ML072420225
| ML072420225 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 08/30/2007 |
| From: | Travers W Region 2 Administrator |
| To: | Duncan R Carolina Power & Light Co |
| References | |
| 2-2006-011, EA-07-040 IR-07-403 | |
| Download: ML072420225 (10) | |
See also: IR 05000400/2007403
Text
August 30, 2007
Carolina Power & Light Company
ATTN: Mr. Robert Duncan, II
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
(SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT - NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS
REPORT NO. 2-2006-011 AND INSPECTION REPORT NO.
Dear Mr. Duncan:
This refers to an investigation completed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) Office
of Investigations (OI) on September 27, 2006, (Report 2-2006-011) and an NRC in-office
inspection completed on April 13, 2007, (Report 05000400/2007402). The purpose of the
investigation and inspection was to determine whether contract security officers at Progress
Energy/Carolina Power and Light Companys (CPL) Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant (HNP) were
provided answers by supervisors during the administration of NRC required requalification
testing. The results of our review of this matter, including the identification of two apparent
violations, were transmitted to CPL by our letter dated April 13, 2007.
On May 30, 2007, a predecisional enforcement conference was conducted in the NRCs
Region II Office with CPL to discuss the apparent violations, the significance, root causes, and
CPLs corrective actions. At the conference, CPL did not contest the apparent violations, and
provided a detailed description of its corrective actions taken in response to the issue. CPL
stated that its root cause analysis concluded that the violations were caused by a lapse of
integrity on the part of contract supervisors and inadequate management oversight.
Based on the information developed during the inspection and investigation, and the
information you provided during the conference, the NRC has determined that one violation of
NRC requirements occurred. The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice)
and the circumstances surrounding it are described in detail in the subject inspection report and
OI investigation.
CPL 2
The violation involved the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55(b)(4)(I),Section II.E. of Appendix B to
10 CFR Part 73, the Shearon Harris Security Training and Qualification Plan, Revision 9,
Section 3.3.1, and Technical Specification (TS) 6.8. In September 2005, a supervisor
deliberately provided the answer key with tests he handed out during NRC-required annual
written security re-qualification testing (Armed Guard/Responder Crucial Task Test). During
2005, that same supervisor and two other supervisors deliberately provided answers to security
officers while administering NRC-required annual written security re-qualification testing (Armed
Guard/Responder Crucial Task Test) and while administering the NRC required annual re-
qualification computer based testing (Plant Access, Radiation Worker and Respiratory
Protection Training). As a result, numerous security officers were not tested or qualified as
required. Consequently, it could not be concluded with any degree of certainty that contract
security officers achieved the minimum passing score of 80 percent on the Plant Access,
Radiation Worker and Respiratory Protection Training, as specified by TS and Progress Energy
Nuclear Generation Group (Shearon Harris) Standard Procedure TRN-NGGC-0010, Plant
Access, Radiation Worker and Respiratory Protection Training, Revision 5. It also could not be
concluded with any degree of certainty that contract security officers achieved the minimum
passing score of 70 percent on the Armed Guard/Responder Crucial Task Test, as specified by
the Shearon Harris Security Training and Qualification Plan.
Although CPLs subsequent actions confirmed that contract security officers, in fact, possessed
the requisite knowledge as evidenced by their satisfactory completion of additional
examinations, the NRC considers the above violation to represent a significant deficiency in
CPLs processes for qualifying and testing of officers. In addition, the deliberate misconduct of
security supervisors raises a significant concern regarding CPLs oversight of its security
contractor, and calls into question the integrity of its contractors implementation of the
qualification process for its security officers. Therefore, this violation is categorized in
accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy at Severity Level III.
In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $65,000 is
considered for a Severity Level III violation. Because the violation was willful, the NRC
considered whether credit was warranted for Identification and Corrective Action in accordance
with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.C.2 of the Enforcement Policy.
In this case, concerns regarding possible improper testing were brought to the attention of the
NRC by outside stakeholder organizations in December 2005. The NRC notified CPL of the
concerns during its investigation into the matter as part of an on-site inspection/investigation in
January 2006. Therefore, credit is not warranted for the factor of Identification.
In response to this incident, CPL took numerous corrective actions, including: (1) performance
of a root cause investigation into the circumstances of this matter; (2) changes in the
administration of examinations such that examinations now will be given only by State certified
HNP security training personnel; (3) developing and including formal documentation of
examination requirements in HNPs procedures; and (4) re-administering examinations to
security officers by State certified training personnel.
CPL 3
CPL also noted that the individuals involved in the deliberate misconduct were no longer
employed by its security contractor, and provided details of various activities at the site to
improve the recruitment and retention of security staff.
Additional corrective actions included licensee and contractor emphasis on improvements in
communications at all levels of the security organization, the performance of additional field
observations of security related activities, and the increased use of the corrective action
program by security personnel. Based on the above, credit is warranted for the factor of
Corrective Action.
Therefore, to emphasize the importance of prompt identification of violations, and in recognition
of the significance of deliberate violations involving the training and qualification of security
officers, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, to
issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) in the
base amount of $65,000 for this Severity Level III violation.
The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reasons for the violation, the corrective
actions taken and planned to correct the violation and prevent recurrence and the date when
full compliance was achieved is already adequately addressed on the docket in this letter and in
the information provided by CPL at the conference. Therefore, you are not required to respond
to this letter unless the description therein does not accurately reflect your corrective actions or
your position. In that case, or if you choose to provide additional information, you should follow
the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice.
For administrative purposes, this letter is issued as a separate NRC Inspection Report,
05000400/2007403, and the above violation is identified as VIO 05000400/2007403-01,
Administration of NRC Required Annual Security Re-qualification Testing. Accordingly,
Apparent Violations (AVs)05000400/2007402-01, Administration of NRC Required Annual
Written Security Re-qualification Testing, and 05000400/2007402-02, Administration of NRC
Required Annual Plant Access, Radiation Worker and Respiratory Protection Training Testing,
are closed.
If you disagree with this enforcement sanction you may request Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) with the NRC in an attempt to resolve this issue. ADR is a general term encompassing
various techniques for resolving conflicts outside of court using a neutral third party. The
technique that the NRC has decided to employ is mediation. Additional information concerning
the NRC's program is described in the enclosed brochure (NUREG/BR-0317) and can be
obtained at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/adr.html. The Institute on
Conflict Resolution (ICR) at Cornell University has agreed to facilitate the NRCs program as an
intake neutral. Please contact ICR at 877-733-9415 within 10 days of the date of this letter if
you are interested in pursing resolution of this issue through ADR.
CPL 4
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this letter and
enclosures will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document
Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRCs document system
(ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-
rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact Mr. Joseph Shea,
Director, Division of Reactor Safety, at (404) 562-4600.
Sincerely,
/RA/
William D. Travers
Regional Administrator
Docket No.: 50-400
License No.: NPF-63
Enclosures:
1. Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition
of Civil Penalty
CPL 5
cc w/encls:
Paul Fulford, Manager
Performance Evaluation and
Regulatory Affairs CPB 9
Carolina Power & Light Company
P. O. Box 1551
Raleigh, NC. 27602-1551
Eric McCartney
Plant General Manager - Harris Plant
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant
P. O. Box 165, Mail Zone 3
New Hill, NC 27562-0165
Thomas Natale, Manager
Support Services
Carolina Power & Light Company
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant
P. O. Box 165, Mail Zone 1
New Hill, NC 27562-0165
J. Wayne Gurganious
Training Manager-Harris
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
Harris Energy & Environmental Center
P. O. Box 327
New Hill, NC 27562-0327
David H. Corlett, Supervisor
Licensing/Regulatory Programs
Carolina Power & Light company
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant
P. O. Box 165, Mail Zone 1
New Hill, NC 275-0165
David T. Conley
Associate General Counsel - Legal Department
Progress Energy Services Company, LC
P. O. Box 1551
Raleigh, NC 27602-1551
_________________________
OFFICE EICS:RII DRS OE NSIR OGC
SIGNATURE /RA Ssparks for/ /RA/ /RA Mburrell via /via email/
telephone for/
NAME CEVANS JSHEA R. Correia G. Longo
DATE 8/24/07 8/28/07 7/22/07 8/22/07
E-MAIL COPY? YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO
CPL 6
Subject: Letter to Mr. Duncan Dated:
Distribution w/encls:
L. Reyes, OEDO
M. Virgilio, DEDMRT
J. Dyer, NRR
W. Travers, RII
V. McCree, RII
L. Chandler, OGC
B. Jones, OGC
C. Carpenter, OE
E. Julian, SECY
B. Keeling, OCA
Enforcement Coordinators
RI, RIII, RIV
E. Hayden, OPA
G. Caputo, OI
H. Bell, OIG
M. Burrell, OE
M. Ashley, NRR
C. Casto, RII
J. Shea, RII
C. Evans, RII
S. Sparks, RII
R. Musser, RII
P. OBryan, RII
K. Clark, RII
R. Hannah, RII
R. Trojanowski, RII
OEMAIL
PUBLIC
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
AND
PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY
Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-400
Unit 1 License No. NPF-63
During an NRC investigation completed on September 27, 2006, and NRC in-office inspection
completed on April 13, 2007, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance
with the NRC Enforcement Policy, the NRC proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to
Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205. The violation and associated civil penalty are set forth below:
10 CFR 73.55(b)(4)(I), states, in part, that each guard, watchman, armed response
person, and other member of the security organization shall requalify in accordance with
Appendix B to this part at least every 12 months.
10 CFR Part 73, Appendix B, Section II.E., states, in part, that security personnel shall
be requalified at least every 12 months to perform assigned security-related job tasks
and duties for both normal and contingency operations. Requalification shall be in
accordance with NRC-approved licensee training and qualification plan.
Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant, Security Training and Qualification Plan, Revision 0,
dated October 18, 2004, Section 3.3.1, states, in part, that an annual written
examination shall be administered to armed security officers which samples the
knowledge requirements identified in the security training program.
Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant Technical Specification 6.8, requires, in part, the licensee
to develop and adhere to procedures listed in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.33, including
procedures for instructing workers on radiological safety.
Progress Energy Nuclear Generation Group (Shearon Harris) Standard Procedure TRN-
NGGC-0010, Plant Access, Radiation Worker and Respiratory Protection Training,
Revision 5, Section 9.5.2, paragraph 6, states in part, Plant Access Re-training (PAR) is
required annually with a tolerance of the remainder of the month in which the training
was completed. Section 9.5.3, paragraph 5, states in part, Radiation Worker Retraining
(RWR) is required annually with a tolerance of the remainder of the month in which the
training was completed. Section 9.8.3 states in part, Respiratory Protection Retraining
(RPR) is required annually with a tolerance of the remainder of the month in which the
training was completed.
Contrary to the above, in September 2005, the licensee failed to requalify members of
its security organization as required by 10 CFR Part 73 and Shearon Harris Nuclear
Plant Technical Specification 6.8. Specifically, a security supervisor provided the
answer key with tests he handed out during NRC-required annual written security re-
qualification testing (Armed Guard/Responder Crucial Task Test). Also, in 2005, that
same supervisor and two other supervisors provided answers to security officers during
Enclosure 1
Notice 2
the administration of NRC-required annual written security re-qualification testing
(Armed Guard/Responder Crucial Task Test) and while administering the NRC-required
annual re-qualification computer based testing (Plant Access, Radiation Worker and
Respiratory Protection Training). As a result, numerous security officers were not tested
or qualified as required.
This is a Severity Level III Violation (Supplement III).
Civil Penalty - $65,000.
The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reasons for the violation, the corrective
actions taken and planned to correct the violation and prevent recurrence and the date when
full compliance was achieved is already adequately addressed on the docket in the information
provided by licensee at the pre-decisional enforcement conference, and in the cover letter
transmitting this Notice. However, if the description therein does not accurately reflect your
position or your corrective actions, you are required to submit a written statement or explanation
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201. In that case, or if you choose to respond, clearly mark your
response as a Reply to a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty, EA-07-
040 and send it to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville, MD 20852-2738, with a copy to the Regional
Administrator, U.S., Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II, and a copy to the NRC
Resident Inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice.
Within 30 days of the date of this Notice, the Licensee may pay the civil penalty proposed
above in accordance with NUREG/BR-0254 and by submitting to the Director, Office of
Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a statement indicating when and by what
method payment was made, or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part, by
a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. Should the Licensee fail to answer within 30 days of the date of this Notice, the
NRC will issue an order imposing the civil penalty. Should the Licensee elect to file an answer
in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such answer
should be clearly marked as an "Answer to a Notice of Violation" and may: (1) deny the
violations listed in this Notice, in whole or in part; demonstrate extenuating circumstances; (3)
show error in this Notice; or (4) show other reasons why the penalty should not be imposed. In
addition to protesting the civil penalty in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or
mitigation of the penalty.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the response should address the factors
addressed in Section VI.C.2, Civil Penalty Assessment, of the Enforcement Policy.
Any written answer addressing these factors pursuant to 10 CFR 2.205, should be set forth
separately from the statement or explanation provided pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may
incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g., citing page and
paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of the Licensee is directed to the other
provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty.
Enclosure 1
Notice 3
Upon failure to pay any civil penalty which subsequently has been determined in accordance
with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205 to be due, this matter may be referred to the
Attorney General, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be
collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c.
If you choose to respond, your response will be made available electronically for public
inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the NRCs document system (ADAMS),
to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, classified or
safeguards information so that it can be made available to the public without redaction.
ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If
personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide an acceptable response,
then please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that
should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such information. If you
request that such material is withheld from public disclosure, you must specifically identify the
portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for
your claim (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.390(b) to support a request
for withholding confidential commercial or financial information). If safeguards information is
necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described
in 10 CFR 73.21.
In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice within two working
days.
Dated this 30th day of August 2007
Enclosure 1