ML20055D098
| ML20055D098 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1990 |
| From: | Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Deddens J GULF STATES UTILITIES CO. |
| References | |
| EA-90-043, EA-90-43, NUDOCS 9007030212 | |
| Download: ML20055D098 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000458/1990043
Text
c:
@'%
UNITED STATES
-'
y ,N
1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'[ $) ~
.e f
-
REGloN IV
Si.
8
611 RYAN PLAZA ORIVE, SUITE 1000
%
,8
ARLINGTON, TEXAS 70011
JUN .: :333
Docket No. 50-458
License-No. hPF-47
Gulf States Utilities
ATTH: James C. Deocens
Sen".or Vice President (RBNG)
P.O. Box 220
St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775
'
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION
This is in reply to Gulf States Utilities' (GSU) April 6, 1990, letter
(RBG-32674) in which GSU replied to a Notice of Violation issued by NRC on
March 7, 1990. The violation in this case was discovered by GSU and involved
two employees of Welding Services, Inc. (WSI), having been certified by WSI as
^ eligible for unescorted access despite the fact that all- of the necessary
background checks had not been performed.
In its. April 6 letter, GSU took the position that this violation occurred
despite GSU having done everything required of it by NRC, including having-
conducted the audit of WSI's employee screening program that resulted in the
' discovery of this discrepancy. GSU also stated that it is of the view that no
violation _against it (GSU) should be assessed and that, at a minimum, the
severity level should be reduced.
NRC recognizes those aspects of this matter that GSU raises in response to
this violation. The fact remains, however, that two inoividuals who were not
properly screened for unescorted access were granted such access to GSU's River
Bend Station, clearly a violation of NRC requirements. GSU, not its
-contractors, has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that NRC requirements'
n-
are net.
In addition, a root cause of this violation appears to be that GSU
may have failed in its responsibility to ensure that WSI knew and fully
unoerstood all the requirements that GSU was relying on WSI to carry out.-
The NRC does not agree with GSU's view that it (GSU) should not be citeo.
Furthermore, NRC believes that the violation is properly classified at
.
9007030212 9006'25
ADoCK 05000458
g
-
1
I
i g
___
. _ . . . .
i
'
. . ,
. .
l
'.
.
Gulf' States Utilities
-2-
'eluN 251990
'
NRC considers the actions that GSU took in response to this violation
acceptable and considers this matter closed.
Sincerely,
,)
,
[ft
c t, - y
Robert D. Martin
-
Regional Administrator
cc:
,.
Welding. Services, Inc.
3276 Marjan Drive
Atlanta, GA 30340-
Gulf States Utilities
ATTN:
'J. E. Booker, Manager.
Nuclear Industry Relations
P.O. Box 2951
Beaumont, Texas 77704
Conner and Wetterhahn-
ATTil: Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
1747. Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C.
20006
Gulf States Utilities -
ATTil:
Les Englano, Director
fluclear Licensing
P.O. Box:220
,
St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775
'
,
Mr. J. David.ficNeill, III
William.G. Davis, Esq.
Department of Justice
Attorney General's Office
- P.O.~ Box 94095-
Baton. Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9095
H. Anne P1ettinger
3456 Villa Rose Drive
Baton. Rouge, Louisiana 70806
L
President of West Feliciana
Police Jury
P.O. Box 1921
7
l
St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775
I
r
L
i
6
6
.
_
_
. , -
-
,
,
'
.
.
'
' Gulf States Utilities
-3-
-
.
Cajun Electric Power Coop.. Inc.
- ATTN:: Philip G. Harris
10719 Airline Highway
P.O. Box 15540
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70895
Department of Environmental Quality
ATTH: llilliam H. Spell, Administrator
Nuclear Energy Division
P.O. Box 14600
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission
ATTH: Resident inspector
P.O. Box 1051
St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775
~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
ATTN: Regional Administrator, Region IV
611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000
Arlington, Texas _76011
.
I
~
',. . ,
.
t
'
- .'
,.
JW 251990
Gulf States Utilities
-4-
,
bec w/ enclosures:
,
R. D. Mart.in
G. Sanborn
-J. Lieberman, OE
A.B.-Beach
,
D. Powers
D. Driskill, 01
XDMBllE14
Resident Inspector
SectionChief(DRP/C)
Lisa Shea, RM/ALF
MIS System
RSTS Op.erator
ProjectEngineer(DRP/C)
RIV File
'
Senior Resident Inspector, Cooper
Senior Resident inspector, Fort Calhoun
W. Paulson, NRR Project Manager (MS: 13-D-18)
!
DRSS-SEPS-
L-
l.
1
-
l
l
- -
i
- Previously concurred
RIV:E0
C:SEPS
D:DRSS
C:PS/C
D:DRP
- GSanborn:ap
- DAPowers
- APReach
- GLConstable
- SJCollins *RDMartin
6/5/90
6/11/90
6/12/90
6/14/90
6/14/90
6/15/90
l
OE 0@
'
I
JLfeberma
n; k
6/21/9
LP,J
--
-
.
, ..,
,
-
-
.
-
.
..
_ _ .
.
.
.
1
.
GULF STATES
UTELETIES
COMPANY
1
April
6, 1990
ll
"
,
,
RBG- 32 674
i
F i l e No s . - G 9. 5 , G 15 . 4 .1 ' ~ ~ ------ --
"
V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
~~'
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 (Recort of
,
Investigation 4-88-027)
concerning two contract employees of
'
Welding Services, Inc., who were incorrectly granted unescorted
access-to River Bend Station protected area.
Gul f.
States Utilities Company's (GSU) response to the Notice of
Violation is provided in Attachment 1 pursuant 10CFR2.201.
-Should you have any questions, please contact Mr.
David
N.
,
Lorfino at (504) 381-4157.
i
Sincerely,
l
/
"
J. C. Deddens
Senior Vice President
River Bend Nuclear Group
Y,
5.0
JCD/TFP/
/SLW/pg
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
'
611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000
Arlington, Texas 76011
NRC Senior Resident Inspector
-ffg3/- L 0 Sbb-
h
'
I
- n
....
- - . .
.
- - -
. . - . . -
-
-- -
__
- _ _
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.L
,
?. -^
.
.
'.c
'
-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
)
)
PARISH OF WEST FELICIANA
)
)
Docket No. 50-458
'In the Matter.of
)
50-459
)
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY
)
(River' Bend Station,
Unit 1)
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
that all such documents are true and correct to the best of his
knowledge, information and belief.
.
// / l'"Y
J. C("Daddens
i
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public-in and for.
the State and Parish above named, this
la b
day of
O DA
1990 .
,
I
b
Claudia F. Hurst
Notary Public in and for
West Feliciana Parish,
My Commission is for Lif.g.
l
. .
._
_
_
_
_
_
. . _ . _
_
_
._ _
.. .
~
-
'
REFERENCE
Notice of Violation - Letter from Samuel J. Collins to James C. Deddens,
dated March 7, 1990.
SCREENING REQUIREMENTS FOR UNESCORTED ACCESS
Section 2.0 of the River Bend Station (RRS) Operating License NPF-47,
reovires 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
not be granted unescorted access to RBS until the satisf actory completion
of a screening program consisting of a background investigation, a
osychological evaluation, and a fitness for duty determination.
Contra'ry 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 havino been done.
'
EXPLANATION OF THE INCIDENT
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.D of RBS Operating License and Section 3.1 of the RBS Physical
Security Plan have been -implemented by GSU's Plant Security Procedure
" 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.
Er '
i
licensee is required to audit its contractors' screening programs to as
c
i
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
L
I
- -.
_
_ _ . _
_
_
?-
.
..
U
In this instance, GSU's compliance with its responsibilities to audit and
~
evaluate 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 OA manager,
designated by WSI as the responsible management official, in falsely
certifying the completion of screening requirements for two WSI
empl oyees .
On the contrary, GSU did everything its procedures reouired 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 reouirements of GSU's Plant Security Procedure PSP-4-082,
" Personnel
Access Suitability Program".
On 10/30/87,
the L5I quality
assurance manager certified to GSU that the two aforementioned employees
had satisfactorily completed all program screening reouirements and were
eligible _for unesccrted 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.
Subseouent 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 WS! employees granted unescorted access to RBS from
11/2/87 to 11/13/87 had not completed the reouired psychological evaluation
or background investigation reovirements.
The audit revealed that the
statement attested to by the 0A 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 report,
see Safeguards Event Report 88-503 dated June ?3, 1988
(RBG-28162).
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
ameld 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 responsibly and in accordance with all NRC
requirements and licensee coninitments , and was
therefore powerless to
discover or deter willful misconduct.
Page 2 of 3
-
"'
s
-
.
>
GSU believes
that the present incident is 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.
Giver. 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
reouirements of the GSU access screening program are met. During these
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':rogram.
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 program is
removed from probation.
DATE WHEN FULL COMPLIANCE WILL BE ACHIEVED
GSU has. been auditing and continues to audit self screening contractor
programs in an effort to assure compliance, and. takes action concerning any
deficiencies identified.
Full compliance has been achieved.
.
1
1
l
Page 3 of 3
-
-
- -
-
-