ML20077R518
| ML20077R518 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 08/14/1991 |
| From: | Maxfield G, Seizert R WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| LER-91-S01, LER-91-S1, NUDOCS 9108230125 | |
| Download: ML20077R518 (8) | |
Text
W
,, t l
[)
. Electnc POWER COMPANY 'n)L
\
Point Beach Nuclear Ront 6610 No: lear Rd., Two Rimet Wi 54241 (414) 755-2321 10 CFR 73.71(b)
August 14, 1991 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Document Control Desk Washington. D.C. 20555 Gentlemen:
DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 SAFEGUARDS EVENT REPORT NO. 91-S01-00 INADEQUATE PREEMPLOYMcWT SCREENING PROCESS POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 Attached is Safeguards Evene Report 91-S01-00 for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 detailing the discovery, investigation, and corrective actions taken associated with an inadequate preemployment screening process that resulted in the j inappropriate authorization of unescorted access to an individual that had previously been denied unescorted access at other nuclear power plants.
LER 91-S01-00 is being reported pursuant to 10 CFR 73.71(b) and Section I(c) of Appendix G to Part 73.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
,/'
G.J. Maxfield Manager Enclosure m
?0 ~b/
jmg /$ rL[
d cc: NRC Regional Administrator, Region III AUG 1 " 33I c O n n i r.
9107230125 910814 A sudsdryo/#hwsm EmqvConwanw DR ADOCK0500g6
4
_ _ . _ . . ., ._. . .m m..-- - . ,.--m m . _ _..m.__m
. _ . _ _ _ . . ,m . _m_m Lh i
A" F DJ M 388 U.S NUCLEAR REOULATORY COMuistsON I APPR0vt0 Ove No 3190 0104
+%~ E a Pin 8 8 4/30/92 ISTIMATED SuMotN Pim RESPONSE TO COMPLY WYM TMi$
LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) l'd.L"i TiUG'ARo"N!If*Ri&E'T MATT T3/RECU"oi AND REPORT $ MANAGEMENT 4RANCM IP 6301. U S NUCLE AR PEGULATORY COMMIS$40N, W ASHINGTON DC 20666, AND TO THE PattRWORK REDUCTION PROJECT 13160010m Of f lC E Of MANAGEMENT ANO 8v0GET,wasMsNGTON.0C 70603 f ACit TT Naut HI 'Docetti NUMet h t2l FAGE il POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT oI51010lo121616 1 l0Fl 7 I TITLE 641 INADEQUATE PREEMPLOYMENT SCREENING PROCESS
- SVENT DAf t 184 Lth NUtset A tal SEPORTDAft171 OTHER F ACsLITill #Nv0Lytp tel MONYM DAY _ viam vtAR *8Q" 4 N,$ MONTH DAY vtAm **CitsTv %Aufs DOCat h Mstmisi )
FBNP, Unit 2 0 15101010 13 011 1
~ ~
0l 7 1l 5 91 9l 1 Sl 0 l1 0l0 l l ! O isto 1 0 1 0, I i ,
TMis atront is svenuTTEo PvasuaNT To tME mnousalMENTs or to Cea 6 <caA e ene er ,, en r*. #eue..c sin )
ontnATiNo
- oot m y 3 ,m ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,g,n,, x ,3 , y., j 20 405teH1HG to 3stallu to 73nsH2Het T3.718el i n., u 010 a -Hum .0 =Im = >>M H Hvel
_ _ _ geME;;>=; NAgy;,, !
20 406teH1Hd4 50 73teH211il to 73taH2Hv s4Hal Jaisal 30 4084all1 Hivl 60 734aH2Hn) SO 73teH2tt,+uht) 20.400teH1Hel to 73 st,4Hwd 90 73teH2Hal LICENSEE CONTACT POR THIS Lt A 112)
NAME Yttt#MONE NUM0lm Amt& COOL R. D. SEIZERT,-MANAGER - REGULATORY & SUPPORT SERVICES 4 1114 715151-12131211 COMPLETE ONE LINE 70m E ACM COMPONENT P Altual pasCnieto #N TMis ptPomT 03:
MA A C, m MA AC- p ontas CAUSE Sv5744 COMPONENT gCRT ya k' CAust sv 8T EM COM'ONENT pn
! I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l 1 1 1 l SUPPLEMENT AL REPORT 11PECTIO nel MONTH 047 vtAR Svevi5580N YES Ilives tempoere $KPLCTED SucwSSION OM99 NC l l , l F.8sTR ACT f Lat to 8400 apaces > e . soares'*efery hrteen eme's space typewnriva haest (ISI l
' ABSTRACT:
On July 15, 1991, a contractor informed' Wisconsin Electric that one of their employees who had been previously granted unescorted
. access to Point-Beach Nuclear Plant had been denied access to other nuclear plants four times in 1987. The-worker has denied access to the other nuclear plants due to failing the pre-access drug. screening tests. Unescorted access to Point Beach Nuclear Plant would not.have been granted if the prior access denials were ascertained during the access authorizatior. screening process.
NRC Form 384164W
+~ --.-_ - - - _ , _ - ~ . - .
. - - ._ ~ - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ -
NRC 704 3e6A U.S. NUCLI AR E80W4 ATORV COMMilstom .
E meings di30'92 - l
$- LlCENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ",'s"^'!,"o'Nv"80,n"o"'!;?,*n/ #"l,'l ,*o',",l"'j TEXT CONTINUATlON i&#/o'/r! o'2d 'C',M','C'"','!3M"u"l $Nf!
0?Wa".'oE!"a"a'JR,c*N '
m*;?'n#4"#S?,li C
QF MANA",,tMENT AND SVQGET, n A$HINGTON, DC 20b03.
f ACateTY NAMt (1) DOCK 5 7 NUM84 R tal gn NuuagM tel PA04138
~- mw,v ::::
POINT BFACH NUCLEAR PLANT o l5 l0 l0 l0 l2 l6 l6 9 l1 --
S]0l1 -
0l0 l2 OF 7l YEXT W mwe ansee a soeurver, use eewnoasi NAC rome ,154W (17)
EVENT DESCRIPTION:
On July 12, 1991, a contractor requested that Wisconsin Electric rescind the unescorted access authorization for a contractor employce while the contractor checked into a matter concerning the employee's record. No additional details were given regarding the employee.
On July 15, 1991, the contractor again contacted Wisconsin Electric stating that the employee in questicn may have been denied access to other nuclear facilities as many as four times beginning in 1987. This-was subsequently confirmed by the contractor's investigation. In all cases, the worker had been denied access due to-failing pre-access drug screening.
Wisconsin Electric determined that, had the access denial
-information been previously known, the contractor employee would not have been granted unescorted access to Point. Beach Nuclear Plant. The contractor employee's aut. rization for unescorted ,
access was revoked and a 1-hour report was made in accordance with 10 CFR 73.71(b) and Generic Letter 91-03, Reporting of Safeguards Events.
EVENT INVESTIGATION
'As licensee-for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Wisconsin Electric relies on the contractor to complete a suitable inquiry of their employees. Wisconsin Electric conducts an unescorted access authorization drug / alcohol test and inquires whether the applicant has ever been denied authorization for unescorted
- access to the protected area of a nuclear power plant or the assignment-to activities within the scope of 10 CFR Part 26.
! Unescorted acce'ss'is authorized if the screening process does not produce information that ',s sufficient to disqualify an applicant.
L L
1 l
l - N%C Fenn Je6A (649)
" u . mi .iu.oot.,n, u-,wo~
,,,e ,;,, ,m ,,,,,,,,,o,,,,o,,_
+=' .......,,,,,
LICENSEE EVENT HEPORT (LEN 't,'#^'),%'#"C'* !',"n"'Ait'l'.,' 4"2.' n'"dT!
6 ,
TEXT CONTINU ATlON li"*Ji2,*,'#"Mi3tN','
R'f,'L'? ' f.' "',!!Tf!
"0, o
%.~',,M4!*,",.t.!?
.a oi =1. o a.u ,
a,'R..i'.M?'4,0~ oc =&'.;i,1?
Twin , ... n , vo( = ii ==*i a iri n a =vu.a . ., . . . . i s, l'i' " :" 's ." ' OJJ.E POINT BEAcil NUCLEAR PLANT 7l o 161010 l0 21616 9l1 Sl011.~ 010 l3 0' sun a ,, , ,,,- . m a ,a e nac , ~ ms , o n s
Discussions with the contractor on July 15, 1991, revealed that the e nployoo was hired by the contractor in September 1L990. The individuni disclosed on the contractor's employment application that he had previously boon denied access at a nuclear facility based on a prior positivo drug acroon. Additionally, the individual confirmed three access denials in 1987 and offorod evidence of rehabilitation when the contractor's security manager conducted a follow-up investigation.
l[ '
On October 2, 1990, a lotter was sent to Wisconsin Electric cortifying the individual as suitable for unescorted access. The i; letter did not notify Wisconsin Electric of the past acceso denials as required by 10 CFR 264 23 (a) (2) . Ilowever, the individual disclosed that he had boon denied authorization for unescorted access to the protected area of a nuclear power plant or the assignment to activities within the scope of 3 0 CPR 26 on the Wisconsin Electric relcano and authorization statomont during the pro-access drug / alcohol scrooning. This disclosure was overlooked by Wisconsin Electric. The individual passed a drug acroon c:onducted October 3, 1990, and was granted unescorted access pased on the contractor's letter and the negativo drug acroon.
The individual returned to Point Beach Nuclear Plant and was granted unescorted access again on January 11, 1991, based on a similar cortifying letter from the contractor and a negativo drug scroon conducted January 7, 1991. Again, the individual disclosed that unesccrted access had boon previously denied, but this was again overlooked by Wisconsin Electric. The individual passed random drug tests conducted on April 12, 1991 and June 19, 1991.
WRC ,orm De6A 6f49)
I ' !g.4,0 m v . mcu.ni m.,o2, w- ..o. , , , , , , , _ , , , _
. ........m.
i
( ', LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) , , , , ,,' ,jf"'Ji ,%"4"4 TEXT CONTINOATlON l".'?,fMD,;Gis"'4','UJ TOl",'i,'J ',' 3.'20j */,O'.7,1! 'u",'*<'R"U "Wi.",',9"M?,".,",~it'a.voa*,'.!".Zu?9,nW=2 o, .~.civi~ o . . x, 0 nc '7?,'?
DLA;k.1 NUMG R LD P.00 4 3'
.._Ciu, v 4 AM, it s Lim avuMDIP ill
+- " ca' t- :'v,n POINT DEACH NUCLEAR PLANT 0151010l0l2l616 9l1 -
Sl0l1 -
0 10 14 08 7 [__.
vocem ., . < . anc, au.nin As a result of an inquiry made of the contractor by another utility, the contractor reviewed the employee's records and determined that the individual had failed four pro-access drug screens, three in 1987 and one in 1989. Since the individual was authorized to have unescorted access to the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Wisconsin Electric was informed of this new information.
Unescorted access to Point Beach Nuclear Plant would not have been granted if the prior access denials were ascertained during the access screening process. The contractor employee's unescorted access was revoked on July 15, 1991.
Wisconsin Electric has audited the contractor's background investigations three times. The July 19, 1989, audit found that the contractor accomplishes thorough and detailed investigations, but failed to properly evaluate some of them. Three of the 24 personnel files audited contained sufficient derogatory information that the individuals should not have been recommended for unescorted access. This weakness in the contractor's program allowed authorization of unescorted access to the Point Beach Nuclear Plant to personnel who would have been denied such access if Wisconsin Electric had been aware of the derogatory information. The audit concluded that a follow-up audit would be performed in 6 months to determine it the contractor's access authorization program had improved.
The contractor's background investigations were again audited by Wisconsin Electric on February 26, 1990. This audit found no deficiencies in any files and concluded that the contractor obteined completo background information. None of the files audited contained derogatory information that would have
/* , qualified the individual from unescorted access at Point Beach Nuclear Plant. As a result, the contractor's probationary status .
was rescinded and an annual audit schedule was resumed.
1 Nic Form 3e4A 4891
n we muttsaa nnouta,oa, couwwow ,,, ,g ngena mes
- - i . , , . . m. 4 LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) f,5,'7, ','.',%*yMt "J'," "'nZ',,' ,R"7,' ,* ',".'.Q TEXT CONTINUATlON T3",'i,' ' ,' ",' ' * .MiOC',M!,'J"','!$
" L",' Oi," f' a
"tu,,'a".'Ji*.*a'a',c ~'!L*i'?",400 ^1?Ji 06 M AN AGt WIN 1 AND DVDGlT. W AbMING 0N DC 7094 3
~'
pictLI,y NAW4 til DtK R 4, NUWtl 81 LII gg n Nyg,g n agi P A04 136
. .a " d.;;," $*,9 POINT BEACll HUCLEAR PLANT o l5 l0 l0 j 0 l216 l6 911 -
Sl011 -
010 l5 0' 71 sw w , . w n..ms w uncra- m emis In response to discovering that Point Beach Nuclear Plant had not been notified of previous access denials for contractor employees, the contractor hired an independent organization to conduct an audit of the personnel files of all active contractor employees. This audit was conducted between July 15 and August 1, 1991, and found no additional cases where unescorted access was recommended to any nuclear power plant without disclosing prior access denials.
In order to determine the scope of the reportable event, Wisconsin Electric began a file review of all persons, contractor and Wisconsin Electric employees who were granted access since January 3, 1990. The Wisconsin Electric file review suggested that two additional employees of the contractor had past positive drug / alcohol tests which were not disclosed by the contractor.
Additionally, a third audit of the contractor's background investigations was completed on August 7, 1991. Personnel files of individuals assigned to Point Beach Nuclear Plant since the previous audit were reviewed. The audit confirmed the two additional instances of individuals with prior access denials at other nuclear power plants due to positive drug screens. Both individuals were recommended for unescorted access without revealing their past access denials. Each of the individuals disclosed to Wisconsin Electric that unescorted access had been denied in the past. Ilowever, these disclosures were also overlooked and no follow-up actions were taken. A third individual had no fitness-for-duty incidents, but had an excessive number of driving while intoxicated (DWI) convictions.
Wisconsin Electric would not have authorized unescorted access for this individual if this information had been communicated by the contractor.
I hmC f erm 3044 iE495
t
,oxe 3,44 U S WWCL taa $4 0WLAf Da v COMol.4 0.
APPAovt0 o.8 No St% 9904
- I .Pt A4 8 4/3093 UCENSEE EVENT REPORT (LERI f,,,'n.',%'.""
Min"o"' *;o'n, .!?W.'
,*o'".'.",!! !
TEXT CONTINUATlON M*ATo'. "d".'*fiti NU'a !!,'J','!d?v '"' OMifi l T'A',' .
o, wa=oia".'4,",,",=a*v?,*o",,'%..',ilw?%?f, e o evociv. . ovo oc mas M'!:
..c,6,,,....., m.~,.., ,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,...,,,
naa "O ta r. %*,9 l
POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT 016lojojol21616 9 11 S l 0l 1 -
010 16 0F 7I ,
r4xsa,- , . ,w m ~aco auen,n CAUSES OF EVENT l The weakness in_the access screening process that resulted in l granting unescorted access to individuals that had previously ;
been denied access at other nuclear power plants without l Wisconsin Electric knowledge is attributed to two causes I 1
- 1. The Point Beach Nuclear Plant accuss screening process was ;
deficient. Disclosures _of prior unescorted access denials !
at other nuclear power plants were overlooked during the !
screening process. l f
- 2. Wisconsin Electric was not informed by the contractor that some employees being assigned to Point Beach Nuclear Plant f had been denied access at other nuclear-power facilities. !
i CORRECTIVE ACTlQRS i' The following corrective actions have been taken by Wisconsin !
Electric and the contractor in order to strengthen the unescorted !
access authorization process and minimize the potential for !
recurrence. I i
- 1. The format of the Wisconsin Electric release and authorization statement form has been revised-to reduce the !
likelihood for overlooking the disclosure of past unescorted access _ denials. This. form was formerly printed on two sides ;
with the. inquiry regarding access denials on the reverse !
side of the form. The form was revised to place all }
information on the front of the form. The revised form was ;
effective July-22, 1991. [
- 2. The release and authorization statement form will be:placed [
at'the front of an applicant's file during the unescorted j
j access authorization process. This measure will further [
enhance the visibility of the applicant's response to the l' inquiry regarding past access denials.
l .
r
> u . ~uca.uiovuio., w .
.,.,c,,, ow . ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
. .....n.=
', Ll0ENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ',5,'j",'J.',' 'd8!",M"o"',7, ;*fti,'o ff*fA' ,*',",'"Jj
'u 3
TEXT CONTINUAT10N f0"A",'A';! o'." fail.f"i'"!!,'J','l3,? '",' Of"U M?U W.t.','8".'J!"."aff",A',!"Z.in%?!J'A' '7?di OF h&GEMENT AND DVDGif WA Ms4GTON, DC MbC3
- ACitif, h&M4 til DUC"I' "UM84 R LII Lim WVuelm (6) P AOI 131
...- atim" ;'J.?,t:
POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT 0 6 0 l0 l0 l2 l6 l6 9 11 -1 Sl 0l 1 -
01 0 l7 0F 7l t m ,,, . - , - *.c ,- - n n
- 3. Wisconsin Electric has audited all release and authorization statement forms generated for unescorted access authorization at the Point Beach Nuclear Plant since January 3, 1990. Unescorted access has been reviewed for all files that indicated prior unescorted access denials at other nuclear power plants. All known cases are resolved.
- 4. The contractor has developed procedures to ensure proper :
notification of FFD related information.
SIGNIFICANCE OF EVENT ,
This event was evaluated with respect to security significance. [
Although programmatic weaknesses have been identified and -
subsequently corrected, no security threat renulted. i SIMILAR OCCURRENCES ,
Aside from the examples identified during the evaluation of this ;
i event, there have been no similar occurrences related to the fitness-for-duty suitable inquiry requirements and the associated l granting of unescorted access to Point Beach Nuclear Plant. !
i f
i l
I l !
l l
+
i.
1 i
4 l
l b N%C Penn 336A ($491
-- - _ . . , . , . . - - , . , - . - - . - . - . . . - . .. , . . - _ . _ , - _ . - . _ , . - _ , . - _ - - - . - - - . . - , - . - . -