ML20042E378

Responds to Violations Noted in Ofc of Investigations Rept 4-88-027,per Enforcement Action 90-043.Corrective Actions: Util Auditing self-screening Contractor Programs to Assure Compliance & Audit Will Be Evaluated for Acceptability

ML20042E378
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	04/06/1990
From:	Deddens J GULF STATES UTILITIES CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
EA-90-043, EA-90-43, RBG-32674, NUDOCS 9004200706
Download: ML20042E378 (5)

Text

I 4 80 .1

a. s

' GULF STATES UTELETIES COMPANY IUVE M f'.f hD 6 t ATION POST Of f ttt Boa 220 . 51 P A ANOSVILLt LOutSMNA 70776 arf A CODt 404 6,6 6CM Sh 8%1 April 6, 1990 RBG- 32674 .

. File Nos. G9.5,-G15.4.1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission "

Attn: Document Control Desk "

Washington, D. C. 20555-Gentlemen:

River. Bend-Station ~ Unit 1~

Refer to: Region'IV' Docket No. 50-458/EA~No. 90-043:

This letter responds to the Notice of Violation contained in'the NRC's Office of' Investigation Report EA No.90-043 (Report of Investigation 4-88-027) conc _erning two contract employees of 1 Welding Services, Inc., who-were incorrectly granted unescorted access to River Bend Station protected area.

Gulf States UtilitiesCompany's(GSU)responsetotheNoticeJof -

Violation'is provided in Attachment 1 pursuant 10CFR2.201. ,

Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. . David N.

Lorfing at (504) 381-4157.

Sincerely, t h'an J..C. Deddens Senior Vice President  ;

River Bend Nuclear Group JCD/TFP/ M/SLW/pg -

Enclosure '

cc: Mr. Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear ~ Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 NRC Senior Resident Inspector

l. .

l' l

p 9004200706 900406 PDR 0 0 ADOCK 05000458 PNU l j

a

. . i

. UNITED STATE 8'OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STATE OF LOUISIANA )

)

PARISH OF WEST FELICIANA )

) Docket No. 50-458-In-the Matter of ) 50-459

-)

GULF STATE 8 UTILITIES CONPANY ) ,

r (River' Bend Station, t Unit 1)

-AFFIDAVIT J. C. Deddens, being duly sworn, states that he'is~a Senior Vice - President of Gulf States Utilities Company;- that he is authorized on the part of said company to sign and file with the' Nuclear Regulatory Commission the documents attached hereto; and -

i that all such documents are true and. correct to the best of his knowledge, information'and belief.

/ V J. C('deddens' i

Subscribed and sworn to before me,'a Notary Public in and for the State and Parish above named, this l> b day of O_ , , 1990 . ,

$OnO5DL Claudia F. Hurst

kW Notary Public'in and for West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana My Commission is for Life.

O REFERENCE Notice of Violation - Letter from Samuel J. Collins to James C. Deddens, dated March 7, 1990. .i i

NOTICE OF VIOLATION SCREENING REQUIREMENTS FOR UNESCORTED ACCESS Section 2.0 of the River Bend Station (RBS) Operating License NPF-47, requires that the licensee maintain in effect and fully implement all provisions of the Commission approved Physical Security Plan, including amendments and changes made pursuant to the authority of 10CFR50.54(p).

Section 3.1 of the RBS Physical Security Plan requires that an individual i not be granted unescorted access to RBS until the satisfactory completion -r of a screening program consisting of a background investigation, a psychological evaluation, and a fitness for duty determination.

Contrary to the above, as identified and reported by the licensee, two contract employees of Welding Services, Inc., were granted unescorted access to RBS based on an incomplete background investigation and without a psychological evaluation having been done.

EXPLANATION OF THE INCIDENT i As indicated by the investigation, two contract employees of Welding _

Services, Inc., (WSI) were granted unescorted access to River Bend Station (RBS) based on a false certification by the QA manager for WSI that the background investigation and psychological evaluation for the'two employees-had been completed.

Section 2.0 of RBS Operating License and Section 3.1 of the'RBS Physical Security Plan have been implemented by GSU's Plant Security Procedure PSP-4-082, " Personnel Access Suitability Program." PSP-4-082 implements the NRC's policies regarding the granting of unescorted access authority as set forth in Appendix A of its Policy Statement " Industry Guidelines for Nuclear Power Plant Authorization Programs." Under the .NRC approved Guidelines, a utility licensee is authorized to accept its contractors' certification that their employees have been properly screened and determined eligible for unescorted access authorization. The Guidelines specify that each licensee is to inform its contractors and vendors of the existence of these Guidelines and the _ necessity to follow them. Each licensee is required to audit its contractors' screening programs to as_sure that the Guidelines are followed.

Recognizing that a utility retains the ultimate responsibility for assuring that individuals granted unescorted access to a nuclear facility have been properly screened, the Guidelines state that a utility "may accept the results of the entire screening program or any part thereof conducted by a contractor or vendor, provided that the contractor'or' vendor meets the requirements of these guidelines and that it makes its = records available for auditing by the licensee or its designated representative . . . ."

Page 1 of 3

In this instance, GSU's compliance with its responsibilities to audit and

, evaivate its contractors' screening results has not been questioned. GSU believes that it has, indeed, fully fulfilled these obligations. However,

, GSU could not reasonably predict or prevent actions by the WSI QA manager, designated by WSI as the responsible management official, in falsely certifying the completion of screening requirements for two WSI employees.

On the contrary, GSU did everything its procedures required and its audit did, in fact,_ uncover the misrepresentation by WSI, as contemplated by NRC Guidelines.

In September 1987, WSI officials committed to comply with the access suitability requirements of GSU's Plant Security Procedure PSP-4-082,

" Personnel Access Suitability Program". On 10/30/87, the WS! quality ,

assurance manager certified to GSU that the two aforementioned employees

~

had satisfactorily completed all program screening requirements and were eligible for unescorted access to RBS. Upon receipt of this information, the employees were granted unescorted access to the RBS protected. area from 11/2/87 to 11/13/87. Subsequent to this, during an audit performed by- GSU access program, personnel of. the WSI screening files on 5/26/88, it was >

discovered that the two WSI employees granted unescorted access to RBS-from 11/2/87 to 11/13/87 had not completed the required psychological evaluation or background investigation requirements. The audit revealed that the statement attested to by the QA manager on 10/30/87 was, in fact, false. <

GSU reported this event to the NRC on May 26, 1988 via the Emergency Notification System in the NRC Operation Center and followed with a 30 day written re see Safeguards Event Report 88-S03 dated June 23, 1988 (RBG-28162) port, ACTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND RESULTS ACHIEVED As a result of this incident, WSI has been removed from the list of companies from which GSU will accept certification that the results of their access screening program meets the requirements of the GSU program.

When WSI employees are assigned to RBS they are required to process through the GSU screening program prior to being granted unescorted access.

The WSI QA Manager is no longer performing this function at RBS inasmuch as GSU itself now screens all WSI employees. Hence, GSU believes that this isolated incident will not be repeated. Moreover, as discussed in the next section, GSU continues to audit its contractors' screening programs aggressively to prevent any recurrence of this incident and no events of this nature has been detected.

Finally, we note that the NRC has just recently proposed (55FR12374) to amend its regulations and enforcement policy to . formalize procedures for direct action against any person, including an officer or employee of a '

non-licensee, who willfully violates any NRC rule, regulation,- order or license. GSU understands that the proposed rules in no way detract from a '

licensee's ultimate responsibility for compliance with its license and NRC regulations. Yet, the proposed rules do illustrate the reality that, in cases of willful misconduct, very little if any culpability may lie with a licensee which has acted rerponsibly and in accordance with all NRC requirements and licensee comi taents , and was therefore powerless to discover or deter willful misconduct.

Page 2 of 3

o.

'GSU believes that the present~ incident Lis such an example. In accordance with the proposed regulation, the NRC has stated its belief- that it has full statutory authority to proceed directly against the companies such as

. WSI or its employees to the extent personally culpable. Given these "

circumstances, GSU is of the view that no violation against-it should-be assessed. At a minimum, the severity level should be reduced.

STEPS WHICH WILL BE TAKEN GSU continuously audits self screening contractors to ensure .that the requirements of the GSU access screening program are met. During these' 6 audits when any discrepancy is identified, immediate action is taken to correct the problem. At the conclusion of the audit, an evaluation is made as to the acceptability of the program. If the.results of-.the audit are.

~

favorable, GSU will continue .to recognize the self screening contractor's program. If the results of the audit are not favorable, depending on the severity of the findings, GSU will put the self screening contractors program on " probation" or discontinue recognition of the - self - screening contractor's program. If the program is placed on probation and the self.

screening contractor elects to continue to screen for access suitability in=

accordance with GSU's program, they must certify access suitability to GSU by forwarding a copy of the certification and a copy of all documentation that supports the certification. They must retain the original documents for audit purposes until the program is re-evaluated and .the progrant. is=

removed from probation.

DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED a

GSU has been auditing and continues to audit self screening contractor '1 programs in an effort to assure compliance, and takes action concern.ing any '

deficiencies identified. Full compliance has been achieved.

i q

1

)

Page 3 of 3 I