ML20203G689

Submits e-mail Message on W3 Fire Watch Issues.Partially Deleted Info on Arkansas Nuclear One Re Background Info Encl

ML20203G689
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	02/16/1996
From:	Vasquez G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Gwynn T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML20203G676	List: ML20203G672 ML20203G689 ML20203G711 ML20203H689
References
FOIA-99-76 NUDOCS 9902220025
Download: ML20203G689 (6)

Text

- -_- _ - - ___ _ - - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - -

From: G. Michael Vasquez p

/p 7 D : 2/ / r[ b y

Subject:

W3 01 Reports -Forwarded Forwarded mail received from: AR1:HMS2:TTR:THUB1:WND2.WNP6: MAS Pat, remembe* all those e-mail messagr,s on the W3 fire watch issues? Well, here's another one. It's from Mark saying that Jim Lieberman would like to discuss it on a Thurs conference call. Can you let me know when we'll be ready to panel this with OE. (in doing so, we'll be issued an EA number.) If you want to panel it next Thurs 2/22, the report will need et least first line supervisor review so we can propose to OE how we plan to disposition the enforcement issues; o.g., SL IV violations. But, we have to make these proposals via an enforcement nrksheet, which have to be sent up to HQ by Tues 2/20 mid-day. Having everything done and up to OE by Tues will be nearly impossible (I've got so many other cases on the bumer!)

If we miss that deadline, then we'll have to have a worksheet completed and up to OE by Tues 2/27 so that we can panel it with OE on Thurs 2/29. I assume that we'll probably have to panel it with OE on Thurs 2/29, but I wanted to hear from you or someone in your division. Let me know so I can let OE know.

Mark - will we have to wait until OGC has done an analysis on the 01 report and include them on a conference call? If so, that could take 2-3 weeks...

CC: MAS, GAP Files: m0 MESSAGE l

l t

7 i 9902220025 990217 PDR FOIA O(

\

GUNTER99-76 PDR y

8 EA NUMBER REGUEST FORM TO: OEMAIL OR FAX 10 OE FROM- GARY SANBORN / L/ REGIONAL CONTACT DATE OF REQUEST MARGI 1 REGION IV UCNSEE ENTERGY OPERA,710NS, INC FACIIIY/IDCATION AkKANSAS NUCEAR ONE UNTIS UCENSE/DOOTT NO(S). UCENSES DPR-51; NPF4; DOCKETS 50-313; S368 LAST DAY OF INSPECDON FEBRUARY 18,1995 O! REPORT NO. N/A DATE OF 01 REPORT

SUMMARY

OF FACIS OF CASE (ANNUAL REPORT FORMAT FOR EAT 3 ENTRY) (MAXIMUM OF 300 QIARACTERS)

HREWATUI LOGS FALSIFIED TO INDICATE TilAT PATROLS liAD BEEN DONE WIIEN IN FACT T11EY IIAD NOT BRIEF

SUMMARY

OFINSPECTION FINDINGS (IF NOT SUFROENILY DESCRIBED ABOVE)

UCENSEE'S I1REWATQ COORDINATOR IDENITITED FACTTilAT MREWATOI flAD FAIIIDTO MAKE 10 A.M. AND 11 A M. PATROIS ONFEBRUARY4 Gv5.T?iEUCENSEEDETERMINEDT11ATT11ERREWATUIIDGSilADBEENFALsIMEDTOINDICATET11ATTilE PATROLS I!AD ista ' EONE. 711E UCENSEE MRED TiiE INDIVIDUAL REASON FOR POrIENITAL ESCALATED ACDON

%TLLFUL VIOIATION,10 CFR 50.9 DEIIGATED CASE YES X NO _

MED INST FIIYSIGAN NUC PilARM RADIOG A fI WEli LDGGERS ACADEMIC GAUGE I40 v! UREA 7cNsrIY OTilER T 'PE:

CTIE SIMIIAR CASE: EA NO.

SilOUID OE ATIEND ENF CONT YES NO NONDELEGATED CASE , . X YES NO NONDELEGABLE TYPE X 01 REPORT /WIUEUL 7 COMPLEX / NOVEL DISCREllON COMM APPROVAL 01 INTEREST 14D OT1IER REASON:

h[ k " f["O/3 IS T11ERE A BASISTO CLOSE ENTORCEMENT CONTERENCE? Y/N IF YES, EXPLAIN: REG 13N IV PROPOSED TO DISPOSTI10NT111S A %TDI AN NCV IN ACCDRDAN WTDI VII.B.2 OF T11E POUCY. THERETORE,711ERE WIll NOT BE /.N ENIORCMENT CONTERENCE WE ARE COORDINATING TIIIS MATTER %TH101.

EA # ASSIGNED b'l - ES ASSIGNED OE 05 AY3 DATEl-8 l Ll=n[---Wh Gf

/, /.

\-

/$

L'

.V i ( 4 JTQf { { y [ 7 ] J

\

I D 6.2 Unit 2 . Falsification of Firewatch loos On February 14. 1995, the licensee informed the inspectors of their discovery that a roving firewatch falsified fire barrier watch logs. On February 4.

1995. while conducting an inplant audit of the roviny firewatch program, the firewatch coordinator observed that the roving firewatch assigned to patrol the 317' level of the Unit 2 auxiliary building failed to perform the 9 a.m.

and 10 a.m. Oatrols as required by the hourly firewatch log. The roving firewatch was required due to the presence of excess combustibles in various areas of the 317' level of the Unit 2 auxiliary building. On observing that the required patrols had not been conducted. the firewatch coordinator conducted the hourly checks as a compensatory measure. The firewatch coordinator had observed the incividual conduct the 8 a.m. rounds on the 317' level and plant personnel had observed the Individual perfonning patrols in other areas of the plant.

Four separate fire barrier watch loos were required to be completed to document cocoletion of hourly patrols on the 317' level of the auxiliary building. Suosequent review of :nese logs by the firewatch coordinator revealed that the firewatch hao falsified each log by indicating that the 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. patrols had been performed. as signified by the logging of the time of the patrols and the initials of the firewatch. In response to this discovery, the individual was escorted offsite and employment was terminated. Additionally the licensee reviewed the event with all firewatch personnel. Firewatch personnel wre employed by a contractor who provided firewatch anc janitorial services to the licensee. The inspectors reviewed a list of rules and violations estaDlisned by the contractor that were read and signed by eacn firewatch. The falsification of records was ioentified as a violation which vould result in instant termination.

The falsification of the firewatcn logs was determined to be a violation of 10 CFR 50.9. " Completeness and Accuracy of Information." which requires in part. that information required by statute or by the Cormlission's regulations.

orders, or l' cense conditions to De maintained by the applicant or the licensee sha".1 be complete and accurate in all material respects.

/* 'd p the violatice was not cited because the criteria of paragraph VII.B.2 ofHowever

Append:x C t: 10 CFR Part 2 of the NRC's " Rules and Regulations" were (pM N satisfied.

g The licensee's identification of the falsification of firewatch logs was determined t: be a strength. Tre insDectors noted that the audit which

(%gg I ident1fied tr.1s condition was performed on a Saturday morning. a day and time p

during which the firesatch coorc nator would not normally be expected to be in j the plant. *lthough Procedure D00.120. Revision 5. "ANO Fire Barrier Watch Program." specified that fire barrier watch supervisors were responsible for N/

assuring that fire barrier watenes were conducteo in accordance with the requirements of the procedure n old not spec 1fically require that inplant g[ p audits be performed. The licensee inoicated that inplant audits during regular and :ackshift hours were routinely performed to ensure fire barrier watches were ceing conducted prc:erly,

%aD M kN b0 y Mss

i .

e 6.3 Unauthor, red Access Into Protected Area .

As described in Section 6.2 above. an individual was escorted offsite and i employment was terminated on February 4 for falsification of fire watch logs.

On February 21. security personnel discovered that the individual's access authorization nad not been ternnnated until February 14 and that the individual hao entered the plant protected area on February 10 to complete check out actreities with the contract employer. The individual was inside the plant protected area for approximately 41 minutes, under observation for most of this time, did not display any abnormal behavior, and did not enter any of the plant's vital areas. The licensee reported this discovery to the Conmission on February 21 In accordance with 10 CFR 73.71. Further inspection into this event will be performed by an NRC Security specialist.

L vggiSgts WILL GE WT (t1q+

3 fE9Py ,

~ - - - - . . - .

ll kh h e

2. Background Information -- Arkansas Nuclear One The 01 report essentially concludes that a non-required record was falsified as a result of actions taken by a contract supervisor.

In our preliminary discussions to prepare for the panel w/0E, we developed a slightly different view. We believe the record itself may be a required record because it involved the installation of fire protection seals.

However, we believe that part of the record which was falsified may not be material.

The only.part of the record that is alleged to have been falsified is Step L, which states, " Clean work area of debris, tools, scaffolding, etc." This was initialed off on Oct.11 as having been done when in fact it was not done until the-following morning.

All of the steps related to the actual task, including verifying the seal is /

complete and free of defects and reinstalling items removed for access to the penetration (presumably this includes the jo re-attached box cover ch was bk

/

not part o some ser smissing),werq and are that the record was . '75 Based on the apparent lack of materiality of the alleged false info, and the lack of significance of this information, we do not believe this issue warrants pursuit. ,

In addition, we noted that OI had apparently not inquired into what actions were taken by Entergy when the individual's concerns were raised (we note that the transcript of the interview with the alleger indicates he was interviewed by Entergy personnel). The attached note is based on a follow-up call to Entergy's Dennis Provencher, who is involved in the licensee's employee concerns program.

p 4,p<f e wl /

Date: 6/3/96 1:08pm

Subject:

ANO Follow-up Russ and I talked to Dennis Provencher at ANO regarding the " false" CWP issue we discussed this a.m. He told me the following:

1) Entergy developed a Condition Report in response to the issue. Provencher has a file that is about 3" thick.

2) Entergy found no wrongdoing because the work appeared to have been properly done and the supervisor who signed off on the last step in the CWP was authorized to do so.

[ Note: Entergy's review seems to have focused he t hnical adequacy of the fire seal work, based on concerns raised by /

It is not clear T pr l 7

kAW $ , NYpwmgOkWW wensamm w es w 1 i:) 3CCMdECC V.',lh b EIC^d3"' G! ICUi33i'0Il k

M t, w m pi:n3 Y. 70 Y' FOIL 8f:42.?d__. ____

, l

\

l ' ., -

V .

that Entergy was told or was aware that off before the last step was completed.I,F admitted he had the CWP signed l+

0

3) Entergy also looked at the discrimination issue and found no discrimination.

4) Provencher sai call veral times inquiring about' the disposition of this tte at aid he was " tricked" by the p/g investigator into stating things i a er that made him look bad.

5) *rovencher said O! was offered Entergy's file on these issues but deci:ned.

was laid off and that neithe nor Y7C

, r empfo et b

0

=

as se o

.