IR 05000266/1992017

Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-266/92-17 & 50-301/92-17.Corrective Actions:Use of Word Poor Did Not Accurately Reflect Specific Procedures in Place

ML20126B312
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	12/10/1992
From:	Pederson C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Link R WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 9212220051
Download: ML20126B312 (4)

Text

b 3 ()cN WP i

DEC 1019$

Docket No. 50-266 Docket No. 50-301 Wisconsin Electric Power Company ATTN: Mr. Robert Vice President Nuclear Power 231 West Mlchigan Street - P379 Milwaukee, WI 53201

Dear Mr. Link:

SUBJECT: POINT BEACH NUCLEAR FACILITY NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORTS NO. 50-266/92017(DRSS); 50-301/92017(DRSS))

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated October 26, 1992, in response to our letter dated September 25, 1992, transmitting a Notice of Violation associated with Inspection Report Nos. 50-266/92017 and 50-l 301/92017. We have reviewed your corrective actions and have no further l questions at this time. These corrective actions will be examined during j future inspections.

Although your response confirms the cited violations, it also indicated a concern that some portions of the Notice of Violation and Report Details did not accurately characterize the findings. We have reviewed your concern and concluded that the report did accurately characterize the issues with the exception that a date associated with one violation was misplaced.

,

Sincerely, Cynthia D. Pederson, Chief Rector Support Programs Branch Enclosure: As Stated cc w/ enclosure:

G. J. Maxfield, Plant Manager DCD/DCB (RIDS)

OC/LFDCB Re .. der!t Inspector, RIII Virgil Kanable, Chief Boiler Section 210000 Cheryl L. Parrino, Wisconsin Public Service Commission Robert M. Thompson, Administrator WI Div of Emergency Govt.

d sd r d a rson

~

/L[f/pt 9212220051 921210

.

cA PDR ADOCK 05000266 l\g G PDR

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

(

,

DEC 1 u 1933 Docket No. 50-266 Docket No. 50-301 Wisconsin Electric Power Company ATTN: Mr. Robert Vice President Nuclear Power 231 West Michigan Street - P379 Milwaukee, WI 53201

Dear Mr. Link:

SUBJECT: POINT BEACH NUCLEAR FACILITY NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTIO!!

REPORTS N0. 50-266/92017(DRSS); 50-301/92017(DRSS))

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated October 26, 1992, in response to our letter dated September 25, 1992, transmitting a Notice of Violation associated with Inspection Report Nos. 50-266/92017 and 50-301/92017. We have reviewed your corrective actions and have no further questions at this time, iThese corrective actions will be examined during future inspections. j Although your response confirms the cited violations, it also indicated a concern that some pertions of the Notice of Violation and Report Details did not accurately characterize the findings. We have reviewed your concern and concluded that the report did accurately characterize the issues with the exception that a date associated with one violation was misplaced.

" kin!I ' - lcf 4. " , ' , , ' -

Cynthia D. Pederson, Chief Reactor Support Programs Branch Enclosure: As Stated cc w/ enclosure:

G. J. Maxfield, Plant Manager DCD/DCB (RIDS)

OC/LFDCB Resident Inspector, RIII Virgil Kanable, Chief Boiler Section Cheryl L. Parrino, Wisconsin Public Service Connission Robert M. Thompson, Administrator WI Div of Emergency Govt.

(See Attached Sheet)

RIII RIII RIII RII q Madeda/sd Creed Jackiw P 1 rson Q l0 9 f

,

-d t-I-J EHCLOSURE 1. Licensee Position: The inspection report characterized the violation as a failure of contract employees to conform to licensee security procedures. A review of the incident indicated personnel error as the cause of the violation.

NRC Response: We do not believe the report characterized the violation as a failure to conform to a licensee security procedure. The violation was caused by multiple individual errors and was so noted in the report.

2. Licens'.e Position: The inspection report noted a weakness concerning " poor" procedures. The licensee did not believe the use of the word " poor" was an accurate reflection of specific procedures in place.

NRC Response: Poor procedures referred to lack of written direction regarding two elements of the security power system. These two elements are identified in Section 5.b of the report details.

3. Licensee Position: Paragraph b. of the Notice of Violation states that the licensee received the information "on April 10 and April 15, 1992." In addition, the paragraph continues, "...r.o for-cat'se test was conducted until August 25, 1992." In fact, no for-cause test was conducted.

NRC Responce: We agree that on April 10, 1992, the licensee did not receive the information. On April 10, 1992, the contractor, an agent of the licensee, received the information. We also agree no for-cause test was conducted. The phrase "until August 25, 1992" was misplaced and should have been used to modify that part of the :;entence that states that the licensee did not act on the information. The sentence should have read:

"The licensee did not act on the information until August 25, 1992 and no for-cause test was conducted."

4. Licensee Position: The inspection report identified the 'dividual as a plant employee. However, the indi,idual was a contractor.

NRC Response: The individual was employed at the plant as a contractor. Consequently, the phrase " plant employee" was used.

_ _ _ - - _ ___

,

'

l I

J 5. Licensee Position: Page 9 of the inspection report states that it was confirmed, ". . .that the named plant employee used illegal drugs while employed at Point Beach." In fact, no one interviewed in the investigation who had a conversation with the individual ever attributed to the individual any direct statement of drug use while employed at PBNP. The statement said that the individual's bar conversation dwelled on the use of drugs by himself and by his girlfriend without reference to any specific time or place.

NRC Response: Page 2 of your Investigation / Incident Journal, Report No. 069/92, stated that "the statements tend to indicate that the individual continued to use illegal drugs." Therefore, our conclusion as stated in the report was based on the results of your investigative conclusions.

6. Licensee Position: The third paragraph on page 10 of the inspection report states, "The Corporate Security Representative did not docun.ent his evaluation and conclusions for granting access."

Similarly, the last paragraph on page 10 of the inspection report states, "However, documentation of this decision was not done."

The licensee believes that the Corporate Security Representative did document his evaluation and conclusion for granting access.

All information was recorded and concluded with a judgement that it was not necessary to subject the individual to the licensee's Fitness for Duty (FFD) reinstatement procedures.

~

NRC Response: We agree that all necessary screening information was adequately recorded. However, documentation did not indicate why the judgement to allow access concluded it was not necessary to subject the individual to the licensee's FFD/ Access Authorization Reinstatement procedure.

,

-

l

_