ML20205M333

Provides Final Agenda for Region II Enforcement Meeting to Be Held on 970730.OI Attendance Requested for Issue Involving Termination of Turkey Point Radwaste Operator Who Failed to Follow Procedure

ML20205M333
Person / Time
Site:	Harris, Saint Lucie, Sequoyah, Summer, Turkey Point
Issue date:	07/28/1997
From:	Boland A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Lieberman J, Satorius M NRC
Shared Package
ML20205M044	List: ML20205M043 ML20205M071 ML20205M079 ML20205M101 ML20205M119 ML20205M126 ML20205M147 ML20205M151 ML20205M161 ML20205M163 ML20205M170 ML20205M175 ML20205M182 ML20205M193 ML20205M199 ML20205M210 ML20205M221 ML20205M234 ML20205M322 ML20205M333
References
FOIA-99-76 EA-97-092, EA-97-329, EA-97-92, NUDOCS 9904150236
Download: ML20205M333 (24)

Text

,

et o .

From: Anne Boland/ I, /.,/hawn,//4 M.SaNdusj @

To: WND2.WNP6.OEMAIL, WND2.WNP6.JXL, WND2tIVNP6. MAS, WN...

• ' Date: 07/28/97 14:07

Subject:

Region ll Enforement Panel-Final Agenda l

REVISION - NOTE THAT 01 ATTENDANCE IS REQUESTED FOR ITEM 4. '

The Region ll Enforcement Panel will be held at 2:00 p.m,. on Wednesday, July 30, 997 in DRP conference room. The bridge number is 301-415-7605 (passcode i The final agenda is as follows:

1. 2:00 p.m. - St. Lucie (EA 97-329) - ECCS sump issue recaucu's

1. 2:15 p.m. - Sequoyah - Panel of licensee's response regarding falsification of fire

~

watch documentation (EA 97-092)'. The response has already been' rovided to OE.

2. 2:30 p.m. - Harris - Inadequate Surveillance Testing

3. 3:00 p.m. - Summer - Containment isolation Valve open greater than LCO limit.

4. 3:30 p.m. - Turkey Point - Radwaste operator who was terminated for failing to follow procedure. (Open 01 case) Briefbg on decision of binding arbitrator. 01 i ATTENDANCE REQUESTED. See separate e-mail forwarded on this topic. '

The EAWs are attached, and appropriate reference materials will be faxed to OE J

There are two attachments to this message.

I O

n 1 -

'1

~

~. .

..a. , ,,

l i.b Q :rs ,: :,o!;c ,;,;u 3 n

~ ~ ' ' ' " ~

FOR % ; N ,8 9904150236 990413 PDR FO1A GUNTER99-76 PDR ,

~

qw4ICO f%

f

1. p

" ~

,s .,.

~

ENFORCEMENT ACTION 7'~ WORKSHEET v .

INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR ENFORCEMENT PANEL SEQUOYAR 01. INVESTIGATION

, ALLEGED FALSIFICATION OF FIRE WATCH JOURNALS W. H. Miller. Jr. DATE: 2/20/97 PREFARED BY:

NOTE: The Branch Chief of the responsible Division is responsible for pre)aration of this questionnaire and its distribution to attendees prior to an Enforcement Panel. The Branch Chief shall also be responsible for .

providing the meeting location and t le) hone bridge' number to attendees via e- l

. SiL. LFD: appropriate RII DRP. DRS:

mail [ENF.GRP. CFE. OEMAIL. JXL.

appropriate' NRR, NHSS). A Notice of iolation.(without "boilerplate") which includes the recommended severity leve for the violation is required. Copies of, applicable Technical Specifications r license conditions cited in the Notice or oiiher reference material neede to evaluate the proposed enforcement action are required to be enclosed.

This Notice Has been reviewed by the Brarch Chief or Division Director and each violation includes the. appropriate 1 vel of specificity as to how and when the requirement was violated.

Signature

1. Facility: Sequoyah Units: 1 and 2 Docket Nos: 50-327 and 50-328 License Nos: DPR-77 and DPR-79 r i Inspection Report No: 01 Report 2-96-009 Report Date: 1/24/97 f Lead Investigator: V. Selewski. .. r1 Lead Inspector: W. H. Miller Jr. }

1.

Brief Summary of OI Findings:

b [h-The NRC R ion II Office of Investigations initiated an ti ion on Ou JA % March 2 f two fire watch rs' fail o.

t TN N gpatro areas a ' sheets and g

elr assi 3

journals'as thoug rea n patrolled. The investigation ailed to patrol their assigned fire

= substantiated tha watch journals by claiming these watch areas and f leir fi c

areas wer'e ins)ected when actually there were not. The evidence did not substantiate tlat their actions were intentional or willful.

INDIVIDUALS: y gg ggg,g' SCFR 50.5(a)(1) states that any licensee or any employee of a.

licensee; and any contractor or any employee of a contractor may not Y,'/O $ engage in deliberate misconduct tha't causes or, would have caused.'a

~

~ ~

$j)9 f

A . e$[L .

i

' fow

.i ' ENFORCEMENT ACTION WORKSHEET

'p /Mf licensee to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or order, or any g U

i term, condition, or limitation of any license, issued by the Commission. -

7 ,

erid y. <

Contrary to the above 996, fire watc missed door No. C-23r/on and d January

. te 8 Aa ntered and ch

%emputer room when in fac- '

not the room. Fire wat b documented that on Januar 996 during the 4:00 a.m. patrol.

[1 inspected elevation 9 elevation 706 of the control buil I f/ when it appears tha not perform this inspection. The fire '

/ watch records indic Meerea-was inspected in two minutes when in fact it requires oximat ly five minutes to tour and inspect this area.

LICENSEE:

v Q2 0 Q ff b& WM The licensee's Technical Specifications Sections 3.3.3.8. 3.7.11.1 through 3.7.11.4 and 3.7.12 require compensatory measures be G ./ established for degraded fire protection c nents. Dr.e of the A specified compensatory measures consist of a ourly fire watch patrol.

k hl Contrary to the above.,on January 8. 17 and 21, 1996. the required hourly fire watch patrols for the control buildings were not provided ,g i within the time specified by the Technical Specifications. i A )

2. Ar.alysis of Root Cause: '

The fire watch patrols did not perform the hourly fire watch patrols within the specified time. TM Mzee did Mha an olace a nroaram .

-ta=va"" " " 'ir r waren patrols ere accomolished within the' ~ l l reqmrea t1me trame. +h e d b -- V.AoLMrnss w t6 "C .o honabV.w! ) % ula5 Previously, when the fire watch patrdls were performed by personnel -)

assigned to the Fire Operations group, a bar code reader was used by the g /-

fire watch personnel to record a bar code marker installed in.the $fu, c o m.

d r

requ noti 3atrol area. The bar code reader was designed to.alarr,and e fire watch if a required inspection area was missed. These 594m u

rea re stored in the bar code reader for 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, downloaded into O, i

. ac er and )rinted out at the end of each shift. This bar code O'x.44 1 A verif ed that tie fire watch actually completed the fire watch route g i

p. This procedure was discontinued when the fire watch duties were acquired by the Maintenance group. In addition. the licensee required that each i

fire watch provide his or her own watch for recording the time of each fire watch )atrol. At least one of the fire watch emoloyees did not have a watc1 that provided an accurate time to be recmded in the fire watch records.

3. Basis for Severity Level (Safety Significance): [ Include example from the supplements, aggregation, repetitiveness, willfulness, etc.] ,

INDIVIDUALS:

Section VIII of the NRC Enforcement Policy state.s that en.forcement 3 ,

action involving individuals will normally only be taken app when the '

NRC is satisfied that the individual fully understood, or should have

, ENFORCEMENT ACTION

• WORKSHEET understood his or her responsibility. However, the following are

, examples of situations which could result in enforcement actions involving individuals, licensed or unlicensed:

- Willfully causing a licensee to be in violation of NRC ^

requirements.

- Falsifyin records required by the NRC, regulations or by the facility icense. p AS ICENSEE: -

xp Supement l.p I,wItem w Dpofgthe) NRC p Enforcement Policy states that 9

k vio ations involving a less significant failure to comply with the M 6 %ction Statement of the Technical Specification Limiting Condition for s 0)eration; or a failure to meet regulatory requirements that have more

• 4 4 tlan minor safety or environmental significance should be classified as

\ g a Severity Level IV violations

4. Ider.tify ?revious Escalated Action Within 2 Years or 2 Inspections?

p [by EA#, Supplement, and Identification date.]

EA 95-199 Discrimination (SL I) - $100.000, issued on January 13, 1997.

}& p -269 Fire Protection (SL III) - $50,000, issued on November 19, off 0 EA 96-414 Reactor Trip Complications (SL Ib) - $100,000, issued on e-N' December 24, 1995 Cf N EA 95-252 Discrimination (SL II) - $80,000, issued on February 20, 1997 i Identification Credit? Fetr M 0]r Yes ,

Consider following and discuss if applicable below:

X Licensee-identified a Revealed through event a NRC-identified a Mixed identification a Missed opportunities On January 26, 1996, during a routine review of the fire watch patrol records and security acce's control system printout data, the licensee determined that on January 21, 1996, the assigned fire watch personnel had not p'atrolled some of the required areas in the control building.

Further review identified additional discrepancies for fire watch

)atrols on January 8 and 17, 1996. The licensee submitted Licensee Event Report LER 50-327/96-001 to the NRC on February 20, 1996, as specified by 10 CFR 60,73(a)(2)(i).

Enter date Licensee was aware of issues requiring corrective action:

January 26, 1996. s

6. Corrective Action Credit? JEv6 v= # 5 h Yes.

Brief summary of corrective actions:

\ PUBUC

ENFORCEMENT ACTION ~

WORKSHEET

- After determining that required fire watch patrol was not a equately performe thtlicensee reviewed fidditional data and i entified one addi 'onal individua ad failed t duct proper fire watch patrols. ,

r ff

.- The two fire watch personnel invo]ved in he improper perf)rmance M of fire watch duties L.

were fired. {

-- {

Management expectations for proper procedure adherence, pro)er completion of documentation, the importance of conducting t1e assigned fire watch tourt, and the disciplinary actions taken for )

this event were reviewed with the fire. watch personnel. j

- Random reviews of access control system computer recor.M at Sequoyah were to continue to be performed. ,

l

~

.An alternate methodology to assist in the prompt identification of

' missed fire watch patrols.were being considered.

, AiS

7. Candidgtte For Discretion? d5ee-attached-+tst? g/

Yesk $

% t $I M " Y&n Y N

• v v

8. Is A Predecisional Enforcement Conference Necessary?

f -

No.

g ..--

9. Non Routine Issues / Additional Information:

the following issues h7[

were identified ich appear to be outsi e o e scope of the OI investigation. Theseissuesarecoqsideredpotentialalleationswhich should be reviewed by the Region II Allegation Review Pane :

01-4mestNatir did not 6ddre55 a apparent discrtnina Mlegati m 7,C -

b.

egation tna E

lys- equoyah falsified n

I cM es were given time off in lieu of records and that these emp' g4 being terminatedlThe GI hvcstigation did not address thio aHegath f

l

c. $an allegation that i he fire wat trainin 3rovided ot meet the station i procedures and was inadequa e. Each new fire watch employee was M, required to watch a film which providcd training on the fire watch duties and responsibilities. In addition. each fire watch was i required to receive training in extinguishing an ' actual fire.

' 'du the This training was to be received prior examination for a fire watch position. as not required to perform the fire extingui ment training. was

.. ENFORCEMENT ACTION 5- ,

WORKSHEET

• not clear if the film prior tostaking the exam. -Ths, 7(

'% sue e n0_ __acsseu uy i.he 01 investigatica.'

d.

e inves iga ion un a prior to November ,the 1censee used a bar code recording device to document fire watch inspections. This practice was used when the fire watch personnel were assigned to the Fire Operations group. After the fire watch responsibilities were transferred to the Maintenance group in e of this bar code recorder was discontinued. k discontinuing the use of the bar coder reader l esu in inadeq e documentation of the fire watch patrols and inspections.fT'nia issuc was not aadressed by h ,

ifwestigati0r

e. used a watch l

.without a ers o etermine the time to reco on the fire watch - l patrol records pnd journal. The fire watch personnel requested the licensee to provide stop clock or watch dwices such that each h /C i Hrc watch would have the exact time. These tiir.e clocks had not been provided. ;This issue wo3 nui, add,e33cd by the O! -

tiivestigotu m -

10. This Action is Consistent With the Following Action (or Enforcement Guidance) Previously Issue 1: [EICS to provide] [If incons4 tent.

N INDIVIDUALS:

Section VIII of the NRC Enforc t Policy LICENSEE: }

Supplement I y 8gk # '

11. Regulatory Message:

INDIVIDUALS: (pA6P 4

-[ Ac ions by an indi vio tion of NR o Isr u equir % o' an i. ividual a lic ifyin be in '

ardss ons or by t facility 'll not be r, requi by NRC regal tolerat LICENSEE:

Y Encourage prompt identification of roblems by the licensee and the M( 3 h implementation of prompt and c relensive corrective actions to prevent recurrence of the violation. he corrective actions should include g provisions that do not rely e irely on the human action for compliance [

v e e hr d' h ,z W W TK!!L?%%T12PR R

. ENFORCEMENT ACTION 6- ,

WORKSHEET

12. Recommended Enforcement Action: r j

• LNDIVIDUALS:

The employment termination of .

for this event sas a

• 5 eve' and harsh personnel ac . ur er, action by the NRC is _

acamuned.

LICENSEE:

This issue is a Severity Level IV violation which was identified by the licensee and reported to the NRC by a Licensee Event Report. Therefore, this issue should be identified as arnon-citea violatwo and the licensee should be requested to revise the J.g to provide additional information on the proposed alternative metlodology being considered to 2 assist in the )rompt identification of missed fire watches at Sequoyah and th'e date tlat this feature will be implemented.

8 car 13.

~

k This Case Meets the Criteria for a DeMgated Qase. [GICS - Enter b ur

> Y '

INDIVIDUALS 2 No g[j g LICENSEE: No 4 ,-

[ [ [r w sce

14. uld This Action Be Sent to OE For Full Rev ew? [EICS Enter Yes or ,

INDIVIDUALS: No

. ebfkc LICENSEE:. No l , g

15. Regional Counsel Review M At the sanel. '

40 L ;el Sj etien Dated P [j

16. Exempt from Timeliness: [D6C.)kr[6 Basi for Exemption: g q.g jay \ g Q Enforcement Coordinator:

DATE:

SNpp I

. ENFOREMENT ACTION ,

WORK 5HEET ISSlES TO CONSIDER FOR DISCRETION O Problems categorized at Severity Level I or II.

a Case involves overexposure or release of radiological material in excess of NRC requirements. ,

X Case involves particularly poor licensee performance.

o involve willfulness. Information should be included to Case address(may),

whb tfer or not the region has had. discussions with 01 regarding the case, whv er or not the matter has been formally referred to 01.

and whether sr t 01 intends to initiate an investigation. A description, as a licable of the facts and circumstances that address the aspects of neg gence careless disregard willfulness. and/or management involvementNshould also be included.

o Current violation is dir tly repetitive of an earlier violation.

o Excessive duration of a prob resulted in a substantial increase in risk.

o Licensee made a conscious decisi to be in noncompliance in order to obtain an economic benefit.

O Cases involves the loss of a source.\ (Note whether the licensee self-identified and reported the loss to tfie NRC )

o Licensee *s sustained performance has be\

-en pa ticularly .

good.

\

/

o Discretion should/be exercised by escalating or 'tigating'to ensure that the proposep civil analty reflects the NRC's Doncern regarding the j violation at issue and tlat it conveys the appropriate message to the  ;

licensee. Exp ain.

/ -

)

si ENF I - TF ,_,

REL W/0 APFRoV DIRECTOR. ,

i

l ENFORCEMENT ACTION ,

WORKSHEET -

, INFORMATION RE0VIRED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR ENFORCEMENT PANEL SEQUOYAK OI INVESTIGATION .

l

• ALLEGED FALSIFICATION OF FIRE WATCH JOURNALS PREPARED BY: W. H. Miller. Jr. DATE: 2/20/97 l NOTE: The Branch Chief of the responsible Division is responsible for preparation of this questionnaire and its distribution to attendees prior to an Enforcement Panel. The Branch Chief shall also be responsible for providing the meeting location and tele) hone bridge number to attendees via e-mail [ENF.GRP. CFE. OEMAll., JXL. MAS. SiL. LFD: appropriate RII DRP. DRS:

appropriate NRR. NMSS). A Notice of Violation (without "boilerplate") which includes the recommended severity level for the violation is required. Copies of applicable Technical Specifications or license conditions cited in the Notice or 6ther reference material needed to evaluate the proposed enforcement action are required to be enclosed.

This Notice has been reviewed by the Branch Chief or Division Director and each violation includes th( appropriate level of specificity as to how and whenethe requirement was violated.

Signature

1. Facility: Sequoyah Units: 1 and 2 Docket Nos: 50-327 and 50-328 License Nos: DPR-77 and DPR-79 ,

Inspection Report No: 0I Report 2296-009  !

Report Date: 1/2097 ,

Lead Investigator: V. Selewski 1 Lead Inspector: W. H. Miller. Jr.

o g,<IJ V

1. Brief Sunmary of 01 Findings: a l

The NRC Region II Office of Investigations initiated an n on j 1

t I failed to I pa eir assign areas and document elr 1re wa sheets and I journalsasthough een atrolled. The investigation l JV -

gm substantiated that 71c_h areas and fa fied their fa to patrol their assigned fire journals by claiming these

)

I I

areas were1ns)ected when actuall the e not. The evidence did not substantiate tlat their actions ce f(n onal or willful.

hl Nch SN -

INDIVIOUALS:

f'4 No violations proposed.

. tDih A

.. a

. ENFORCEMENT ACTION 2- ,

WORKSHEET LICENSEE: r

• 10 CFR 50.9 states, in part, that information required by regulations, orders or license conditions to be maintained by the licensee ,shall be

, complete and accurate in all material respects.

The licensee's Technical Specifications. Sections 3.3.3.8. 3.7 11.1 through 3.7.11.4 and 3.7.12, require compensatory measures be established for degraded fire protection components. One of the i specified compensatory measures consist of an hourly fire watch patrol.

Contrary to the above. the licensee failed to maintain information required by Commission regulations complete and accurate in all material respects. Specifically, on January 8,17. and .?1.1996. fire watch personnel documented in the fire watch log that the required hourly patrol,s were completed for the control building when, in fact they were not. .-

2. Analysis of Root Cause:

The fire watch patrols, did not perform the hourly fire watch patrols within the specified time. 'olations were a r f an apparent honest oversight and carelessness The current fire watch program relies totally on human performance.

&Previously, when the fire watch patrols were performed by

[ personnel assigned to the Fire Operations group, a bar code reader was used by the fire watch personnel to record a bar code marker installed in the required patrol area. The bar code reader was designed to alarm and notify the fire watch if a required inspection area was missed. These readings were stored in the bar code reader for 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, aownfoaded into a computer and printed out at the end of eacn shift. This bar code verified that the i fire watch actually completed the fire watch route. 'This procedure was discontinued when the fire watch duties were acquired by the Maintenanc.e group. In udition, the licensee required that each fire watch provide his or her own watch for recording the time of each fire watch patrol. At least one of the fire watch employees did not have a watch that provided an

/ accurate time to be recorded in the fire watch records.

3. Basis for Severity Level (Safety Significance): Elncludc cxwpic 'r = m tAa suppic;cnts, mr+gatton, repetitiveness, wiWfulness-ete INDIVIDUALS:

Section VIII of the NRC Enforcement Policy states that enforcement action involving individuals will normally only be taken when the NRC is satisfied that the individual fully understood, or should have understood his or her responsibility. However, the following bre en mples of situations which could result in enforcement actions-involving individuals. licensed or unlicensed:

C ENF INFORMATION T LIC WO VAL OF CTOR OE

~

. ENFORCEMENT ACTION ,

WORKSHEET Willfully causing a licensee to be in violation of NRC requirements.

Falsifyin records required by the NRC regulations or by..the Most tr e si n dividuals v t v1 II or IV b processed by citing the facility licensee. ,

LICENSEE: i l

Sup lement VII. Item D.2 of the NRC Enforcement Policy states that '

vio ations involving information-jdWt the NRC requires to be keptdy a licensee that is incomplete or inaccurate and of more than minor significance, but not amounting to a Severity Level I. II or III violation, be classified as a Severity Level IV violation.

Supplement I. Item D f the NRC Enforcement Policy states that violations involving a less significant failure to comply with the Action Statement of the Technical Specification Limiting Condition for 0)eration: or a failure to meet regulatory requirements that have more tlan minor safety or environmental significance should a' classified as 1 a Severity Level IV violations. ]

4. Identify Previous Escalated Action Within 2 Years or 2 Inspections?

EA'95-199 Discrimination (SL I) - $100.000, issued on January 13. 1997.

EA 95-269 Fire Potection (SL III) - $50,000, issued on November 19.

1996.

EA96-414ReactorTripComplications!(SLIII)-$100.000.,issuedon December 24. 1996 ,

EA 95-252 Discrimination (SL II) - $80.000, issued o- February 20, 1997

5. Identification Credit? Yes.

Consider following and discuss if, applicable below:

X Licensee-identified a Revealed through event a NRC-identified a Mixed identification a Missed opportunities On January 26. 1996. during a routine review of the fire watch patrol records and security access control system printout data, the licensee determined that on January 21. 1996, the assigned fire watch personnel had not patrolled some of the required areas in the control building.

Further review identified additional discrepancies for fire watch Jatrols on January 8 and 17, 1996. The licensee submitted Licensee Event Report LER 50-327/96-001 to the NRC no February 20, 1996, as specified by 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(1).

• Enter date Licensee was aware of issues requiring corrective action:

January 26, 1996.

e

z- -

ENFORCEMENT ACTION "

WO,1KSHEEl .

a d

.~ '

< /

\ ,/

/ ,

?

\

i i

/

S t

r PREDECISI ENFORCEgiff I ORMAT NOT C RE E W/0' APPROVAL IRECTOR, OE

. ENFORCEMENT ACTION 5-WORKSHEET ,

6. Corrective Action Credit? Yes. r hy.

• Brief sunrnary of corrective actions:

. - After determining th aired fire watch patrol was"not adequately performed the license additional data and identified one a ionalindividual who had failed to conduct proper fire watch patrols. ,

The two fire watch personnel involved in the inproper performance of fire w-tch duties were fired. .

Management exoectations for proper procedure adherence, pro)er

' completion of' documentation, the importance of conducting tie assigned fire watch tours, and the disciplinary actiors taken for

, this event were reviewed with the fire watch personnel.

.~

Random revieris,of access control system computer records at Sequoyah were to continue to be performed.

An alternate msthodology to assist in the prompt identification of missed fire watch patrols was being considered.

7. Candidate For Discretion?

Yes, the problem was identified promptly investigated and corrected by the licensee.

8. Is A Predecisional Enforcement Conference Necessary?

No.

\

9. Non Routine Issues / Additional Information: (

0 (were identified appear to be ou si e o the folloding issues

. ope of the 01 investigation. These issues are considered potential allegations which should be reviewed by the Region II Allegation Review Panel:

[ff r

a ified records and that these employees were given time off in lieu of being terminated.

c. an allegation that t meet the station /

e fire watc trainin procedures and was ina .

3rovided di

ach new fire watch einployee was V](

required to watch a film which provided training on the fire watch duties and responsibilities. In addition. each fire watch was required to receive training in extinguishing an actual fire.

This training was to be received prior to an individual taking the,

l 6- [~k '[b

, j ENFORCEMENT ACTION *

~

WORKSHEET (

examination for a fire watch position. , was not required.$o perform t fire extinguishment' training. ~t was l not clear if the film prior to taking the exam. l d~

e license e inves; igation ound that prior ov used a bar code recording device to document fire watch inspections. This practice was used when the fire watch personnel h7l

/

i were assigned to the Fire Operations ' group. After the fire watch f

. responsibilities were transferred to the Maintenance group in  !

995. t e of this bar code recorder was discontinued. j discontinuing the use of the bar coder reader l

' uate documentation of the fire watch patrols and inspections.

e. used a watch

- numbers to etermine the time to rec c on the fire watch %A

patrol recordt and journal. The fire watch personnel requested l the licensee to provide stop clock or watch devices such that each l

' fire watch would have the exact time. These time clocks had not been provided'.-

10. This A(. tion is Consistent With the Following Action (or Enforcement Guidance) Previously Issued:

INDIVIDUALj. i.;. i Section VIII of the NRC Enforcement Policy.

LICENSEE:

! Supplements I and VII of the NRC Enforcement Policy.

1  ;

11. Regulatory Message: l l INDIVIDUALS:

Attention to details and adherence to procedures are required by all

- facility employees to prevent the licensee from violating NRC requirements. Falsifying records required by the NRC regulations or by )

the facility license will not be tolerated.

LICENSEE:

Encourage prompt identification of 3roblems by the licensee and the implementation of prompt and compre1ensive corrective actions to prevent recurrence of the violation. The corrective actions should include provisions that do not rely entirely on t4e human action for compliance.

I w ~ - , .

i ENFORCEMENT ACTION <

WORKSHEET Reconnended Enforcement Action:

12. ,

h (( , h INDIVIDUALS:

The employmer.t termination o or this event sas a severe and harsh personnel action. No further action by the NRC 1s recomended.

LICENSEE:

This issue is a Severity Level IV violation which was identified by the licensee and reported to the NRC by a Licensee Event Report. Therefore, this issue should be identified as a non-cited violation. The ccver letter to the report closing the LER related to this event should request the licensee to inform the NRC of the alternative methodology chosen to ensure compliance with the fire watch requirements and the date that this feature will be implemented.

13. This Qase Meets the Criteria for a Delegated Case.

INDIVIDUALS: No.

LICENSEE: No.

14. Should This Action Be Sent to OE For Full Review?

INDIVIDUALS: No.

LICENSEE: No.

15. Regional Counsel Review. At the papel.

f

16. Yes.

Exempt Basis for from Ti mliness:01 investigation.

Exemption: 1 s

Enforcement Coordinator:

CATE:

l l

)

/MN

~

l . , _

i

1 s

0 .

~

4 fh 1 O Md D ewra w 1Ib+ J o r 6) susram

_ .. w k s , 4 \!s m s e eendv%s h he

-t e ds ;nwe ws- w ~ <~e m, anal aea w e n'Lmdwafvequa

.(

g -C S . . .'. .

g4 m o ~ n

^se -

60nv v H/es lA)CTA FZ W .G M55 (n2.

f{u^Omk>\ bin J ,

i h ,1066546 i ed 'D M a'an A M i vrncCh'oh F We 1

W 5540B Pc R,'"1b (

, O W-) 6'e . QcCM Nat-%J gea. %al , w s 2, n - z L c e) & so n d b d44 in L h udA eO4aa i Ja%us w-e ceps o CJh wJ

)

kd g s A 7p d +L -2 wd..

' ENFORCEMENT ACTION -

6- # ^

WORKSHEET l-

12. Recommended Enforcement Action: , Elp INDIVIDUALS:

The employment termination o for this event'was a {

severe and harsh personnel action. No further action by the NRC is J recommended.  !

l I

LICENSEE: .

This issue is a Severity Level IV violation which was identified by the liceilsee and reported to the NRC by a Licens'ee Event Report. Therefore, this issue should be identified as a non-cited violation. Thegg letter tc thaMrt Closing the i FR related4;o this cycef di

--Ues lit.ensee to mionn Use NRC of U,r nitornativo ethndningy i$3sen,t t Lim compliance with the fire watch rane _.=;;; =d tho .

to ensure ,

OdLU LIld L Lil l s TAMig O 'j',ll gg s iih i cmcil LdU.

13. This Case Heets the Criteria for a Delegated Case.

INDIVfDUALS: No. ,

LICENSEE: No.

14. Should This Action Be Sent- to OE For Full Review?

INDIVIDUALS: No. I LICENSEE: No.

15. Regional Counsel Review. At the panel.  ;

I, '

16. Exempt from Timeliness: Yes. .

Basis for Exemption: 01investigatipn.

Enforcement Coordinator:

DATE:

'CISI IN TION M , PUBLIC "LIAsE W/0 APPROVAL OFMCTOR, OE

.1 ,,

ENFORCEMENT ACTION WORKSHEET h

examination for a fire watch position. was St required to erfom the fire extinguishment training. I} twas not clear if the film prior to taking the exam.

-* d.

e investi 1on oun lat prior to November 1 5. the licens Q7[

used a bar code recording device to document fire watche inspections. ~This practice was used when the fire watch personnel were assigned to the Fire Operations grou). After the fire watch responsibilities were transferred to the iaintenance group in e of this bar code recorder was discontinued.

discontinuing the' use of the bar coder reader N, inspections.

su e documentation of the fire watch patrols and

e. ,used a watch t1out numbers o e ermine t t me to record on the fire watch $K; The fire watch personnel requested '

'$ patrol records and journa'l.1e licensee to provide stop cl fire watch would have the exact time. These time clocks had not been provided.v

10. This Action is Consistent With the following Action (or Enforcement Guidance) Previously Issued:

INDIVIOUALS:

Section VIII of the NRC Enforcement Policy.

LICENSEE:

SupplementsIandVIIoftheNRCEnforcementPolicy.

- S

11. Regulatory Message:

I Ig}lyJDUALS:

\ .

(

Attention to details and ad rence to procedures are required by all' facility employees to pr t the licensee from violating NRC Als requirements. Falsifyi ords required by the NRC regulations or by .

the facility license be tolerated.

s LICENSEE':

Encourage prompt identification of )roblems by the licensee and the implementation of prompt and compre1ensive corrective actions to prevc;a recurrence of the violation. The corrective actions should include provisi_ons_that do not rely entirely on human action for oompliance.

s , '

ENFORCEMENT ACTION WORKSHEET '

INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE AVAILABLE FO l SEQUOYAH OI INVESTIGATION I ALLEGED FALSIFICATION OF FIRE WATCH JOURNA PREPARED BY: W. H. Miller, Jr.

• NOTE: DATE: 2/20/97 The Branch Chief of the responsible Division is responsible for pre)aration an Inforcement Panel.of this questionnaire and its distribution to attendees pr The Branch Chief shall also be responsible for ior to providing mail [ENF.GRP.

,theCFE.

meeting location OEMAIL, JXL.

and SHL.

MAS, telephone LFD:

bridge number s via e-to atte appropriate NRR. NHSS]. appropriate RII DRP, DRS:

includes the recommended severity level for the violation Copies of applicable Technical Specifications or license conditions cited .

Notice action are or other required reference to.be enclosed. ittaterial needed to evaluate the pro This Notice has been review (d by the Branch Chief or Division Dir eachtheviolation when requirement includes.the was violated. appropriate level of specificity as to how I h' 51gnature

1. Facility: Sequoyah Units: 1 and 2 Docket Nos: 50-327 and 50 328 j License Nos: DPR-77 and OPR-79 -

1 Inspection Report Date:Report No: 01 Report 2-96-009 1/24/97 Lead Investigator: } t Lead Inspector: W. V. Selewski H. Miller, Jr. -

1.

Brief Summary of OI Findings: /g The NRC Region II Office of Investigations initiated an

~

h March 22. 1996 etermine if two, fire watch n rson patr their assign failed to areas and ,leir journals as though. sheets and substantiated thatl een patrolled. The. Investigation s watch arehs and fai fie their f failed to patrol their assigned fire ,

areas had been inspected when actually they had not The been insp i willful.

evidence did not substantiate that their actions were inten i

IMIVIDUALS: " -

f

!'".mauca in t!a record was deleted No vio'lations are proposedb m acccrdaxe ?Cwith the freedom of Information Act, exegm .tions

- I E01A g- #74 __ , _

~ 'N p p m m n,_ n - ..- -- /

1 ENFORCEMEKT ACTION 2- 4 WORKSHEET 4 -

LICENSEE: l-10 CFR 50.9 states, in part, that information required by regulations, orders or license conditions to be maintained by the licensee shall be complete and accurate in all material respects.

The licensee's Technical Specifications. Sections 3.3.3:8. 3.7.11.1 through 3.7.11.4. and 3.7.12. require compensatory measures be established for degraded fire protection components. One of the-specified compensatory measures consist of an hourly fire watch patrol.

Contrary to the above. the licensee failed to maintain informati6n required by Commission regulations complete and accurate in all material respects. Specifically. on January 8.17 and 21.1996, fire watch personnel documented in the fire watch log that the required hourly patrols were completed for the control building when, in fact they were not.

2. Analys,is of Root Cause:

The fire watch patrolsndid not perform the hourly fire watch patrols within the specified time

~

olations were a r f an

/p apparent honest oversigh I and carelessnes 1

The current fire watch program relies totally on human aerformance.

Previously, when the fire watch patrols were performed )y personnel assigned to the Fire Operations group a bar code reader was used by the fire watch personnel to record a bar code marker installed in the required patrol area. The bar code reader was designed to alarm and notify the fire watch if a required inspection area was missed. These readings were stored in the bar code reader for 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> downloaded into a com) uter and printed out at the end of each shift. This bar code verified tlat the fire watch actually completed the fire watch route.

This procedure was discontinued when;the fire watch duties were acquired by the Maintenance group. In addition, the licensee requitred that each fire watch provide his or her own watch for recording the time of each fire watch )atrol. At least one of the fire watch employees did not have a watc1 that provided'an accurate time to be recorded in the fire watch records.

3. Basis for Severity Level (Safety Significance): 3 INDIVIDUALS: .

7 Section VIII of the NRC Enforcement Policy states that enforcement action involving individuals will normally only be taken when the NRC is satisfied that the individual fully understood, or shouldhave understood his or her responsibility. However, the following are examples of situations which could result in enforcement actions involving individuals, . licensed'or unlicensedi Willfully causing a licensee to be in violation of. NRC requirements. s APPRO -

, ENFORCEMENT ACTION 3- f '

WORKSHEET Falsifying records required by the NRC regulations or by the facility license.

Most transgressions by individuals which are classified as Severity Level III or IV violations will be processed by citing the facility licensee.

LICENSEE: .

- Supplement VII. Item D.2 of the NRC Enforcement Policy states that violations involving information the NRC requires to be kept by a licensee that is incomplete or inaccurate and of more than minor significance, but not' amounting to a Severity Level I. II or III violation, should be classified as a Severity Level IV violation.

Supplement I. Item D of the NRC Enforcement Policy states that violations involving a less significant failure to comply with 3;e Action Statement of the Technical Specification Limiting Condition for 0)eration: or a failure to meet regulatory requirements that have more ,

tlan minor safety'or environmental significance should be classified as  !

a Severity Level IV violations.  !

4. Identify Previous Escalated Action Within 2 Years or 2 Inspections? '

EA 95-199 Discrimination (SL I) - $100.000, issued on January 13. 1997.

EA 95-269 Fire Protection (SL III) - 550.000, issued on November 19, 1996.

EA 96-414 Reactor Trip Complications (SL III) - $100.000, issued on December 24, 1996 EA 95-252 Discrimination (SL II) - $80.000, issued on February 20. 1997

5. Identification (.redit? Yes.

Consider following and discuss if applicable below: i X Licensee-identified a Revealed through event a NRC-identified a Mixed identification a Missed, opportunities

~

On January 26, 1996, during a routine review of the fife gwatch patrol records and security access control system printout data, the licensee determined that on January 21. 1996, the assigned fire watch personnel had not patrolled some of the required areas in the contrpi building.

Further review identified additional discrepancies for fire watch 3atrols'on January 8 and 17, 1996. The licensee submitted Licensee Event Report LER 50-327/96-001 to the NRC on February 20. 1996l as specified by 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(i).

Enter datelicensee was, aware of issues requiring corrective action:

January 26. 1996.-

D PRO D TM OE

' ENFORCEMENT ACTION WORKSHEET

, 6. Corrective Action Credit? Yes.

Brief summary of corrective actions: d {

- After determining th uired fire watch patrol was not {

adequately performed 6 the licensee review'. additional data I and identified one a tional individual o had failed {

to conduct proper fire watch patrols. .

i k

- The two fire watch personnel involved in the improper performance  !

of fire watch duties were fired. . i l

I

- Management expectations for proper procedure adherence, pro)er completiori of documentation, the importance of conducting t1e '

assigned tire watch tours, and the disciplinary actions taken for this event were reviewed with the fire watch personnel.

- Random reviews of access control syst.em computer records at Sequoyah were to continue to be performed.

- An alternate methodology to assist in the prompt identification of missed fire. watch patrols was being considered.

7. Candidate For Discretion?

Yes, the problem was identified, promptly investigated and corrected by the licensee.

8. Is A Predecisional Enforcement Conference Necessary?

No. ,

i l

9. Non-Routine Issues / Additional Information: ,

e investigation. These issues are con.sidered potential allegations which I

f[

should be reviewed by the Region II Allegation Review Panel: .

a. ation b.

ysics personne at equoy an Qg allegation that 7@

.____7 being terminated.

a records and that these employees wereoffgiven in lieutime of $ falsified g ,

c. an allegation that fire watc training rovide t meet the station procedures and was inad e. ach new fire watch employee was required to watch a film which provided training on the fire watch

[QC duties and responsibilities. In addition, each fire watch was required to receive training in extinguishing an actual fire.

This training was to be received prior to an individual taking.the

._ . Y

1 ENFORCEMENT ACTION 5- e

- WORKSHEET l

examination for a fire watch position. was ..

not requir,ed to e fire extingu men raining. t was not clear if form the film prior to taking the exam. b7 a ,

d. E e investigation ounc tia prior to November 995, the icensee used a bar code recording device to document fire watch. -

inspections. This practice was used when the fire watch personnel were assigned to the Fire Operations g'roup. After the fire watch responsibilities were transferred to the Maintenance group in 1 um of this bar code recorder was discontinued. ,

l discontinuing the use of the bar coder reader resulted in i equa e documentation of the fire watch patrols and 1i

' inspections.

e. used a watch

.without numbers o e ermine the time to recofli on the fire watch '

patrol records and journal. The fire watch personnel requested the licensee to provide stop clock or watch devices such that each cy7c,;

r

' fire watch would have the exact time. These time clocks had not been provided. ,

10. This Action is Consistent With the Following Action (or Enforcement Guidance) Previously Issued: .

1 INDIVIDUALS:

Section VIII of the NRC Enforcement Policy.

LICENSEE:

Supplements I and VII of the NRC Enforcement Policy.

11. Regulatory Message: .

l INDIVIDUALS: \

None.

LICENSEE:

Encourage prompt identification of )roblems by the lice'Asee and the implementation of prompt and compre1ensive corrective actions to prevent recurrence of the violation. The corrective actions shoyld include provisions that do not rely entirely on human action for' compliance.

12. Recommended Enforcement Action: -

INDIVIDUALS.;.

for this event was a The employment ter.minat' ion of severe and harsh personnel acfion.

recommended o ferther ; action by the NRC is (//[h E

ENFORCEMENT ACTION t '

WORKSHEET LICENSEE:

This issue is a Severity Level IV violation which was identified by the licensee and reported to the NRC by a Licensee Event Report. Therefore, this issue should be identified as a non-cited violation.

13. This Case Meets the Criteria for a Delegsted Case.

INDIVIDUALS: No.

. t LICENSEE: No.

14. Should,This Action Be Sent to OE For Full Review?

INDIVIDUALS: ,40.

LICENSEE: No.

15. Regional Counsel Review. At the panel. ,

J

16. Exempt from Timeliness: Yes. (

Basis for Exemption: OI investigation.

Enforcement Coordinator:

DATE:

1 1

t PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMEhiT INFOR)MTION NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE W/0 APPROVAL OF' DIRECTOR, OE