IR 05000315/1994023
| ML17332A704 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1995 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Fitzpatrick E INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17332A705 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9504050123 | |
| Download: ML17332A704 (8) | |
Text
PRIDRIT'Y Z REGULATORYLAf&@RMESAWXCW!IIUTION SYSTEM (RIDS )
q!ACCESSION NBR:9504050123 DOC.DATE: 95/02/28 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET FACIL:50-315 Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Indiana M '5000315 50-316 Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, Indiana M
05000316 TH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION RTIN,J.B.
Region 3 (Post 820201)
RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION FITZPATRICK,E.
Indiana Michigan Power Co. (formerly Indiana 6 Michigan Ele SUBJECT:
Discusses insp repts 50-315/94-23 s 50-316/94-23 on 941208-950104 a forwards NOV.
DISTRIBUTION CODE: IEOID COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCLj SIZE: 5 +'2 TITLE: General (50 Dkt)-Insp Rept/Notice of Vio ation Response NOTES:
RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD3-1 PD INTERNAL: AEOD/DEIB AEOD/SPD/RRAB DEDRO NRR/DISP/PIPB NRR/DRCH/HHFB OE DIR RGN3 FILE
COPIES LTTR ENCL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME HICKMANiJ AEOD/SPD/RAB AEODJ~C FIGE CENTER
NRR/DORS OEAB NUDOCS-ABSTRACT OGC/HDS2 COPIES LTTR ENCL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 NAL: LITCO BRYCEPJ H
NRC PDR
1
1 NOAC
1 NOTE TO ALL"RIDS" RECIPIENTS:
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE iVASTE!CONTACTTHE DOCL'NIEN1 CONTROL DESK, ROOM Pl-37 (EXT. SM- 033 ) TO ELlbIIYATEYOUR NAikIEFROiI DIS'I'RIBl."I'IONLISTS FOR DOCUNIENTS YOL'ON"I'EED!
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR
ENCL
SUBJECT:
D.
C.
COOK NUCLEAR STATION NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO(S).'0-315/316/94023(DRSS))
Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick:
This refers to the inspection conducted on December 8 9 and 20, 1994 and January 4,
1995 by. Mr. James Belanger at the D. C.
Cook Nuclear Plant.
The purpose of the inspection was to review the circumstances of an event which occurred in 1994 in which you inadvertently granted unescorted access to an individual who you later determined should not have been granted such 'access.
During 'the inspection, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
The report documenting this inspection was sent to you by letter dated January 13, 1995.
You notified the NRC via telephone of the event on November 18, 1994.
An enforcement conference was held on January 23, 1995 in the NRC Region III office to discuss the violation, its causes, and your corrective actions.
The report documenting the enforc'ement conference was sent to you by letter dated January 30, 1995.
A description of the violation follows.
On February 1,
1994 an individual was granted temporary unescorted access to D.
C.
Cook after he completed a preliminary background screening.
Among other things, this preliminary screening required that the applicant take a pre-employment drug test, which he passed, and complete an application that questioned whether he had ever been denied access to another nuclear plant, and to which he answered
"no."
However, there is evidence that on February 8, 1994 a telephone call was placed to the D.C.
Cook access control office by your background investigation contractor notifying that office that the individual had been denied access to Turkey Point in 1991.
Your staff did not act on that information and the individual's unescorted access was continued until he was released in April when his work'as completed without resolving the reasons for his denial of access at Turkey Point.
After the individual had departed, your staff received written confirmation from the background investigation contractor of the individual's past access denial, for drug use, but again your staff did not act properly on the information and seek the reason for the denial.
Instead, the screening personnel mistakenly documented that the individual was eligible for unescorted access.
The individual applied for work again on September 19, 9504050i2S 950228 PDR ADQCK 050003iS PDR
Indiana Michigan Power Company 2'994 and, based on your screening personnel's
'mistake, the individual was once again granted unescorted access.
The individual continued to work until November ll, 1994, when his work was completed and he departed the site.
On November 18, 1994, your staff received information from another nuclear plant confirming that the individual had tested positive for drugs at the Turkey Point plant in July 1991, Your followup investigation concluded that the individual had lied on his application-and he was then put on the "denied access" and
"INDEX" lists.-
Your staff notified the NRC by telephone of the event that same day.
The NRC is aware that during the time period covered by this event you processed over 1200 personnel screening packages and, of those, you denied access to approximately 77 other personnel.
This particular event appeared to be isolated.
Me are also aware of the extensive corrective actions that you undertook, including a review of the 1200 packages during which you determined that there were no other cases identified where derogatory information was not acted upon properly.
Nevertheless, the potential safety significance of such events cannot be overestimated; the primary purpose of the acces's authorization program is to limit unescorted access to vital and protected areas to those persons who are judged to be trustworthy and reliable.
The fact that your personnel were advised more than once of the derogatory information about this individual and of his false claims to the contrary, and that the failures to correctly consider the information extended over four months and involved two separate grants of unescorted access, make this violation especially troublesome.
Clearly, you failed on multiple occasions in this matter.
It appears that your personnel were lax and did not communicate well with each other when potentially derogatory information was discovered.
As you stated at the Enforcement Conference, D.C.
Cook personnel had ample opportunity to note the'significance of the derogatory information but failed to incorporate it into their determination about fitness for unescorted access authorization.
Therefore, although this case involved a single individual and an apparently isolated set of occurrences, the multiple breakdowns in barriers erected to prevent such failures were indicative of a lack of attention to job responsibilities.
That is unacceptable.
The enclosed Notice'f Violation (Notice) describes one violation of
CFR 73.56 involving the failure to base access authorization on the review and evaluation of all pertinent information.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," (Enforcement Policy)
CFR Part 2, Appendix C, the violation has been categorized at Severity Level III.
In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a civil penalty is considered for a Severity Level III violation.
However, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, not to propose a civil penalty because in this case application of the adjustment factors resulted in full mitigation of the
$50,000 base civil penalty.
The event was not identified by either you or the NRC (it was identified by another NRC licensee),
but when you recogniz'ed that a violation had occurred you initiated
I
Indiana Michigan Power Company
extensive corrective actions to determine the cause of the problem and to preclude recurrence.
These actions included:
an investigation which resulted in permanently denying access to the individual; reviewing the work activities of the individual to assure that his work had been performed satisfactorily; a
100X review of all contractor background investigation files received since March 1993 to assure that all derogatory information in the files had been evaluated properly; and a separate sample audit by the guality Assurance Department of about 80 of the same files.
You also improved the access review form, initiated a communications log to document all telephone calls received, issued a new background screening guideline procedure, trained the access control. personnel on the new procedure, and counseled the individuals involved.
Your good past performance was also considered significant in the decision to mitigate the civil penalty.
The remaining civil penalty adjustment factors were considered and no further adjustment was warranted.
As a result of the consideration of these civil penalty adjustment fact'ors, the base civil penalty of $50,000 was fully mitigated.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when. preparing your response.
In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence.
After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether'further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regu1atory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"
a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).
To the extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy, prop}ietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction.
However, if you find it necessary to include such information, you should clearly indicate the specific information that you desire not to be placed in the PDR and provide the legal basis to support your
'equest for withholding the information from the public.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub.
L. No. 96-5ll.
erely, Docket Nos. 50-315; 50-316 License Nos.
Notice of Violation IYK<~1 John B. Hartin Regional Administrator
~
~
Indiana Michigan Power Company cc w/enclosure:
A. A. Blind, Plant Manager James R. Padgett, Michigan Public Service Commission Michigan Department of Public Health
Indiana Hichigan Power Company Distribution PDR LPDR OC/LFDCB SECY CA JTaylor, EDO JHilhoan, DEDR JLieberman,'OE LChandler, OGC JGoldberg, OGC WRussell, NRR RZimmerman, NRR JHannon, NRR JHickman, NRR Enforcement Coordinators RI, RII, RIV FIngram, GPA/PA DWilliams, OIG GCaputo, OI EJordan, AEOD SRI Cook, Palisades OE:EA (2)
RRosano, OE NUDOCS DRP State of Hichigan RAO:RIII SLO:RIII PAO:RIII