NRC-94-0113, Provides Results of QA Review
| ML20077F168 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1994 |
| From: | Gipson D DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-94-0113, CON-NRC-94-113 NUDOCS 9412130289 | |
| Download: ML20077F168 (3) | |
Text
l
-(
I
.e
'r Douglas R. Glpton Serwor Vice Pre. dent Nuclear Generation 1DOITOlt wu 4
6400 Nortti Ome Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 (313) fG5249 December 9, 1994 NRC-94-0113 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C.
20555
References:
1)
Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341 NRC License No. NPF-43 2)
NRC Letter to Detroit Edison,
" Security Concern about the Security Force At Feral,"
dated November 9, 1994
Subject:
Reply to the Concern about Fermi 2 Security Force Reference 2 identified a concern regarding the status of training of security supervisors.' The NRC requested that Detroit Edison provide results of investigation of this concern and disposition of this matter. Detroit Edison's Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA) Group reviewed the concern, and the enclosure to this letter contains results of the QA review. There is one cosaltaent made in this reply. The Security organization will clarity the requirements for Response Force Leader qualifications.
If you should have any questions concerning this reply, please contact John R. Louwers Specialist QA Audits at (313) 586-1406.
Sincerely, f
Enclosure cc:
T. G. Colburn J. B. Martin M. P. Phillips A.
Vegel geh 9412130209 941209 DR ADOCK 0500o341
% \\
~'
o Enclo ura to NRC-94-0113 December 9, 1994 Page 1 of 2 On November 17, 1994, Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA) - Audits initiated an investigation to address a NRC concern which Detroit Edison received on November 15, 1994. The concern identified that up to four security personnel promoted to Senior' Security Supervisor positions during the 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.
The following information was reviewed and verified in order to define the scope of this investigation:
The Nuclear Security organization implemented the staffing transition o
plan changes on April 26, 1993 The 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 Supervisor was changed to Response Force Leader and classified as a non-supervisory position, The Detroit Edison SPT&QP does identify specific training requirements o
for the positions or General Supervisor Security Operations, Security Shift Supervisor, Response Force Leader, Central and Secondary Alarms Station Operator, Response Force Member a6d Watch Person.
Investigation by NQA verified that the five security personnel who were 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.
In addition to the five SSS positions, the qualifications of one Security 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.
The qualifications of the General Supervisor Security Operations (GSS0) were reviewed and verified to meet the requirements of the SPT&QP.
The individual performing these duties prior to STP was selected for the position of GSSO and remained in the position of GSSO following STP.
The NQA investigation also reviewed the training records of security personnel assigned to the position of Response Force Leader (RFL).
As noted earlier, the position of RFL was classified as a non-supervisory position, however, the Detroit Edison Physical Security Plan (PSP) states that in the absence of the SSS, the RFL may assume SSS responsibilities.
Ten security personnel were selected to staff the RFL positions.
The training and qualification records for each RFL were reviewed to verify 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 years prior and had not completed the Central and Secondary Alarm Station (CAS/SAS) Lask requalification until July 3, 1993 The assignment of this individual to RFL was not a promotion.
o Enclo:urs to NRC-94-0113 December 9,1994 Page 2 of 2 An interview with the RFL and the individual's supervisor determined that additional time was provided to the RFL to become more proficient on the CAS/SAS console prior to being task evaluated for requalification.
The RFL in question had previously been a Security Training Specialist and was not required to requalify in CAS/SAS tasks while in this position, however, the RFL was knowledgeable of Alarm Station Operations since he had conducted CAS/SAS classroom instruction.
to the position of RFL be qualified CAS/SAS.The SPT&QP requires that personnel assigned This allows that person to be assigned to the CAS/SAS post, as needed, but does not directly relate to the performance of the RFL duties. After the STP and subsequent move to the RFL position, the individual requested additional CAS/SAS console time to become more proficient in the shift activities associated with the Alarm Station operations.
Between the period of April 26, 1993 through July 3, 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 July 3, 1993 Even though the RFL was not CAS/SAS qualified, he was qualified and task certified to perform RFL duties and Response Force Member (RFH) duties and met physical and weapons qualification requirements.
The SPT&QP critical task qualification matrix requires that the RFL position complete and requalify annually in the following critical tasks, 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 duties.
However, follow-up with security supervision determined that there were differences of interpretation on whether an individual must have a current CAS/SAS certification to perform RFL duties. As a result of this 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 evaluated in the Corrective Action program (Deviation Event Report DER 94-0694).
Based on NQA review of individual qualifications, SPT&QP training requirements, security shift records, and interviews with supervisory and non-supervisory security personnel it was verified that security personnel who were promoted to, or remained at supervisory positions during the STP 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.