SYNOPSIS

On July 22, 1985, NRC Region III Administrator requested the Office of Investigations (OI) conduct an investigation of an alleged material false statement by Detroit Edison Company (DECO) relating to an operator error which occurred on July 2, 1985, at the Fermi 2 facility.

This investigation has developed evidence indicating that on July 3, 1985, DECO plant management had reason to believe that a premature reactor criticality resulting from an operator error had occurred. DECO management recognized the incident as non-reportable under the Code of Federal Regulations; however, it was perceived as a significant public relations and licensing issue. The afternoon of July 3, 1 days after the operator error occurred, DECO management did notify the NRC Resident Inspector of the operator rod pull error and stated, contrary to the advice of a nuclear consultant and one of their reactor engineers, that the error did not result in reactor criticality. DECO did advise that reactor engineering was performing a review of data to assess criticality. The NRC Resident Inspector understood that he would be advised of the reactor engineering group's findings as soon as they became available. On July 5, 1985, DECO management again met and were purportedly convinced by reactor engineering that, in fact, the reactor had been critical for a 110-114 second period. On that date, and subsequently on July 8-12, 1985, the NRC Resident Inspector and the Resident Inspector trainee were on the Fermi site. They interacted with licensee personnel and attended the DECO staff meetings chaired by the same individuals who notified the NRC Resident Inspector on July 3, 1985 of the operator error. Those DECO employees were fully aware of the changed criticality findings and made no effort to notify the NRC representatives of the new DECO position regarding premature criticality.

On July 10, 1985, the Commission met to discuss significant issues relating to Fermi 2 and to vote on a full power license for that facility. The DECO Vice President Nuclear Operations, and Assistant Manager Nuclear Production were present and observed the discussion of significant operator errors. Neither DECO representative, both of whom were admittedly aware of the July 2 operator error and the latter aware of the premature criticality, attempted to clarify information which was furnished by NRC Region III to the Commission, that only one operator error had occurred following fuel load.

On July 12, 1985, NRC Director, Division of Licensing, signed the Fermi 2 full power license. On July 15, 1985, DECO advised the NRC Senior Resident Inspector of the premature criticality of July 2. That notification was the first public admission by DECO of what was their official corporate position regarding reactor criticality resulting from an operator error, established on July 5, 1985.

ACCOUNTABILITY

The following portions of the Report of Investigation (Case No. 3-85-013) will not be included in the material placed in the PDR. They consist of pages 2 through 22.

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Allegation: Material False Statement Regarding Full Power Licensing

Atomic Energy Act, Section 186(a), Revocation: "Any license may be revoked for any material false statement in the application or any statement of fact required under Section 182, or because of conditions revealed by such application or statement of fact or any report, record, or inspection or other means which would warrant the Commission to refuse to grant a license on an original application, or for failure to construct or operate a facility in accordance with the terms of the construction permit or license or the technical specifications in the application, or for violation of, or failure to observe any of the terms and provisions of this Act or of any regulation of the Commission."

Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2, Appendix C, Supplement VII, Section B.1: "A material false statement or a reporting failure, involving information which, had it been available to the NRC and accurate at the time the information should have been submitted, would have resulted in regulatory action or would likely have resulted in NRC seeking further information."