ML20126B672

Discusses Investigation Conducted in Response to from Util Re Possible Compromise on 910724 of RO Requalification Exam Scheduled by NRC on 910805 & Forwards Notice of Violation

ML20126B672
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	12/16/1992
From:	Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Orser W DETROIT EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20126B675	List: ML20126B672 ML20126B727 ML20126B775
References
EA-92-115, NUDOCS 9212220170
Download: ML20126B672 (5)

Text

'

. o UNITED STATES

,,( pB MEG g <fq[o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$lON

[ yy 2 nuvan m 5  ;[ 799 fiOOSE VC o l R O ,4 0 g corn ettvu stuums om

• • • • • December 16, 1992 Docket No. 50-341 License No. NPF-43 EA 92-115 The Detroit Ed' on Company ATTri: Mr. W. S. Orser Senior Vice President Nuclear Generation 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166

Dear Mr. Orscr:

1

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INVESTIGATION REPORT 3-91-010)

This refers to the investigation conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) in response to an August 2, 1991, latter from the Detroit Edison Company (Deco),concerning the possible compromise on July 24, ]991, ofajreactoroperatorrequalifi-cation examination scheduled to b4 administered by the NRC on August 5, 1991. A copy of the synopsis of the OI investigation report is enclosed (Enclosure 1).

The OI investigation concluded that.the lead training instructor, who was assisting in the preparation of the examination, compromised the examination by directing another instructor, who had not signed an examination security form and was not aware of the examination's contents, to focuc simulator practice sessions on certain procedures which were to be tested on August 5, 1991.

However, the examination candidates never received any information on the examination topics prior to being examined.

This resulted because DECO r_anagement, acting in response to concerns raised by other employees prior to the examination, placed different instructors in charge of the remaining training of the candidates and required any member of the training staff who may have learned of the examination's information to sign an examinction secarity form.

The compromise of the reactor operator requalification examination on July 24, 1991, is a violation of 10 CFR 55.49.

Based upon the investigation's conclusion that the violation was willful, an escalated enforcement action would normally be taken for this violation in accordance with the NRC's Enforcement Policy (10 CFR Part 2 Appendix C). The NRC staff recognizes the actions taken by Deco in this matter; therefore, the discre-tionary provisions for willful violations committed by low level licensee employees, contained in Section VII.B. (2) (d) of the NRC Enforcement Policy, were considered. Application of this enforcement discretion was found to be inappropriate in this case CERTIFIED MAIL r.

cibl'ed

^

RETURN RECEIPT REQUEFTED O-9212220170 921216 DR ADOCK 05000 1 gggg /

///

The' Detroit Edison Company --2.- December 16, 1992 because of the position the individual held in the Fermi organization. '

Therefore, I have decided after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for' -

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations, and Research, to ,

issue the enclosed Notice of Violation (Enclosure 2), but not to require a reply to the violation in recognition of DECO's response to the event. Consideration was given to escalating the severity level of the violation because it involved a willful act; however, the violation has been classified at Severity Level IV because (1) this was an isolated act on the part of one individual, and (2) none of the candidates received any information on the examination topics.

While DECO's actions in response tu this event were proper, any willful violation of NRC requirements is a significant regulatory concern. In order to convey the scriousness with which we view this matter, the enclosed letter (Enclosure 3) has been sent to Mr. G. Reece, the fs er lead training instr actor involved in-this mattar.

In accordt. ace with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice,"

a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

Sincerely, A. B. Davis Regional Administrator E clocures:

1. OI Investigation' Report 3-91-010 Synopsis

2. Notice of Violation

3. NRC Letter to Mr. G. Reece cc/enclc ures:

D. R. Gipson, Assistant Vice s President & Manager Nuclear

• Production L John A. Tibai, Supervisor l- of Compliance P. A. Marquardt, Corporate Legal Department Resident Inspector, RIII

! James R. Padgett, Michigan Public Service Commission -

l Harry H. Voight, Esq.

Michigan Department of Public Health Monroe County Office of -

Civil Preparedness

, .___---.----------s

m,-i ;- -_-,-

m h

f

-: The Detroit. Edison Company -3 - . December 16 1992 [

DI STRIEMIJ,QI!:- '

SECY n

CA JSriiezek, DEDR

" JLieberman, UE LChandler, OGC ,

JGoldberg, OGC TMurley, NRR JPartlow, NRR -

Enforcement Coordinators RI, RII, RIV, RV ,

_ Fermi,. LPM, NRR Fermi' Resident Inspector FIngram, GPA/PA LDW1111ema, OIG anayos, oI EJordan, AEOD JLuchme", OE Day File EA Filo (2)

DCD/DCD-(RIDS) oC/LFCDCn

- DCS--

' State of_ Michigan c - RAO:RIII SLO:RIII PAO: RIII IMS:RIII f

N e

E

SYNOPSIS On August 23, 1991, the Regional Administrator (RA). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

? .Conmission (NRC), H,gion Ill (Rl!I), requested that an investigation be b initiated concerning an alleged deliberate attempt to compromise portions of l l an NRC Reactor Operator's Requalification Examination by a Detroit Edison

& Company (DECO) Fermi 2 Power Plant (Fermi 2) lead instructor.

I i

On September 30, 1991, the RA further requested that the investigation also focus on two additional potential wrongdoing issues: (1) Other alleged instances of examination security breaches in the past; and (2) Other I instances where surveillance tests were falsified.

The Office of Investigctions, RIII, investigation substantiated that the lead instructor deliberately attempted to compromise the NRC Requalification I. ,

Examination by directing another instructor to focus, during a simu?ator l[ practice session, on procedures which were part of the NRC Requalification L Examination.

i' 1 The investigation alse determined that a past examination of a security breach was well documented by DECO Fermi 2 senior training officials, conveyed to the NRC by DECO, and was, in fact, a mistake on the part of a DECO Fermi 2 instructor, who was the one who initially notified DECO management of his error. The investigation did not, however, substantiate any deliberate wrongdri.'.9 on the part of any DECO personnel in relation to this particular incide t.

g Finally, the investigation did not substantiate the allegation that there were falsifications of surveillance tests.

1

?

4 5

i. ,

l

• a 3

a r

l Case No. 3-9b010 1 I I

. .I

IW Dolberatemiocorwktet.

, (a) Any licenace or any employee of a ticenste; and any contractor (including a supplier or consultant), subcontructor, or any employee of a contractor or subcontractor, of any licensee, who knowingly provides to any licensee, contractor, or subcontractor, components, equipment, materials, or cther goods or services, that relate to a licensee's activitjes subject to this part; may not:

(1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or, but for detection, would 6 have caused, a licensea to be in S violation of any rule, regulation, or crder, or any term, condition, or limitation of any. license, issued by the Commission, or (2) Deliberately submit to the NRC. a licensee, or a licensee's contractor or subcontractor. information that the person submitting the information mcws to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC.

(b) A person who violates paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) cf this section may be subject to enforcement action in accordance with the procedures in 10 CFR part 2. subpart B, (c) For purposes of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, deliberate misconduct by a s person means an intentionaTact or e omission that the person knows:

g (1) Would cause a licensee to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or order, or any term, condition, or limitation, of any license issued by the Commission, or (2) Constitutes a violation of a requirement. procedure. instruction, contract, purchase order or policy of a licensee, contractor, or subcontractor.

/,/

/

i

'MJ CQt* M T che kr4C tpc f C

• C2 7 3C GT UT