|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Adams
| | #REDIRECT [[IR 05000373/1998017]] |
| | number = ML20205D697
| |
| | issue date = 03/29/1999
| |
| | title = Discusses Insp Repts 50-373/98-17 & 50-374/98-17 & OI Rept 3-98-015 Completed on 981119 & Forwards Nov.Apparent Deliberate Violation of NRC-required Comed Fitness for Duty Program Noted
| |
| | author name = Dyer J
| |
| | author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
| |
| | addressee name = Davis C
| |
| | addressee affiliation = AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
| |
| | docket = 05000373, 05000374
| |
| | license number =
| |
| | contact person =
| |
| | document report number = 50-373-98-17, 50-374-98-17, IA-99-009, IA-99-9, NUDOCS 9904020282
| |
| | package number = ML20205D703
| |
| | document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
| |
| | page count = 4
| |
| }}
| |
| See also: [[see also::IR 05000373/1998017]]
| |
| | |
| =Text=
| |
| {{#Wiki_filter:_
| |
| _
| |
| _
| |
| Y A
| |
| -@%
| |
| '
| |
| t-
| |
| UNITED STATES :
| |
| U [g- ,
| |
| ,It-. . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| 4 -S- REGloN lli -
| |
| E'
| |
| 801 WARRENVILLE ROAD
| |
| -**..+ '
| |
| -
| |
| / USLE. ILUNotS 60632-4351
| |
| March 29, 1999
| |
| lA 99-009
| |
| - Mr Charles W.- Davis
| |
| (Home Address Deleted:
| |
| Under 10 CFR 2.790(a))
| |
| . SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND EXERCISE OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETlON
| |
| (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-373/98017(DRS); 50-374/98017(DRS)
| |
| i
| |
| . AND NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS REPORT NO. 3-98-015)
| |
| Dear Mr. Davis: 1
| |
| This refers to the inspection and subsequent investigation by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
| |
| Commission (NRC) Office of Investigations (OI) into information reported to the NRC by the
| |
| Commonwealth Edison Company (Comed) on May 18,1998, that you were involved in an
| |
| apparent deliberate violation of the NRC-required Comed fitness for duty (FFD) program. By
| |
| letter dated January 14,1999,- the NRC notified you of this apparent deliberate violation at the
| |
| . Comed LaSalle County Station and provided you with copies of the inspection report and the .
| |
| synopsis of the Ol report.' That letter also informed you of the opportunity to meet with the NRC
| |
| in a predecisional enforcement conference (PEC) or provide the NRC with a written response.
| |
| The letter also asked that you inform the NRC within seven days of your intention to either
| |
| [
| |
| attend a PEC or provide a written response, and asked that your written response, if that was 7
| |
| your preference, be submitted to the NRC within 30 days. As of the date of this letter and
| |
| ' Notice of Violation (Notice), you have not responded to the NRC's January 14,1999, letter.
| |
| Based on the information developed during the NRC inspection, the Ol investigation, Comed's
| |
| investigation, and the information provided 'in Comed's letter dated February 17,1999,
| |
| (enclosed), the NRC has determined that a deliberate violation of NRC requirements occurred.
| |
| The v_iolation is cited in the enclosed Notice and the circumstances surrounding it are described
| |
| - in detail in the inspection rmrt, the investigation reports, the NRC's January 14,1999, letter to
| |
| you, and the Comed letto dated February 17,1999.
| |
| , in summary,10 CFR SC j(a)(1), " Deliberate Misconduct," prohibits an employee of a contractor
| |
| to an NRC licensee (Comed) from engaging in deliberate misconduct that causes or, but for
| |
| detection, would have caused a licensee to be in violation of any regulation issued by the NRC.
| |
| 13 CFR 26.20 requires Comed to establish and implement written policies and procedures
| |
| designed to meet the general performance objectives and specific procedures of
| |
| 10 CFR Part 26, " Fitness for Duty Programs." As a supervisor for the Raytheon Corporation a
| |
| contractor at the Comed LaSalle County Station, you received training on the for-cause lTO
| |
| %;.q; reuirement. Moreover, you knew from prior experience that you were required to direct
| |
| the employee to FFD for-cause testing before the employee left the LaSalle County Station.
| |
| However, on May 11,1998, you deliberately allowed an employee, upon whom you had already
| |
| .
| |
| detected the odor of alcohol, to leave the station without the employee submitting to a for-cause
| |
| - FFD test in violation of Comed's FFD procedure. Your actions on May 11,1998, placed you in
| |
| '9904020282 990329 'E
| |
| PDR- ADOCK 05000373 i
| |
| ,
| |
| G. PDR (
| |
| 1
| |
| LS
| |
| | |
| -
| |
| w-
| |
| . .
| |
| ,N _
| |
| C. Davis- - -2-
| |
| t
| |
| 6
| |
| violation of 10 CFR 50.5, and caused Comed to be in violation of its NRC-required FFD
| |
| - program. These violations have been categorized in accordance with the " General Statement j
| |
| - of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, at
| |
| Severity Level 111.'
| |
| The NRC staff considered issuing an Order prohibiting your involvement in licensed activities.
| |
| However, the NRC has decided to issue the enclosed Notice in this case because of the
| |
| employment action already taken by Comed against you. You should be aware that a similar
| |
| violation on your part, in the future, may result in more significant enforcement actions. j
| |
| jThe investigations disclosed a second act of apparent deliberate misconduct by you. On
| |
| - May 19,1998, Comed reported to the NRC that you provided false information on May 18,
| |
| 1998, during the. Comed investigation into the FFD testing issue. You originally stated to
| |
| _
| |
| Comed investigators that you had not detected t* ' odor of alcohol on the employee. However, {'
| |
| at your first opportunity you voluntarily recanted that information and stated that you actually
| |
| had detected the odor of alcohol. The NRC recognizes that the FFD testing issue may have
| |
| -gone _ unresolved without your voluntary recantation of the incomplete or inaccurate information. '
| |
| : Therefore, the NRC is exercising the enforcement discretion authorized by Section Vll.B.6 of
| |
| the NRC Enforcement Policy, and the NRC is not issuing a violation for incomplete or j
| |
| - inaccurate information that you initially provided to the Comed investigators.
| |
| The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reason for the enclosed violation, the
| |
| corrective actio.ns taken and planned to correct the violation and prevent recurrence and the
| |
| dates when full compliance was achieved is adequately addressed on the docket in NRC 1
| |
| Inspection Report Nos. 50-373/98017(DRS); 50-374/98017(DRS) and in a February 17,1999, I
| |
| . letter from Comed. Therefore, you are not required to respond to this letter unless the
| |
| description therein does _not accurately reflect your position. Should you choose to respond in
| |
| writing, your response shoe!d be. clearly marked as a " Response to Apparent Violation
| |
| - lA 99-009," and should include for the apparent violation: (1) the reason for the apparent
| |
| .
| |
| violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the apparent violation; (2) the corrective steps
| |
| - that have been taken and the results achieved; (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to I
| |
| avoid further violatiom; and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response -{
| |
| - should be submitted under oath or affirmation and.may reference or include previous docketed
| |
| correspondence,if the corespondence adequately addresses the required response. The ;
| |
| : response should be addrened to the NRC Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555,
| |
| J
| |
| ' with copies to the Director, NRC Office of Enforcement, Washington DC 20555, the Regional j
| |
| Administrator and Enforcement Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 801 Warrenville i
| |
| Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351, and the NRC Resident inspector _ at the LaSalle County Station. i
| |
| in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its
| |
| enclosure, and your response (if you choose to provide one) will be placed in the NRC Public
| |
| Document Room (PDR). To the extent possible, your response should not include any personal
| |
| l
| |
| -.
| |
| | |
| . .
| |
| _ _
| |
| _ C. Davis -3-_
| |
| , privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without
| |
| redaction.
| |
| Sincerely,
| |
| 1/V
| |
| James E. Dyer
| |
| Regional Administrator
| |
| Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374
| |
| License Nos. NPF-11; NPF-18
| |
| '
| |
| Enclosures: 1. Notice of Violation
| |
| 2. Comed's 2/17/99 Letter
| |
| ,
| |
| 4
| |
| | |
| r .
| |
| 1
| |
| ;'
| |
| .5.
| |
| t C. Davis . 3-
| |
| L
| |
| .
| |
| p.
| |
| . DISTRIBUTION: / j.
| |
| PUBLICR4fi #e
| |
| SECY
| |
| .CA
| |
| WTravers, EDO
| |
| MKnapp, DEDE
| |
| LChandler, OGC
| |
| JGoldberg, OGC
| |
| SCollins, NRR
| |
| RZimmerman, NRR
| |
| . Enforcement Coordinators
| |
| RI, Rll and RIV
| |
| Resident inspector, LaSalle
| |
| JGilliland, OPA
| |
| HBell, OlG
| |
| GCaputo, O1
| |
| TMartin, AEOD
| |
| ' OE:ES
| |
| OE EA (2)
| |
| RAO: Rill
| |
| SLO: Rill
| |
| PAO:Rlll5
| |
| OCFO/LFARB w/o encl..
| |
| DRP
| |
| Docket File .
| |
| .
| |
| ll
| |
| I
| |
| {
| |
| l
| |
| i
| |
| a
| |
| l
| |
| 020034 )
| |
| l
| |
| 4
| |
| r
| |
| I
| |
| p , <
| |
| )
| |
| }}
| |