ML20055D098

Reviews Util 900406 Response to Violation Noted in Investigation Rept 50-458/90-43 Re Unescorted Access for Two Welding Svcs,Inc Employees to Plant Protected Area. Violation Properly Classified as Severity Level IV

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

EA No.90-043

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

n- -contractors, has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that NRC requirements'

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

Severity Level IV.

.

9007030212 9006'25

PDR ADoCK 05000458

g PDC

- 1

i g I

___ . _ . . . .

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,

,) ,

c t, - y [ft

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

7

P.O. Box 1921

l

St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775

I

r

L

i

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

'

.' ,.

Gulf States Utilities -4- JW 251990

,

,

bec w/ enclosures:

R. D. Mart.in

G. Sanborn

-J. Lieberman, OE

A.B.-Beach ,

D. Powers

D. Driskill, 01

XDMBllE14

Resident Inspector

DRP

SectionChief(DRP/C)

Lisa Shea, RM/ALF

MIS System

RSTS Op.erator

ProjectEngineer(DRP/C)

RIV File '

DRS

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 RA

• GSanborn:ap *DAPowers *APReach *GLConstable *SJCollins *RDMartin

l

6/5/90 6/11/90 6/12/90 6/14/90 6/14/90 6/15/90

'

OE 0@

I JLfeberma n; k

6/21/9 LP,J --

.

-

, .., ,

- - . - . . .. _ _ .

. .

.

1

GULF STATES UTELETIES COMPANY 1

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)

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

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,

Louisiana

My Commission is for Lif.g.

l

_ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ ._ _

.. .

~

'

-

REFERENCE

Notice of Violation - Letter from Samuel J. Collins to James C. Deddens,

dated March 7, 1990.

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

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

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. 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 I

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