IR 05000400/1998002

Discusses Insp Rept 50-400/98-02 on 971208-12 & Forwards Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $55,000.Violation I Involves Two Examples Where Individuals Inappropriately Granted Unescorted Access

ML20216H508
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	03/26/1998
From:	Reyes L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Robinson W CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
Shared Package
ML20216H513	List: IR 05000400/1998002 ML20216H516
References
50-400-98-02, 50-400-98-2, EA-98-020, EA-98-20, NUDOCS 9804210159
Download: ML20216H508 (9)

Text

y

,

a ;,

r March 26, 1998 EA 98-020-Carolina-Power and Light Company ATTNi Mr. W. .

Vice President - Harris Plant Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant P. O. Box 165. Mail Code: Zone 1

,

New Hill. NC 27562-0165 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY -

$55.000 AND EXERCISE OF DISCRETION (NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-400/98-02)

Dear Mr. - Robinson:

This refers to the inspection conducted on December 8-12. 1997, at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. The inspection included a review of the access authorization program at the Harris plant. The results of the inspection were discussed with members of your staff at the exit conducted on January 21.

1998, and formally transmitted to you by letter dated January 23. 1998. An open predecisional enforcement conference was conducted in the Region II office on February 26, 1998, with you and members of your staff to discuss the apparent violations. the root causes. and corrective actions to preclude recurrence, A list of conference attendees, copies of the Nuclear Regulatory

. Commission's (NRC's) slides, and Carolina Power and Light Company's (CP&L)

presentation materials are enclosed.

Based on the information developed during the inspection and the information you provided during the conference the NRC has determined that violations of NRC requirements occurred. -The violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation, and the circumstances surrounding them are described in detail in the subject inspection report. Violation I involves two examples where individuals were ina)propriately granted unescorted access to the protected and vital areas of tie plant because pertinelt information was not properly reviewed and evaluated in accordance with M CFR 73.56(b)(3). License Condition Amendment No. 75, and plant pr'.,cedures. Specifically, the first example involves your lack of adequato review and evaluation of pertinent information on a Personnel History Questionnaire (PHO) related to illegal use

-

or possession of a controlled substance, which allowed an individual to be inappropriately granted unescorted access to the' protected and vital areas from April 5 to May 15.1997. Had a thorough review of the PHO been conducted. the individual would not have been granted unescorted access because ywr procedures delineate that information reh.ted to illegal use or possession of a controlled substance is sufficient to disqualify an individual

~for unescorted access. This example was identified on June 24, 1997. well after the individual was favorably terminated, when you received the results of a Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal background history check. The second example involves the inappropriate granting of unescorted access to three contractors after a psychological assessment determined that unescorted 9804210159 980326 PDR

G ADOCK 05000400 I

,

PDR ]

.

. - _ _ _

-. ..

.

.

. . .

.

l

.

-

.

Carolina Power and Light Company 2 access for these individuals should be held in abeyance pending further evaluation. You subsequently determined that one of these three individuals, who was granted unescorted access to the 3rotected and vital areas from April 8 to May 13. 1997, should not have Jeen granted unescorte<1 access. The two other individuals were later determined to satisfy criteria for granting unescorted access to protected and vital areas. This second example also was identified well after the individuals were favorably terminated, through a routine review of access authorization files. At the conference. you

,1dentified the root causes of the violation to be personnel errors and inattention to detail. A contributing cause was a failure to establish and utilize adequate performance indicators to assess organizational performance following previous access authorization events in 1996. As discussed at the predecisional enforcement conference. the NRC also considers a contributing cause of these access authorization issues to be a lack of effective management of changes in the security access program.

Although your subsequent review of plant access, security records, and work history of the individuals involved did not find adverse consequences, this violation represents a significant regulatory concern. Your inability to control access authorization through established systems or procedures could compromise overall plant security. Had your staff conducted a thorough review and evaluation of pertinent information individuals would not have been granted unescorted access to protected and vital areas, or additional evaluation would have been warranted prior to granting unescorted access. The manner in which your access authorization 3rogram was implemented is contrary to the objectives and requirements in 10 C R 73.56 of providing high assurance that unescorted access be granted only to individuals who are reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, this violation has been classified in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy). NUREG-1600, as a Severity Level III violation.

In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $55.000 is considered for a Severity Level III violation. Because your facility pas been the subject of escalated enforcement actions within the last two years , the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for Identification and Corrective Action in accordance with the civil senalty assessment process

~

in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. The N1C determined that credit was warranted for Identification because you identified the first access authorization example through a procedurally required criminal history record check by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Independent of this issue, you identified the second example regarding the psychological evaluations through your normal review process of access authorization records. Your corrective actions were both prompt and comprehensive, and included: (1) suspension of the subject individuals' eligibility for future access: (2) an immediate second review of back

.

temporary clearances:(3) ground files andofreview enhancements of psychological the psychologists' reviewand form PHQ and data for the PHQ form: (4) a procedurally required second review of access I

A severity Level 111 problem was issued on April 24. 1997 associated with multiple failures to implement various aspects of the Access Authorization and Fitness for Duty programs (EA 97-056.97-057.

97-058).

.. .

.

.

.

. . . .

_

i

..

l .

Carolina Power and Light Company 3 authorization files prior to granting access: (5) strengthening the performance of the individuals in the access authorization program:

l (6) discussions of lessons learned with the security staff; and (7)

development of a means to monitor personnel performance. Thus, based on the above, the.NRC has concluded that credit is warranted for Identification and Corrective Action.

Normally, a civil penalty would not be considered for a violation categorized at Severity Level III when the licensee has been given credit for Identification and Corrective Action. However, this violation is similar to earlier violations identified in NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-325.324/97-01.

50-400/97-02. and 50-261/97-02, and dispositioned as escalated enforcement (EA 97-056.97-057. 97-058. issued April 24. 1997). The previous enforcement actions were associated with multiple failures to im)lement various aspects of your corporate access authorization programs at the iarris and Brunswick plants. As you reiterated at the )redecisional enforcement conference, the access authorization program for tie Harris. Brunswick, and Robinson facilities is a corporate managed ard implemented program. Violations A.1 and A.4 of EA 97-056.97-057. 97-058 were issued because your corporate access

.

'

authorization program did not adequately review and evaluate all pertinent information developed as part of the decision to grant, deny. revoke. or continue an unescorted access authorization in accordance with 10 CFR 73.56(b)(3). These violations also resulted in individuals being inap3ropriately granted unescorted access to protected and vital areas. Based on t1e similarity of the issues documented in Inspection Report No.

50-400/98-02 and discussed at the predecisional enforcement conference with those violations issued as part of EA 97-056,97-057. 97-058, the NRC has determined that the exercise of discretion is appropriate in accordance with Section VII.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy. Therefore, to emphasize the importance of precluding similar violations associated with the access authorization program. I have been authorized. after consultation with the

. Directc,r. Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory.Effectiveners. to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the base amount of $55.000 for the Severity Level III violation.

An additional issue discussed in Inspection Report No. 50-400/98-02 as EEI~

50-400/98-02-01. and at the predecisional enforcement conference, concerns the

. granting of unescorted access to 14 individuals prior to the review / adjudication of all pertinent information listed on the PHQ. Your review determined that the file containing various access authorization material for these individuals was missing certain information. This missing L information was required to be reviewed prior to granting unescorted access in

! accordance with your procedures. Nonetheless, the 14 inaividuals were l

inappropriately granted unescorted access; however, your subsequent reviews l determined that the missing information would not have precluded the granting

! of unescorted access to protected and vital areas. For this reason, the NRC has determined that this violation of plant procedures is less significant.

Although you identified and corrected this issue, the NRC has determined that this violation should be classified at Severity Level IV because it also is similar to Violation A.1 and A.4 of EA 97-056,97-057, and 97-058.

!

I j

.

.

Carolina Power and Light Company 4 You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will

- use your response, in part, to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice." a copy of this letter, its enclosures, and your response will be placed in toe NRC Public Document Room (PDR).

Sincerely, orignial signed by J. R. Johnson for L. A. Reyes Luis A. Reyes Regional Administrator Docket Nos. 50-400 License Nos. DPR-63 Enclosures 1. Notice of Violation 2. List of Attendees 3, NRC Slides 4. Licensee Material l

l l

l

.

, Carolina Power and Light Company 5 cc w/encls:

D. B. Alexander. Manager Performance Evaluation and Regulatory Affairs OHS 7 Carolina Power & Light Company l 412 S. Wilmington Street Raleigh, NC 27601

'

ll J. W. Donahue Director of Site Operations l Carolina Power & Light Company Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant l P. O. Box 165. MC: Zone 1 l New Hill. NC 27562-0165

Bo Clark l Plant General Manager - Harris Plant l Carolina Power & Light Company l Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant

P. D. Box 165 l New Hill. NC 27562-0165 l

Chris A. VanDenburgh, Manager

!

Regulatory Affairs Carolina Power & Light Company Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant l

!

P. O. Box 165. Mail Zone 1 New Hill. NC 27562-0165 d

'

Johnny H. Eads. Supervisor Licensing / Regulatory Programs ;

Carolina Power & Light Company !

Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant I

' P. O. Box 165. Mail Zone 1 !

New Hill. NC 27562-0165 i i

W. D. Johnson. Vice President and Senior Counsel i

, Carolina Power & Light Company l

P. O. Box 1551 i Raleigh. NC 27602 l l

l l

[

.

.

Carolina Power and Light Company 6 cc w/ enc 1: (Con't)

,

Mel Fry. Acting Director I

Division of Radiation Protection N. C. Department of Environment.

l Health & Natural Resources

! 3825 Barrett Drive Raleigh, NC 27609-7721 Karen E. Long Assistant A.ttorney General State of North Carolina P. O. Box 629 l I

Raleigh. NC 27602 i

Public Service Commission State of South Carolina

'

P. O. Box 11649 Columbia SC 29211 Chairman of the North Carolina utilities Commission P. O. Box 29510 Raleigh, NC 27626-0510 Robert P. Gruber l Executive Directre i Public Staff NCUC P. O. Box 29520 Raleigh, NC 27626 Stewart Adcock, Chairman Board of County Commissioners of Wake County P. O. Box 550 Raleigh NC 27602 Margaret Bryant Pollard. Chairman

,

Board of County Commissioners of Chatham County .

P. O. Box 87 Pittsboro, NC 27312 l

!

.

O Carolina Power and Light Company Distribution w/encls:

LJCallan, EDO HThompson, DEDR

- AThadani, DEDE LChandler, OGC JGoldberg, OGC EJulian, SECY BKeeling, CA -

Enforcement Coordinators RI, Rill, RIV JLieberman, OE WBeecher, OPA GCaputo, Ol TMartin, AEOD HBell, OlG CEvans, Ril KClark, Ril JJaudon, Ril BMallett, Ril LPlisco; Ril CCasto, Ril MShymiock, Ril MTschiltz, OEDO ABoland, Ril SFlanders, NRR JLusher, OE

, GMacDonald, Ril l OE:EA File (BSummers, OE)(2 letterhead)

l vPUBLIC NRC Resident inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5421 Shearon Harris Road New Hill, NC 27562-9998 6 g f

SEND TO PUBLIC DOCLMENT R00M7 NEM NO /

OFFICE Ril:DRS Rl!*DRP /#idlCS Ril:0RA Ril[0RA Slgnature g j ,/ M [

NAME JJaudog LPl sco 7 p and CEvans JJohnson DATE 3/ W /98 3/%f98 3/h))/98 3/2.0 /98 3/ /98_

f COPY? h NO YES NO [YIS NO YES M YES NO U

-

OFFICIAL RECORD' COPY

.

.

Carolina Power and Light Company 7 Distribution w/encls:

LJCallan, EDO HThompson, DEDR AThadani, DEDE LChandler, OGC JGoldberg. OGC EJulian, SECY BKeeling. CA i Enforcement Coordinators RI. RIII. RIV l

JLieberman. OE WBeecher. 0?A GCaputo, 01 TMartin. AEOD HBell. OIG l

.

' CEvans. RII i KClark, RII JJaudon, RII BMallett. RII

, LPlisco, RII

!

CCasto. RII l MShymlock. RII MTschiltz. OEDO

ABoland, RII

SFlanders, NRR JLusher, OE GMacDonald. RII OE:EA File (BSummers 00(2 letterhead)

PUBLIC

! NRC Resident Inspector l U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

! 5421 Shearon Harris Road l New Hill. NC 275G2-9998

.

I

'

O I

f 4 D l. (' .

!

.

i

i

i siOOO4 M.

s

-

V

// 7-ser