenience. This action is sponsored by James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement.
If you need any additional information on this issue, please contact my office.
l ori inal si ed by 8
310083 Frank J. niragTia, Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution:
I CVHodge, 0GCB Eleeds, DRPW OGCB R/F BGrimes, NRR WTroskoski, OE MBoyle, DRPE PDR WRussell JLieberman, OE Central Files FMiraglia D0RS GL file t
JGoldberg, OGC GMarcus, 0GCB JPartlow DORS R/F g'
)
gi Doc Name: G:\\A0CRGR.WT *SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES i
,k' OGCB:00RS* OE*
D:0E*
OGC*
OGCB*
D, GMarcus es CVHodge WTroskoski JLieberman JGoldberg j(,03/11/9 3' s793 e k W
0 i
/
9 OW?/o 3/05/93c
(
W n M@oyle T
R DT:NR ADPR:NR R
)> Russell JPartlo F
lia
,.!_ !) m - O M ejac
- eeds o
03/G/9 03/[]/93 0
93 02/19/93 03/09/93 03/09/93 9304020178 930318
/
f PDR ORG NRRB T
V.; b"
[1 PDR d.
i#
)
t
t g[pue s
t UNITED STATES I
a f )W i E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ih;'u.14j?rdj W ASHtNGTON. D.C. 20E0001 1
r T0:
ALL HOLDERS OF OPERATING LICENSES OR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS
SUBJECT:
VERIFICATION OF PLANT RECORDS (GENERIC LETTER 93- )
pVRp0SE The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this generic letter to i
inform licensees of the results of the inspections conducted under Temporary Instruction (TI) 2515/115, " Verification of Plant Records," which addressed the potential for falsification of records at licensed facilities. This generic letter reminds licensees and individuals involved in licensed activities that the NRC may take direct enforcement action against not only the licensee but also any individual who deliberately causes a licensee to be in violation of NRC requirements. This includes the falsification of records required by technical specifications and plant procedures developed pursuant to Regulatory Guide 1.33, " Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Operation)," or other regulatory requirements.
BACKGROUND Section 50.9, " Completeness and Accuracy of Information," of Title 10 of the Eode of Federal Reaulations (10 CFR) requires that information maintained by the licensee pursuant to Commission regulations, orders, or license conditions be complete and accurate in all material respects.
The administrative section of plant technical specifications requires that written procedures covering the applicable activities in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33 be developed, implemented, and maintained.
Activities for which Appendix A recommends written procedures include surveillances and log entries.
Section 50.5, " Deliberate Misconduct," of 10 CFR states that the NRC may take direct enforcement action against an individual, including an unlicensed person, who (1) deliberately causes or, but for detection would have caused, a licensee to be in violation of the Commission's requirements; or (2) who deliberately provides information to the licensee concerning licensed activities that the person providing the information knows to be-incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC.
On April 23, 1952, the NRC issued Information Notice 92-30, " Falsification'of Plant Records," to alert the industry to concerns of the NRC regarding record f alsification that had occurred at several plants.
The notice specifically reminded plant personnel, both licensed and unlicensed, that they are subject to 10 CFR 50.5 and that individual penalties could result from deliberately violating Commission requirements.
It also noted that the NRC was continuing i
its evaluation of the individual cases discussed.
In response to this notice, i
I
L I
'\\
Generic Letter 93-XX March XX, 1993 l
many licensees initiated actions to ensure that plant personnel were properly performing their assigned duties.
The NRC issued Tl 2515/115 to provide guidance for NRC inspectors' evaluation of the ability of each licensee to obtain complete and accurate log readings from both licensed and unlicensed operators. The inspection findings were documented in a routine resident inspection report for each facility.
The NRC reviewed the inspection findings nationwide to determine how widespread the problem was.
SUMMARY
OF TI 2515/115 INSPECTION RESULTS The NRC recognizes that it is difficult to compare the inspection results among plants. Many factors, such as the variation in the extent of computerized access areas within the protected area from plant to plant and in the sample sizes reviewed by licensees (some licensees greatly expanded their sample size in response to an identified discrepancy). However, the review showed that at approximately 32 sites at least one discrepancy between security computer records and documented logs existed; at most sites the number of discrepancies was less than 5.
At eight sites, the number of falsified records identified indicated the existence of a broader problem.
In addition,11 licensed operators at 4 plants had falsified at least one plant round sheet or log.
Several licensees found that records and logs had been falsified not only by auxiliary operators during their rounds, but also by contractor fire watches and health physics technicians.
Several licensees discovered a number of other problems related to the conduct of plant rounds, log taking, and record keeping.
In some instances, licensees found that many of the unlicensed operators were performing certain rounds much faster than management expected. Other licensees found that unlicensed operators did not have a clear understanding of what their signatures on a log sheet meant. Some believed that it attested to only the fact that the round had been performed, whether by the log signatory or another operator.
Several licensees found that when multiple rounds or log readings were required in a single shift, the operators performed a generally rigorous first tour, but a much less formal second tour. Finally, at one facility, management review of the tour and logging requirements revealed that the operators could not reasonably be expected to conduct the specified rounds in the time provided because of such factors as the number of times the operators had to don'and remove anticontamination clothing to enter and leave multiple radiation-controlled areas.
The NRC found that licensee responses to Information Notice 92-30 were positive. Licensees took advantage of the information to review records, sensitize employees, and appropriately revise procedures and training. They also took various disciplinary actions against the involved individuals in accordance with their internal programs and policies, commensurate with the
l t
i f
Generic Letter 93-XX March XX, 1993'-
{
seriousness of the violation. Disciplinary actions taken by the licensees j
against the licensed operators ranged from employment terr.ination to suspending the employees without pay.
i ENFORCEMENT ACTION t
The information from each site was reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine the appropriate enforcement action.
In each case, licensees had taken appropriate corrective action for any potential program weaknesses and disciplinary action against the individuals involved, as appropriate.
Therefore, the NRC did not take further enforcement action against the facility licensees for violations identified as a result of the licensee audits conducted after the information notice was issued.
In addition, the-NRC is not taking any enforcement action against involved individuals because facility licensees have already taken appropriate disciplinary action.
Now that the NRC has reemphasized the need for licensees to ensure that f
logging activities are being properly conducted, logging violations in the i
future may result not only in enforcement action against licensees, but also direct enforcement action against the individual involved in deliberate record falsification, whether the individual is licensed or not and whether the l
individual is a licensee employee ur a contractor.
}
LESSONS LEARNED Various licensees have reexamined their programs to ensure that management expectations regarding the conduct of rounds and log keeping are clearly.
articulated to plant personnel and are being implemented in the plant.
Some of the actions taken include steps to (1) ensure that individuals clearly j
understand the meaning of their signatures on log sheets and procedures, (2) ensure that plant personnel clearly understand who is responsible and authorized to perform rounds, (3) ensure that individuals understand the purpose of the rounds and are properly trained on how the rounds are to be conducted, (4) perform periodic audits of field practices, and (5) verify that i
round and log requirements can reasonably be met in the specified time.
Given the turnover of auxiliary operators and others who perform these rounds, licensees should consider whether these efforts should be part.of their routine training and auditing programs.
i i
c O
l Generic letter 93-XX March XX, 1993 l
This generic letter requires no specific action or written response.
If you l
have any questions about the information in this generic letter, please j
contact the technical contact listed below or the appropriate Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation project manager.
I James G. Partlow Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enc?osure:
List of Recently Issued Generic letters i
Technical contact: William M. Troskoski, OE (301) 504-3281 i
l i
l l
I i
i i
i
'k
[
l