ML20149J363
| ML20149J363 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 12/28/1994 |
| From: | Caniano R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Gipson D DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9501050162 | |
| Download: ML20149J363 (2) | |
Text
. _. _ _
'QCS y
e r>
December 28, 1994 The Detroit Edison Company ATTN: Mr. D. R. Gipson Senior Vice President Nuclear Generation 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, MI 48166
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO OUR LETTER ABOUT A SECURITY TRAINING CONCERN AT THE FERMI 2 PLANT Dear Mr. Gipson-i Thank you for your letter dated December 9,1994, in response to our November 9,1994 letter identifying a concern pertaining to training qualifications for some security force personnel at the Fermi 2 facility.
In our letter, we requested that you determine if the Security Force Training and Qualification (SFT&Q) Plan identified training requirements for supervisors promoted during the recent staffing transition plan for the security department. Additionally, we requested that you verify that such training requirements were completed by the appropriate supervisors in accordance with the criteria in the SFT&Q Plan.
\\
Your response indicated that the SFT&Q Plan does identify training require-ments for supervisory positions existing after implementing the staffing transition plan and that all by one person met all of the qualification criteria prior to assuming supervisory positions. The one individual performing duties as a Response Force Leader (RFL) worked between April 26, 1993 and July 3,1993, in a training status to qualify as an alarm station operator; a position he should have been qualified in prior to being assigned as a RFL.
However, the RFL is not a routine supervisory position.
We found your investigation to be sufficient to support your conclusions and we have no further questions regarding this issue at this time. We request that you retain the supporting documentation of your investigation for a minimum of one year from the date of this letter.
C[U
){
I 9501050162 941228 PDR ADOCK 05 31
i i
1 The Detroit Edison Company 1 In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of 1
this letter and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Your cooperation in addressing this matter is appreciated, a
Sincerely, Oripr.st signed t y J. W. %Cn c 'eTW
]
Roy J. Caniano, Chief Reactor Support Programs Branch Docket No. 50-341
'i cc:
J. Conen, Principal J
Compliance Engineer i
P. A. Marquardt, Corporate l
Legal Department cc w/1tr dtd 12/9/94: James R. Padgett, Michigan Public 1
Service Commission Michigan Department of Public Health Monroe County Office of i
Civil Preparedness Distribution:
Docket File w/ encl Project Manager, NRR w/ encl i
PUBLIC IE-04 w/ encl DRP w/ encl OC/LFDCB w/ encl RIII PRR w/ encl SRI, Fermi w/ encl E. G. Greenman, RIII w/ enc 1 D. Funk, RIII.f.=>
j i
i i
iffln'.l"".;,, a!?I.'ifl.. w m c. co.....n mou.
... c. c,, m.u--ou r. u.
l OFFICE RIII RIII 6
RIII RIII IF NAME GPirtle:jpSB MPhillipshW M treed W RCaniano Vimb /,n DATE 12/fs /94 12/96 /94 "
12/28/94 12/X /94
/
ortzczar ascono corr y
I I
I 1
,j j
3h PRIORITY ROUTING F
Drus ue n. ci;ssn First [
Srecad Sener Vce Pres &nt J
Nuclear Generaten
.p Rs, RC I
h Fe el2 6400 North Dine Highway
!# ;' A e
i 2
(313)586-5249
-[g [ ~j[g Newport, Michsgan 48166 v <sSS A0 DRMA 1
}
>J f
i FILE.[ # M _
j December 9, 1994 j
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission j
Attn: Document Control Desk i
Nashington, D. C.
20555 l
References:
1)
Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341 NRC License No. NPF-43 i
i 2)
NRC Letter to Detroit Edison, j
" Security Concern about the Security Force At Fermi,"
dated November 9, 1994
}
f l
Sub,)ect:
Reply to the Concern about Feral 2 Security Force 4
Reference 2 identified a concern regarding the status of training of security supervisors.' The NRC requested that Detroit Edison provide e
results of investigation of this concern and disposition of this j
natter. Detroit Edison's Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA) Group reviewed j
the concern, and the enclosure to this letter contains results of the QA j
review. There is one cosaltaent made in this reply. '!he Security 1
organization will clarify the requirements for Response Force Leader j
qualifications.
}
If you should have any questions concerning this reply, please contact i
John R. Louwers Specialist QA Audits at (313) 586-1406.
t l
1 i
Sincerely, i
Enclosure cc:
- 7. G. Colburn 1
J. B. Martin N. P. Phillips A.
Vogel a
i DEc ' '31 l
- 7'lll5 CMS 4
a Encloruro to j
December 9, 1994 i d' Page 1 of 2 i
On November 17, 1994, Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA) - Audits initiated an j
investigation to address a NRC concern which Detroit Edison received on November l
15, 1994. -The concern identified that up to four security personnel promoted to Senior Security Supervisor positions during the j
recent security force " Staffing Transition Plan" may not have completed the training required by the Security Personnel Training and Qualification Plan (SPT&QP) to be able to adequately perform security post duties they may be required to work.
he following information was reviewed and verified in order to define the j
scope of this investigation:
a The Nuclear Security organization implemented the staffing transition j
o plan changes on April 26, 1993 I
he STP job descriptions defined two supervisory roles in the security o
uniform section which included the General Supervisor and Security
)
Shift Supervisor. The pre-STP position of Assistant Security Shift 4
Supervisor was changed to Response Force Leader and classified as a l
non-supervisory position.
The Detroit Edison SPT&QP does identify specific training requirements o
j for the positions of General Supervisor Security Operations, Security i
Shift Supervisor, Response Force Leader, Central and Secondary Alaras l
Station Operator, Response Force Member and Natch Person.
2
)
i Investigation by NQA verified that the five security personnel who were j
promoted to, or remained at the position of Security Shift Supervisor (SSS) during the staffing transition plan (April-26, 1993) were qualified as required by the Detroit Edison SPT&QP, prior to assuming these duties.
i In addition to the five SSS positions, the qualifications of one Security l
Specialist were reviewed since this individual was also performing SSS duties during and after the STP implementation. The investigation verified that this individual was and is qualified to perform SSS duties.
i h e qualifications of the General Supervisor Security Operations (GSS0) were reviewed and verified to meet the requirements of the SPT&QP. he j
Individual performing these duties prior to STP was selected for the j
position of GSSO and remained in the position of GSSO following STP.
j The NQA investigation also reviewed the training records of security
{
personnel assigned to the position of Response Force Leader (RFL). As j
noted earlier, the position of RFL was classified as a non-supervisory j
position, however, the Detroit Edison Physical Security Plan (PSP) states that in the absence of the SSS, the RFL may assume SSS responsibilities.
1 Ten security personnel were selected to staff the RFL positions. The training and qualification records for each RFL were reviewed to verify i
that SPT&QP training requirements were met prior.to assignment. All ten RFL's were qualified to perform RFL duties, however, one individual assigned to the position of RFL had' expired in CAS/SAS approximately two j
years prior and had not completed the Central and Secondary Alara Station (CAS/SAS) task requalification until July 3, 1993 The assignment of this i
i individual to RFL was not a promotion.
l.*'
Encleauro to
~
i 4e NRC-94-0113 i
December 9, 1994 Page 2 of 2 l
}
An interview with the RFL and the individual's supervisor determined that i
additional time was provided to the RFL to become more proficient on the i
CAS/SAS console prior to being task evaluated for requalification.
j The RFL in question had previously been a Security Training Specialist and was not i
required to requ,alify in CAS/SAS tasks while in this position, however, the i
RFL was knowledgeable of Alara Station Operations since he had conducted j
CAS/SAS classroom instruction.
i to the position of RFL be qualified CAS/SAS.The SPT&QP requires that personnel assig This allows that person to be j
assigned to the CAS/SAS post, as needed, but does not directly relate to i
the performance of the RFL duties. After the STP and subsequent move to j
the RFL position, the individual' requested additional CAS/SAS console time j
to become more proficient in the shift activities associated with the Alara 1
Station operations.
Between the period of April 26, 1993 through July 3, i
1993, the RFL did not perform CAS/SAS duties on his own, but trained under a qualified CAS/SAS operator until he was task evaluated and certified on 4
July 3, 1993 Even hhough the RFL was not'CAS/SAS qualified, he was 1
qualified and task certified to perform RFL duties and Response Force Member (RFM) duties and net' physical and weapons qualification l
requirements.
i The SPT&QP critical task qualification matrix requires that the RFL j
j position complete and requalify annually in the following critical tasks, j
RFM, CAS/SAS, and RFL.
Based on the SPT&QP training requirements, the RFL should have completed the CAS/SAS critical tasks prior to assuming RFL j
duties.
However, follow-up with security supervision determined that there were differences of interpretation on whether an individual must have a i
current CAS/SAS certification to perform RFL duties. As a result of this j
review, the Security organization will clarify the requirements for RFL qualification to indicate that current qualification in CAS/SAS is required.
Actions taken to resolve this issue will be tracked and i
evaluated in the Corrective Action program (Deviation Event Report DER j
94-0694).
I j
Based on NQA review of individual qualifications, SPT&QP training requirements, security shift records, and interviews with supervisory and l
non-supervisory security personnel it was verified that security personnel who were promoted to, or remained at supervisory positions during the STP i
were qualified to perform their assigned duties as required by the Detroit Edison SPT&QP.
In addition, all RFLs were appropriately task evaluated in SSS duties prior to being assigned to any supervisory duties.
I i
i
!r i
I