ML20127C923
| ML20127C923 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1988 |
| From: | Mallett B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Grobe J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127C592 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-92-252 NUDOCS 9301150032 | |
| Download: ML20127C923 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
n p "i g ?h-umno suus-
'y p; NUCLEAR REGULATORY cOMMissl0N
(
nacion m
- -l m noostveu acao r
f cu~ cuvu. iui~oa um
....+
APR 01 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR: John A. Grobe, Director, Enforcement and Investigation Coordination Staff FROM:
Bruce S. Mallett, Chief, Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Branch
SUBJECT:
01 ADMINISTRATIVE CASE CLOSURE (AMS Rlll-87-A-0042; 01 CASE NO. 03-87-020) BIG ROCK POINT (DOCKET NO. 50-155)
This responds to your memorandum dated February 5,1988.
You asked that we re-review this issue and include in our deliberations the two questions included in your memorandum. Our determination is as follows and represents a reiteration of facts already presented by the Safeguards Section.
1.,
There is clearly sufficient infonnation existing which shows that the valve in question was deliberately tampered with. We have also concluded that the deliberate tampering with the valve is not an " indicated violation," in the context of a regulatory violation.
As is noted in Mr. Pawlik's January 27, 1988 memorandum, intentional tampering with a valve at a nuclear power plant is assumed to be a
" violation" of Section 236(b) of the Atomic Energy Act.
This " assumed violation" of the criminal statute cannot be detenained unless a thorough investigation is done. As related in the memorandum, the FBI (af ter extensive and extended review) declined to investigate and 01 will not, based on the belief of Mr. Cutchin of Coninissioner Robert's staff that 01 has no authority to investigate this matter.
It is obvious, therefore, that no one is now pursing a thorough investigation of the circumstances surrounding the intentional tampering with the valve.
We must, therefore, conclude that any further conclusions, recommendations, etc., must be based on the information originally developed during the review of this case by the Safeguards Section.
We concluded that the valve was intentionally tampered with and that it is probably a criminal violation of Section 236(b) of the Atomic Energy Act.
There is no apparent violation of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations nor the Security Plan or License.
2.
Based on our extensive discussions with W. Guldemond, N. Jackiw and S. Guthrie, all familiar with the operation of the equipment at the plant, they concluded that the valve tampering was not " safety significant" even though the valve was considered " safety related."
9301150032 920807
( --)
n
/7 [M-N
- he d.
TUTAK92-252 PDR d
EdF
. - ~ _
. ~
~ _
4 5
John'A. Grobe-
--2 APR I '499
- We conclude that no further enforcement action is possible.
We recommend that this case and the declination of investigation be referred to-the highest management levels within the NRC and other agencies involved. We continue-to-believe that a more thorough review and determination of who tampered with the valve is warranted, and that review should be done by authorities with better
- capabilities for examining potential criminal behavior.
We have concluded, based only on our review, that the person who may have circumstantially tampered with the valve is no longer in a position to do any further hann to the ci':ty.
We, therefore, consider this incident to have been appropriately handloJ by our staff within our abilities. We know of no other action we can take to further resolve this' matter.
/24Y Bruce S. Mallett, Chief Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Branch cc:
C. E. Norelius C. H. Weil
(
4 i
3
%r
,m r