ML20101F572

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-219/84-18.Corrective Actions:Contract Guards Reprimanded for Violation & Given Instructions Re Procedure to Search All Packages Entering Protected Area
ML20101F572
Person / Time
Site: Oyster Creek
Issue date: 11/09/1984
From: Fiedler P
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
To: Greenman E
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
References
NUDOCS 8412270222
Download: ML20101F572 (2)


Text

~

l

,"g DESIGNATED ORIGINAL

/

Certified By T

b GPU Nuclear Corporation NQQIg7 Postoffice Box 388 Route 9 South j

Forked River,New Jersey 08731-0388 609 971-4000 Writer's Direct Dial Number:

November 9, 1984 Mr. Edward G. Greenman, Chief Projects Branch No. 1 Division of Project and Resident Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406

Dear Mr. Greenman:

Subject:

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket No. 50-219 Inspection Report 50-219/84-018 In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Attachment A to this letter presents our response to the Notice of Violation transmitted in your letter dated October 16, 1984.

Should you require any further infomation regarding the enclosed infomation, please contact Brenda Hohman, Licensing Engineer at (609) 971-4642.

Very truly yours, Ahnj t

. NiiF ~

Vice President and Director Oyster Creek PBF/ dam

\\

Attachment l

cc: Dr. : Thomas E. Murley,1 Administrator -

Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 NRC Resident Inspector Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Forked River, NJ 08731 l

8412270222 g h g

PDR ADOC PDR f,f a

GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidary of the General Pubhc Utihties Corporation

)(

~

  • 1+ s _,.

ATTACHMENT l-Violation Provisional Operating License DPR-16, Section 2.C.(6) requires that the Qyster Creet physical security plan be fully implemented. The Qyster Creek i

physical security plan, Revision 15, dated January 31, 1984, Section 3.2.1.6 requires searching all peckages entering the Protected Area.

Contrary to the above, 'on June 4,1984,.a contract. guard carried a package t

into the Protected Area without the package being searched. _

~

n

' Response We agree that on June 4,1984, a contract guard did carry a package into the Protected Area without the package being searched.

The following corrective action has been taken. On June 4,1984, at approximately 1451 hours0.0168 days <br />0.403 hours <br />0.0024 weeks <br />5.521055e-4 months <br /> Mr. C. Cowgfil,-Qyster Creek Resident NRC Inspector, notified the Qyster Creek Security Department that he had just observed the above violation.

The Security Shift Commander -innediately dispatched a Site Protection Officer to searcn the package. A search of the package revealed that it contained the guard's lunch. A further search of the' area in the immediate vicinity of the post where the guard had been 4

^

stationed proved negative.

An investigation of the incident determined that the recently hired contract guard apparantly did not realize that it was necessary that her lunch bag be searched prior to entering the Protected Area.

The search guard (also a contract guard) stated he had overlooked the package (lunch bag) the other guard was carrying.- Both contract guards were subsequenty reprimanded for the violation and given instructions regarding the procedure to search all packages entering the Protected Area -(the guard who had carried _ the package

in resigned the _the follcwing day). Further corrective action was taken on June 6,1984, with the issuance of Qyster Creek Security Directive 84-12 to.

all Security personnel reminding them of the requirement to search all packages entering the Protected Area.

Full compliance was achieved on June 4,1984.

I w

M h a

4

-