IR 05000272/1996014

Forwards NOV & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in Amount of $100,000 for Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-272/96-14,50-311/96-14 & 50-354/96-08.Predecisional Enforcement Conference Held on 961114

ML20133A443
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	12/11/1996
From:	Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Eliason L Public Service Enterprise Group
Shared Package
ML20133A446	List: IR 05000272/1996014 ML20133A449
References
EA-96-344, NUDOCS 9612310095
Download: ML20133A443 (5)

Text

F

,,

.'

. .

f #g UNITED STATES

,

y g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$ 9j REGloN I 475 ALLENDALE ROAD o,% ,o*# KING oF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 194061415

....+

December 11, 1996 EA 96-344 Mr. Leon Chief Nuclear Officer and President Nuclear Business Unit Public Service Electric and Gas Company Post Office Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VirS ATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVll PENALTIES -

$100,000 (NRCinspection Reports No. 50-272/96-14,50-311/96-14 and 50-354/96-08)

Dear Mr. Eliason:

This letter refers to the NRC inspections conducted at the Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations between August 15-September 3,1996. Four apparent violations were discussed with you at an exit meeting in the Region I office on September 3,1996. Two additional apparent violations were identified subsequent to the September 3,1996 exit meeting and were discussed in a telephone conversation with your staff on September 25,1996. The inspection report was sent to you on September 30,1996. On November 14,1996, a predecisional enforcement conference was conducted with you and members of your staff to discuss the apparent violations identified during the inspection, their causes, and your corrective actions.

Based on our review of the inspection findings, and information provided during the conference, six violations are being cited and are described in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties (Notice). Three of the violations relate to two specific events which occurred involving the failure to control access to the facility. One event involved a security force member taping a photobadge keycard area door lock, due to problems with the lock, thereby allowing any individual who had gone through the search process the opportunity to obtain a photobadge keycard and use it to access the protected area. This failure to control photobadge key cards for entry into the protected area, which constitutes the first violation, could have allowed unauthorized access to the protected area.

This violation, which is set forth in Section I.A. of the enclosed Notice, was identified when an NRC inspector observed that the locking mechanism on the door to that specific photobadge issue area had been taped over rendering the lock inoperable. At the time the lock was observed as inoperable by the inspector, the area was not occupied by security force personnel (SFP), and no compensatory measures were in place for this degradation. You subsequently took immediate action to remove the tape, restore the lock to an operable condition, and verify that this degradation had not resulted in an unauthorized entry into the protected or vital areas of the facilities. Nonetheless, this condition created an opportunity for unauthorized individuals to gain access to the protected and vital areas, and, as such, represented a significant degradation of the security program at the facility. Therefore, the violation has been categorized at Severity Leveilllin accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600.

9612310095 961211 PDR ADOCK 05000272 G PDR

% 4g Public Service Electric and 2 .

Gas Company l

l

The second event involved a contractor individual accessing the protected area without a pat-down search, as required, after the individual had, on three occasions, alarmed two separate metal detectors at the access control point. In addition, your staff's initial followup after the second event was poor. in this case, although the contractor employee was allegedly told by security force personnel to stand aside and await a hands-on search to determine the cause of the alarms, the contractor employee went to the badge issue area, was issued a photo badge / key card, and entered the protected area without being detained by security force personnel, contrary to NRC requirements. This violation is described in Se etion I.B.1 of the Notice. Subsequently, although a security supervisor initiated acticas to identify the contractor individual once notified of the event, the security supervisor did not notify the Senior Nuclear Shift Supervisor onsite, which was required since the contractor individual should have been considered an intruder. Your NRC-approved Security Contingency Plan requires such notification whenever there is an intruder at the facility. This violation is described in Section I.B.2 of the Notice. The contractor individual was not identified by the officers performing the search function until 50 minutes after his entry.

Although appropriate searches were conducted once the contractor was located, including searches of the individual, his locker, and his whereabouts while uncontrolled in the protected area, the NRCis concerned that the control room was not notified, as required, of the potential security threat that existed, and the contractor's badge / key card was not deactivated during l that time, which would have precluded him from entering any vital areas, in addition, the  ;

contractor was not paged on the plant paging system, once he was identified, to expedite l locating him. These failures also constitute a significant regulatory concern regarding your regard for control of access to the f acilities, and therefore, the two violations are categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level 111 problem in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600.

These three violations of fundamental access control requirements at nuclear power plants represent a significant degradation in the security program at the f acility, that during the prior SALP, had been recognized as a strength at the f acility. At the enforcement conference, you acknowledged problems in the work culture at the facility, and also noted that deficiencies in procedural adequacy, procedural adherence, job skills, and management oversight contributed to these violations. It is important that these causes are fully corrected to ensure that only i authorized individuals are granted entry to protected and vital areas.

In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $50,000 is considered for a Severity Levellli problem or violation. Your facilities have been the subject of escalated enforcement actions within the last 2 years. For example, Severity Level ll1 violations and cumulative civil penalties in the amount of $600,000 were issued on October 16,1995 for, in part, severalinstances of the f ailure to identify and correct conditions adverse to quality at Salem (Reference: EAs 95-62/95-65/95-117). In addition to these Salem violations, a Severity Level 111 violation and a civil penalty in the amount of $100,000 was issued to your Hope Creek f acility on August 24,1995, for inadequacies in shutdown cooling system operations. Therefore, the NRC considered, for each Severity Level lli violation and problem, whether credit was warranted for /dentifiestims and Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy.

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

t

!

.- f  !

! l

.  :

l. Public Service Electric and 3 l Gas Company l

!  !

! With respect to the violation in Section I.A., credit is not warranted for /dentification because l the violation was identified by the NRC. Credit is warranted for Conective Action because at !

j the time of the enforcement conference, your actions were considered both prompt and l

comprehensive. These actions, which were discussed during your presentation at the  ;

'

j- conference, include, but are not limited to the following: (1) replacement of security

{ management; (2) reestablishing expectations and direction in the security department; (3) ,

,

ensuring management involvement in the program; and (4) upgrading the training of security  !

l personnel. j

! l

) As to the problem in Section I.B, credit is not warranted for /dentification because the violation !

) was self-revealing when security personnel could not locate the individual, and then failed to i notify the control room as required. Credit is warranted for Conective Action because at the i time of the enforcement conference, your actions, as already described, were considered both

}- prompt and comprehensive. , ;

i  :

! Accordingly, to encourage prompt identification and correction of violations, I have been I j authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, to propose a separate i civil penalty of $50,000 for each of the Severity Levellli violations and problems in Sections ;

! I and 11 of the enclosed Notice. The total civil penalties proposed for this action is $100,000. I

!

l The three other violations identified during the inspection are described in Section il of the

{ enclosed Notice and are classified at Severity LevellV. Those violations involve (1) the f ailure l l to deactivate photo badge key cards for individuals who no longer required site access after r i being terminated; (2) the f ailure to complete training for security supervisors prior to assigning j them to perform supervisory duties; and (3) the failure to test an intrusion detection system j- in accordance with procedures.

j You are rewired to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the

}

enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the

specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After

! reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the

! results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action j is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.

l l In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its

enclosure, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). To the j extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy, p oprietary, or j safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR. If redactions are required, a i proprietary version containing brackets placed around the proprietary, privacy, sad /or

! safeguards information should be submitted. In addition, a non-proprietary version with the

! information in the brackets redacted should be submitted to be placed in the PDR.

I i

Sincerely,

! -

1 i i

Hu rt J. Miller 4 Regional Administrator

!

! l l

I

<

_ - __ , ,

, . . - . _ . __ . - _ .

.

i .*;

l Public Service Electric and 4 .

Gas Company

Docket Nos. 50-272, 50-311, 50-354 l

[ License Nos. DPR-70, DPR-75, NPF-57 Enclosure: Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties cc w/ encl:

L. Storz, Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations E. Simpson, Senior Vice President - Nuclear Engineering E. Salowitz, Director - Nuclear Business Support C. Schaefer, External Operations - Nuclear, Delmarva Power & Light Co. *

D. Garchow, General Manager - Salem Operations M. Bezilla, General Manager - Hope Creek Operations J. Benjamin, Director - Quality Assurance & Nuclear Safety Review  !

D. Powell, Manager, Licensing and Regulation R. Kankus, Joint Owner Affairs A. Tapert, Program Administrator R. Fryling, Jr., Esquire M. Wetterhahn, Esquire P. MacFarland Goelz, Manager, Joint Generation Atlantic Electric  ;

Consumer Advocate, Office of Consumer Advocate W. Conklin, Public Safety Consultant, Lower Alloways Creek Township i Public Service Commission of Maryland State of New Jersey State of Delaware

.

. ... . ._

,

.- .

Public Service Electric and Gas Company i

DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC SECY CA JTaylor, EDO JMilhoan, DEDR JLieberman, OE HMiller, RI  !

< FDavis, OGC FMiraglia, NRR RZimmerman, NRR

,

Enforcement Coordinators Rl, Rll, Rlli, RIV BBeecher, GPA/PA GCaputo, Ol

! DBangan, OSP -

i HBell, OlG ,

,

EJordan, AEOD  !

J

OE:EA (2)

NUDOCS >

DScrenci, PAO-Ri NSheehan, PAO-Rl LTremper, OC i Nuclear Safety information Center (NSIC)  ;

NRC Resident inspectors - Salem and Hope Creek I

'

ub{'ie To ,eceive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy w at attachment / enclosure 'E' = Copy with attachme osure

'N' = No copy a f 0FFICE RI:0RA hA&

"

RI:DRSf/ l RI:DRP r_ , l RI:RC RI,:% /k l NAME DHolody/mjc "I" JWigg6 W RCooper1 #/1 KSmM4 M20BE% HM)1RT# ~

DATE 11/' ((/9V^ 11//1% 11/$)/56 W/ 11/ 21 /96 11'/j4 /96

0FFICE DEf RI: DEDO N l

. NAME gieberman JMilhoan \

DATE \/11/ /96 11/ /96 /

'O V

Yh OFFICIAL RECORD COPY a: PROP-SHC.SEC

+Mil-

-

i 310026