ML20202D876
| ML20202D876 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1997 |
| From: | Mcnulty W, Tate C NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202D822 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-97-484 2-96-042, 2-96-42, NUDOCS 9802180024 | |
| Download: ML20202D876 (9) | |
Text
- - _ - - - _ _
CASE No.
2-96-042 f*,,.
(c.; :g,
=6 3
t.
h j
f$%~
}EY fg f
1 i; -
, Q; t
f[i,p,g
- $?N,Q f(,*
-r kg yy u
r
~
,f q v( \\
~
t k
l i r. h
_a u
V n{
4
('i V7 t
y d gW, N
~
,, ~
g (i 3*,*
p M
- 9pr
,g,,,g.f)
N%+
'A 3,
2 g.g e,
.g[ {; Mf.f -y
% iT
- , _ ' 'Ikfj4 g1 h. % -
?)g-gg
's #
/ J p g tg>'
.j
' y, -
q r jde, g
g p.
y gg ' _
yg%Jh.
y spf...
(f W
W D..
,$'~
4} R [q,.. M kl Nh h%~
y gjd y:A.k f(b.;phff g h$b i h, j
[1'gtFi
{.N i.f
^
"W Ikfhhk! h NNdhi?ifM@i"pAkMh/ h * [ y,5W
^"
A n
,e i.,
da we ph ;
w
,4
,,2 ng7 7 -
%w.g.
4cm g
s
[
tt s g
p.4 e
y.
~
Tedb
- h g
4
. -. ;p g W Q.hky)p~g' e,q,k.,
ip a
dk
%s 6
sa -
jI MO
,u
/
- y-e
.4 i g; '
4hek. '
! d4"4 3
- p. #+
4 m,
q
'sjr
- *ytY Q,.
/
[$h I~
l A $,
t 4 y
t
-?
s 1
i p.p*.o pg
+
)'
\\
_.s-v/
4 c.
~
- 1. f
- ,T
,s
,3
/.
,r f
fh '
.agy ll A O
my y
17 we,
- Q 9jy't y
).-
+
- 2. -- / \\
- /
y.:
,.e
+
<x t,
, g--.
3 p
\\
4 dj
~
/
^X
-kV
/
-il
+e ir 7,
\\
gyg m,
%ff V)
/
g}
p.
.p l
p{ ;f -
. ~ _ f i d 3e/ h. 9 sot $F~~~~/#^7,
d'5 i
_,T}h$
a 3,
9002180024 j
N~
? ')
- y. 0 ~,.7-(~ c.,BARTON97-484 PDR s g'_
.)
T,1Ry* m w.re s
r l te{~
?
]
w g
y s
,.~
+ Qf gg, %
[h]
l ? l A;j,'fi O
j' gg.}
4 QYy bh thh '
.jjhh 4
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 1
Case No. 2 96 042
t 4
SYNOPSIS The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioil (NRC), Office of Investigations (01),
Region II (RII), initiated this investigation on November 6, 1996, after o Florida Power & Light Com)any employee reportedly overheard another employee suggest a document be bac(dated to avoid expla9 tions to the NRC. RII inspection efforts identified a single suspect letter: however.-investigation eliminated the identified letter as a backdated document.
Neither the RIl staff nor the alleger could identify other suspect documents, Based on the interview of the alleger, RII inswetion efforts, elimination of the questioned document, and the absence of otwr suspect. documents, 01 did not substantiete the allegation.
f Case No. 2 96 042 1
i
Title:
ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT:
FALSIFICATION AND BACKDATING OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DOCUMENT Licensee:
Case No.:
2 96 042 Florida Power and Light Company Report Date:
February 12, 1997 P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33400 0420 Control Office:
01:RI' Docket Nos.:
050 335: 050 389 Status: CLOSED Reported by:
Reviewed and Approved by:
\\
1
.)
\\.
,p
/% w l '
<: b kkl.
h\\%
Craig TvTate, 'Special Agent Wirli'at J. McNuTty,' Directo Office of Investigations Office of Investigations Field Office. Region II Field Office, Region II Participating personnel:
Robert E. TrojanowsKi Regional State liaison Officer
)
is ir, of sti ation :on i sts of pagas 1 thr cugh 7
with exhi its 1 thro h
It ha not ' een i i ved pur t ant to Titi
)
di s em})inatexehti CFR Sutt <:t) ion ny edxept mate ial 7) nor s
1 Wei et 100 bli D d; ment Room, b ce in th b
th cdd:hnt( of\\th% rMort WtsidW NRC without laufiorit/. f f}^HWeQQW i
L TABLE OF CONTENTS f.A90 1
SYN 0PSIS.................................................................
1 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION.................................................-
5 Applicable Regulation..............................................
5 Pur mse of Investigation...........................................
5 Bac(ground.........................................................
5 Contact with Florida Division of Emergency Management..............
5- --
Coordination with Staff............................................
5 Interview of A11eger..............._................................
6 Conclusion.........................................................
6 LIST 0F. EXHIBITS.........................................................
7
+-+
Case No. 2 96 0d2
-3
Dils PAGE LEFT BLANK INTEh110NALLY Case No. 2 96 042 4
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION
' Applicable Reaulat19.D Allegation:
Falsification and Backdatina of Emeraency Preoaredness Document 10 CFR S 50.9:
Completeness and accuracy of information Puroose of Investiaation The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC), Office of InvestigatiohT (01),
Region II (RII) initiated this investi ation on November 6,1996, after(an
' emergency prepar,edness (EP) coordinato reportedly overheard a licensee employee suggest a document be backdat to avoid explanations to the NRC (Exhibit 1),
Backoround s
h n
o
- 1996, he overhear a Florida Power & Light Company (FP&L) employee, suggest to a uni entifi d individual that a document be backdated to avoid explanations to the NRC the following week.
The call occurred the week prior to an NRC EP inspection.
AGENT'S NOTE:
reported numerous technical concerns y'
which have bee d spositioned separately by the RII staff (Inspection Report Nos, 50 335 and 50 389/96 18, 96 19, and 96 22).
On October 8, 1996, the RII Allegation Review Board (ARB) initially reviewed this issue and tasked the RII staff to identify documents su.spected of being backdated. The RII staff identified a single letter (Exhibit 2) as a suspected backdated document. On October 31, 1996, the ARB again reviewed the issue and requested 01 determine if the letter had been backdated.
Contact with Florida Division of Emeroency Manaoement On December 16, 1996, at the request of 01, NRC Regional State Liaison Officer Robert E. fROJANOWSKI contacted William LEBLANC, Planning Manager, Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM), to determine when FDEM received the questioned letter.
LEBLANC providea a date stamped copy of the letter (Exhibit 3) indicating its receipt by FDEM on October 2. 1996, at 8:50 a.m.
Coordination with Reaion 11 Staff On November 5,1996. Radiation Specialist James L. KREH advised he conducted the inspection which initially identified the letter as a suspect document.
He considered the letter suspect because of its content (related to EP) and the time frame in which it was written.
Upon viewing the date stamped letter (Exhibit 3), KREH commented that the date and time of receipt, as indicated on Case No. 2 96 042 5
7 cpi $
... _. - - =
l LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No..
Description 1
Investigation Status Record, dated November 6, 1996.
2 FP&L Letter, dated September 27, 1996.
3 FP&L Letter, dated September 23, 1996, with date stamp.
Case No. 2 96 042 7
the letter, precluded the document from beir.g associated with a backdating issue.
KREH advised he was unable to identify any other suspect documents.
On December 17, 1996, SRI MILLER advised that he announced the EP inspection on the afternoon of October 2, 1996.
MILLER noted this precluded the identified letter from being backdated because it was received by FDEM prior to the time the licensee became aware of the EP inspection.
1Dierview of A1'eger On
. 0!
on cally interviewed regardingghe al ege ac at ng issue.
d essent a y t at information previously provided to SR elated that on October 2','1996, he rd a telephone conversetion
- t. Lucie Nuclear Pla n
ei an unidentified party. During the call he overheard ell 7b he ot.c party that if a docu not backdated he would be exp aining it to the NRC the following week, hen re told the other party that the date used should be t or 27th, assumed this meant the o 27th of Seatember 1996 a period when a numb r of items came due.
commented t1at Doug WHITWELL (NFI) may have overheerd the telephone conver ation also.
Reporting agent advised (M' that NRC inspectors identified.a potential bdckdated letter, but t1at invl>stigation eliminated the letter as a backdated document. When asked if he could provide any addit o i formation which
- 7( _
wo ld identify another potential backdated document responded, "no."
rovided no additional pertinent information.
is fully reported herein rather than(Mstatement the information AGENT'S NOTE:
Due to the brevity of in an interview report.
E Conclusion Based on the interview of the alleger. RII ins)ection efforts, elimiution of the questioned document, and the absence of otler suspect documents, 01 did not substantiate the allegation.
Case No. 2 96 042 6
d I
7Cf m