ML20206F480
| ML20206F480 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1999 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206F473 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-382-99-08, 50-382-99-8, NUDOCS 9905060144 | |
| Download: ML20206F480 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000382/1999008
Text
e-
,,
.
'
ENCLOSURE
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Docket No.:
50-382
'
License No.:
Report No.:
50-382/99-08
Licensee:
Entergy Operations, Inc.
Facility:
Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3
- Location:
Hwy.18
Killona, Louisiana
Dates:
April 5-7,1999
Inspector (s):
A. Bruce Earnest, Physical Security Specialist,
Plant Support Branch
Approved By:
Gail M. Good, Chief, Plant Support Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
Attachment :
Supplemental Information
9905060144 990503
ADOCK 05000382
g
E.
i
e
-2-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3
NRC Inspection Report No. 50-382/99-08
A reactive, announced inspection of the licensee's access authorization program was
conducted.
Plant Sucoort
An apparent violation was identified involving the licensee's failure to review and
,
consider derogatory information during a background investigation as required by
Paragraph 2.3.1 of the physical security plan and Paragraph 6.8.1 of Entergy Corporate
Security Departmental Procedure CS-DP-104, Revision 0. The licensee's failure to
review and consider the information allowed temporary unescorted access to an
individual who would not have been granted unescorted access (Section S1.1).
i
' A violation was identified for failure to notify the NRC within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> of discovery of a
significant access authorization event as required by 10 CFR Part 73.71 (b)(1) and
Attachment 7.1 to Security Procedure PS-010-104, " Security Reporting Requirements,"
{
Revision 13. This issue was entered into the licensee's corrective action system as part
of Condition Report CR-WF-3-1999-0420. This Severity Level IV violation is being
treated as a non-cited violation in accordance with Appendix C of the NRC Enforcement
Policy (Section S3.1).
\\
s
o
m
s
.
-3-
Report Details
IV. Plant Suncort
S1' Conduct of Security and Safeguards Activities
- S1.1 Access Authorization
a.
Inspection Scope (81700)
The access authorization program was inspected to determine compliance with the
requirements of 10 CFR 73.56, the physical security plan, and Regulatory Guide 5.66.
The inspector reviewed 25 background investigation files. The reviewed files included:
five files for reinstatement, five files for full background investigations, three files of
personnel who were grandfathered into the program, two files for updates, and ten files
that resulted in denial of access. The inspector reviewed information involving the
licensee's verification of identity, employment history, educational history, credit histoty,
a
criminal history, military service, and the character and reputation of the applicants
before granting individuals' unescorted access to protected and vital areas.
b.
Observations and Findinos
The files were generally thorough with one significant exception. On March 23,1999,
the licensee notified the NRC that a contractor employee had been erroneously granted
temporary unescorted access. The licensee's report confirmed that the access
authorization staff had completed an inadequate evaluation of the available background
investigation information.
Paragraph 2.3.1 of the licensee's physical security plan required that the licensee
comply with all elements of Regulatory Guide 5.66, " Access Authorization Program for
Nuclear Power Plants."
Paragraph 7.1 of the Appendix to Regulatory Guide 5.66 dated June 1991 (NUMARC 89-01) required that in its decision to grant unescorted access, the licensee shall review
and consider ali information obtained during a background investigation in making a
determination of trustworthiness and reliability. Paragraph 7.1a required the licensee to
review and consider willful omission or falsification of material information submitted in
support of employment or request for unescorted access authorization. Paragraph 7.1b
required the licensee to review and consider illegal use or possession of a controlled
substance or abuse of alcohol without adequate evidence of rehabilitation.
I
!
Paragraph 6.8.1 of Entergy Corporate Security Departmental Procedure CS-DP-104,
Revision 0, stated that the licensee's decision to grant unescorted access authorization
shall be based upon a review of allinformation developed during the completion of a
background investigation and psychological evaluation. Further, Paragraph 6.8.1 stated
that when derogatory information is developed, it must be compared against the
individual's prescreening documents for possible omissions and falsifications, in
addition, Paragraph 6.8.3 stated that the licensee must consider illegal use or
i
I
l
n
- 4
i
4
possession of a controlled substance or abuse of alcohol without adequate evidence of
rehabilitation.
During the processing of the contractor's request for unescorted access on February 18,
1999, the access authorization technician did not review the temporary unescorted
access background investigation. The background investigation report contained
information indicating that the contractor employee had tested positive for a controlled
substance when applying for employment at a nonnuclear company on October 27,
1998. The personnel history questionnaire submitted by the contractor employee did
not list this information in the section that asked, "Have you ever tested positive for
drugs or alcohol?"
Prior to reviewing the background investigation, a licensee access authorization
'
technician noticed that the licensee's fitness-for-duty test results had not been included
in the access authorization file. The technician placed the paper work into a suspense
file pending receipt of the fitness-for-duty test. Prior to determining that the -
!
fitness-for-duty test result was missing, the technician dated and initialed that the
i
individual was eligible for temporary unescorted access. The technician failed to
remove this certification when the file was placed into the suspense file. The
fitness-for-duty test result was received on February 23,1999. That same date, a
second access authorization technician reviewed the drug' screen results without
completing a review of the background investigation. The second technician assumed
that the first technician had reviewed the information, since that block on the access
authorization request form was dated and initialed. The access authorization file was
then forwarded to the Deputy Director of Corporate Security (who was on site to assist
with access authorization during the outage) for approval to grant unescorted access.
The Deputy Director made the same assumption and did not review the background
investigation that contained the derogatory information. Three access authorization
personnel failed to review information that would have resulted in a denial of access
authorization. The contractor employee was granted temporary unescorted access on
February 23,1999.
The licensee received the last piece of the background information (military records)
required for a permanent unescorted access authorization on March 22,1999. At this
time, a third access authorization technician reviewed the file for permanent unescorted
. access and identified the derogatory fitness-for-duty information. The licensee
immediately revoked the contract employee's access and conducted an investigation.
When questioned, the contractor employee admitted that the failed fitness-for-duty test
information was omitted. The failure to perform an adequate review of available
background information such that a contractor employee was erroneously granted
unescorted access is an apparent violation of Paragraph 2.3.1 of the physical security
. plan and Paragraphs 6.8.1,6.8.2 and 6.8.3 of Licensee Procedure CS-DP-104
(50-382/9908-01).
'
The licensee's corrective actions included immediate retraining and counseling of the
access authorization personnel who were involved in the failure to review and consider
the information, in addition, all licensee access authorization personnel were retrained
prior to the completion of the inspection. The licensee also planned to brief and train all
Entergy access authorization personnel on the incident during annual training. Prior to
1
.
5
-
the end of the inspection, the licensee initiated a revision to Entergy Corporate Security
Departmental Procedure CS-DP-104, Revision 0, to strengthen the requirements
involving the review of all background information. Finally, the access authorization staff
reviewed approximately 800 access authorization files. There were no further examples
of the failure described above.
c.
Conclusions
An apparent violation was identified involving the licensee's failure to review and
consider derogatory information during a background investigation as required by
Paragraph 2.3.1 of the physical security plan and Paragraph 6.8.1 of Entergy Corporate
Security Departmental Procedure CS-DP-104, Revision 0. The licensee's failure to
review and consider the information allowed temporary unescorted access to an
individual who would not have been granted unescorted access.
S3
Security and Safeguards Procedures and Documentation
'S.3.1
Safeauards Event Reoortability
a.
Insoection Scope (81700)
The inspector reviewed the first quarter 1999 safeguards event logs and the records
associated with a 1-hour notification call made to the NRC on March 23,1999,
b.
Observations and Findinas
Attachment 7.1 to Security Procedure PS-010-104, " Security Reporting Requirements,"
Revision 13, stated in Item 30 that a .1-hour report will be made to the NRC for an
access authorization event which reflects a program failure (such as a failure to evaluate
i
available information which results in a clearly unjustifiable granting of unescorted -
access).
On March 22,1999, the licensee discovered that an individual had erroneously gained
unescorted access to the protected and vital areas on February 23,1999. Due to a
communication problem, the access authorization supervisor and the plant security
superintendent failed to recognize that the incident was required to be reported within
1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />. The event was initially placed into the safeguards event log on March 22,1999.
After additional information was received and reviewed on March 23,1999, the security
superintendent made the 1-hour report to the NRC. The security superintendent and
the access authorization supervisor implemented effective immediate correction actions
that included training of applicable personnel. The issue was entered into the licensee's
corrective action system as part of Condition Report CR-WF3-1999-0420. The
licensee's failure to report the incident to the NRC within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> was identified as a
violation of 10 CFR Part 73.71 (b)(1) and licensee Procedure PS-010-104. This Severity
Level IV violation is being treated as a non-cited violation consistent with Appendix C of
the NRC Enforcement Policy (50-382/9908-02).
i
_
,
>4
.
6-
I
c.
Conclusion
A violation was identified for failure to notify the NRC within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> of discovery of a
significant access authorization event as required by 10 CFR Part 73.71(b)(1) and
Attachment 7.1 to Security Procedure PS-010-104, " Security Reporting Requirements,"
Revision 13. This issue was entered into the licensee's corrective action system as part
of Condition Report CR-WF-3-1999-0420. This Severity Level IV violation is being
treated as a non-cited violation in accordance with Appendix C of the NRC Enforcement
Policy.-
V. Manaaement Meetinas
X1
Exit Meeting Summary
The inspector presented the inspection results to members of licensee management at
the conclusion of the inspection on April 7,1999. A followup discussion of the
,
inspection results was conducted with members of the licensee staff on April 22,1999.
The licensee acknowledged the findings presented.
I
i
l
!
i
!
!
l
l
i
L
l
i
'
w
i
l
ATTACHMENT
{
i
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
!
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
i
pcensee
C. Dugger, Vice President, Operations
E. Aviles, Coordinator, Nuclear Security
E. Beckendorf, Superintendent, Plant Security
M. Brandon, Licensing Supervisor
E. Brauner, Systems Engineering Superintendent
R. Burski, Director, Site Support
G. Bourgeois, Quality Assurance Specialist
j
D. Childress, Supervisor, Security Access Authorization and Fitness-for-Duty
'
H. Cooper, Manager, Corporate Security
C. DeDeauz, Licensing Supervisor
D. Gallodoro, Engineering Supervisor
,
l
P. Gropp, Manager, Design Engineering
A. Harris, Plant Engineering Manager
i
G. Matharn, Design Engineering Supervisor
!
!
J. Meibaum, Systems Engineer
P. Melancon, Programs Engineering Supervisor
G. Pierce, Director, Quality
,
!
D. Pintado, Security Nuclear Coordinator
R. Putnam, Design Engineering Supervisor
L. Rushing, Manager, Mechanical Design Engineering
G. Scott, Licensing Engineer
H. Williams, Plant Security Superintendent, Arkansas Nuclear One
R. Williams, Licensing Engineer
D. Young, Licensing Engineer
G. Zetsch, Security Senior Lead Coordinator
Contractor
K. Hayes, Project Manager, The Wackenhut Corporation
A. Smith, Project Supervisor, The Wackenhut Corporation
NRC
T. Farnholtz, Senior Resident inspector
J. Keeton, Resident inspector
..:
4
o
-2-
l
INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED
_ Physical Security Program for Power Reactors
ITEMS OPENED. CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
Opened
50-382/9908-01
eel
Inadequate Access Authorization
50 382/9908-02
NCV Failure to Report an Event Within Required 1-Hour Time Frame
a
Closed
50-382/9908-02
NCV Failure to Report an Event Within Required 1-Hour Time Frame
PARTIAL LIST OF LICENSEE DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Waterford 3 Physical Security Plan, Revision 18
Entergy Departmental Procedure CS-DP-104, " Unescorted Access Authorization," Revision 0
Security Procedure PS-010-104, " Security Reporting Requirements," Revision 13
j
Security Procedure OM-106, " Unescorted Access Authorization Program," Revision 3
I
First Quarter,1999 Safeguards Event Logs
Twenty-Five Access Authorization Files