ML20034G899

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances for October 1992. Pages 221-249

ML20034G899
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/28/1993
From:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:
References
NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-V36-N04, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-V36-N4, NUDOCS 9303120069
Download: ML20034G899 (34)

Text

.

q.

9 l

l 1

1 i

.i NUREG-0750 Vol. 36, No. 4 i

j Pages 221-249 hr

,r m w.

w7 y,

I er m 4

4 x.;

5 s

(

NUCliEARTREGULATOFIVs

~

1 fCOMMISSIONilSSUANCnSi 1

\\

1 L:

i 6

Oct6ber 1992?

i 3

I l

I 4

0 ar s n

r Rq og Y

i f4 i

M*ffK i

1 I

)

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO SSION l

l 9303120069 930228 PDR NUREG PDR 0750 R 1

g i'

~

l i

NUREG-0750 Vol. 36, No. 4 l

Pages 221-249 i

I I

j

NUCLEARiREGOLAT.DRV. i!

^

[

I 2COMMISS10NLISSOANCEsl e

l Le6totier%. 9.1 I

+

l i

[p' s

- [!

d

}

<[

b

)$

g;{

Q 1

hO i

i I

i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

l i

l t

i

}

. - ~ -.

~ -. -. -

i 1

s i

ti Available from j

Superintentendent of Documents -

U.S. Government Printing Office Post Office Box 37082 l

Washington, D.C. 20013-7082 j

l A year's subscription consists of 12 softbour'd issues.

l 4 indexes, and 2-4 hardbound editions for this publication.

t I

Single copies of this publication are available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 l

I 1

i P

l i

Errors in this publication may be reported to the

.j Division of Freedom of information and Publications Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 j

(301/492-8925) j 1

i i

~

l I

l

b f

?

NUREG-0750 Vol. 36. No. 4 i

Pages 221-249 a

1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES October 1992 l

i i

This report includes the issuances received during the specified period from the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).

The summarios and headnotes preceding the opinions reported herein are not to be deemed a part of those opinions or have any independent legal significance.

i l

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO.N i

Prepared by the Division of Freedom of information and Publications Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 (301/492-8925) i

t I

i

~!

e t

COMMISSIONERS t

Ivan Selin, Chairman Kenneth C. Rogers James R. Curtiss Forrest J. Remick l

E. Gait de Planque i

A t

B. Paul Cotter, Jr., Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board Panel i

.I I

I 1

i y

CONTENTS Issuance of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission GEO-TECil ASSOCIATES l

(Geo. Tech Laboratories)

Docket 030-20693 (License No. 29-18205-02)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, CL1-92-14, October 21,1992..... 221

{

Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION, et al.

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Unit 2)

Docket 50-320-OLA-2 (ASLBP No. 91-643-11-OLA-2)

(Re: License Amendment)(Post-Defueling Monitored Storage)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LBP-92-29, October 5,1992..... 225 i

GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION, et al.

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Unit 2)

Docket 50-320-OLA-2 (ASLEP No. 91-643-11-OLA-2) l (Re: License Amendment) (Post-Defueling Monitored Storage)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LDP-92-30 October 16, 1992... 227 Issuance of Director's Decision

-l IIOUSTON LIGliTING AND POWEP, COMPANY (South Texas Project. Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50498,50-499

+

I DIRECIDR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. f 2.206, DD-92-5, October 5,1992............

..................... 231 i

r r

iii t

e

a m

,4y.

,4 3

g l

l ll l

i l

l l

l COmmlSSIOn e

e Issuances 9

l l

I l

l l

Z l

O i

W i

in 1

i lEo O

t i

i l

I i

l 1

i s

j l

a t

1 l

r Cite as 36 NRC 221 (1992)

CLI 92-14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j

COMMISSIONERS:

i Ivan Selin, Chairman Kenneth C. Rogers 3

James R. Curtiss i

i Forrest J. Remick E. Gail de Planque in the Matter of Docket No. 030-20G93 (License No. 29-18205-02)

GEO-TECH ASSOCIATES (Geo-Tech Laboratories)

October 21,1992 The Commission refers to its Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP) a late-filed and deficient request by Geo-Tech Associates for a hearing on an order revoking its materials license for failure to pay the annual license fee required by 10 C.F.R. Part 171. The Commission dimcts the 1 residing officer to consider the hearing request under the criteria for late filings in 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a)(1), in the absence of regulations governing late-filed and deficient hearing requests on enforcement orders.

The Commission also pmvides guidance on any hearing held on this issue, because this is the first hearing request on enforcement sanctions for failure to pay license fees. The Commission suggests that the scope of any hearing should be limited to whether the Licensec's fee was properly assessed and that challenges to the fee schedule or its underlying methodology would not be.

proper in this type of proceeding.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On August 11,1992, the NRC's Deputy Chief Financial Officer / Controller issued an order to Geo-Tech Associates (Geo-Tech) revoking its materials license f

1 221 I

i J

l

i i

for failure to pay its annual fee, as required by 10 C.F.R. Part 171. Under the j

terms of the order, the license revocation would take effect 30 days from the date of the order. Geo-Tech was directed to submit an answer to the order l

within 30 days after its issuance. He answer was to specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in the order and set forth the matters of fact and law on which Geo-Tech or any other person adversely affected relied and the reasons why this order should not have been issued. Any answer filed within.

j 30 days could include a request for a hearing.

~

Geo-Tech filed its answer requesting a hearing more than 30 days after issuance of the order. Additionally, the Licensee did not provide the specific

~

information required to be included in the answer by the terms of the order.

.l De Commission is referring the hearing request to the Chief Administrative i

Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, for assignment to a presiding I

officer. In the absence of regulations directly governing late-filed and deficient hearing requests on enforcement orders, the Commission directs the presiding i

officer to apply the criteria for considering late filings set forth in 10 C.F.R.

i 6 2.714(a)(1). De derignated presiding officer shall determine whet!ct the l

hearing request should be granted despite its deficiencies using these criteria.

t Because this is the first request by a licensee for a hearing on an order

'l revoking a license for failure to pay user fees, the Commission believes that it is appropriate to provide guidance regarding the scope of any hearing held on enforcement sanctions imposed for failure to pay user fees.

De hearing scope shall be quite narrow, Neither the fee schedule nor its underlying methodology may be properly challenged in this type of proceeding.

Rey have been fixed by rulemaking which this proceeding cannot amend.

Instead, we would expect that in most cases the only pertinent issues would be:

(1) Was the Licensee placed in the proper fee category? (2) If the answer to the first question is yes, then the Board must next determine if the Licensee was charged the proper fee established for that category. (3) If the answer to this is also in the affirmative, the Board should find if the Licensee has been granted a partial or total exemption from the fee by the NRC Staff. And (4)If the Licensec did not receive an exemption, the Board must determine if the Licensee paid the fee charged. If a Board determines that a hearing of substantially broader i

scope is warranted, it must receive authorization from the Commission before proceeding further.

I i

t h

1 222 1

l i

i i

k

.4

m

.m I

' i

}

11 is so ORDERED.

, i

-[

Ibr the Commission,5 i

i

?

4 6

SAMUFL J. CHILK Secretar, of the Commission f

i Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of October 1992.

l 1

f i

3 3

4

)

4-l l

4 I

I i

3 r

Y

?

l ICmunmaioners Rogers and Remui were unavailable f<r the aff.rrnation of the order. If they had been present.

ti they would have apprmed at

[

223 i

I l

l 1

j

i s

I I

i

)

i I

l I

I l

l Atomic Sa"ety i

and Licensing i

l Boards issuances l

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL f

Q

\\

B. Paul Cotter. Jr.,* Chief Administrative Judge l

Robert M. Lazo,* Deputy Chief Administrative Judge (Executive)

T l

Frederick J. Shon,* Deputt Chief Administrative Judge (Technical) f l

O l

Members l

I Dt Goorge C. Arderson James R Gleason*

Dr. Venneth A. McCollom Q

l Charles Bochhooter*

Ot David L. Hatrek Marshall E. Miller 2

j Peter B. B6cch*

Ernest E. Hill Trornas S. Moore

• G. Paul Bollwerk til' Dr. Frank F. Hooper Dr. Peter A. Moms Glenn O. Bright Elizabeth B. Johnson Thomas D. Murphy

• l Dr A. Dtxon Ca!!ihan Dr. Walter H. Jordan Dr Rnhard R. Partzek Dr James H. Carpenter

• Dr. Charles N. Kelber*

Dr Harry Rein l

Dt Richard F. Cole

• Dr. Jerry R. Kline*

Lester S. Rubenstein W

Dr Thomas E. Elieman Dr Peter S. Lam

• Dr David R. Scrunk Dr George A. Ferguson Dt James C. tmr.b til Ivan W. Smrth*

Dr Harry Foreman Dr Emmeth A. Luoble Dr. George F. Tidey

]

Dr Achard F. Foster Morton B. Marguhen*

Sheldon J. Wolfe l

l l

l

• Permanent panel members 1

l l

I J

a 3

1

t i

5 I

Cite as 36 NRC 225 (1992)

LBP-92-29 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

i Peter B. Bloch, Chair

[

Dr. Frank F. Hooper Dr. Charles N. Kelber l

In the Matter of Docket No. 50-320-OLA-2 l

(ASLBP No. 91-643-11-OLA-2)

(Re: License Amendment) l (Post-Defueling Monitored l

Storage) f i

GENERAL PUBUC.;TILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION, et af.

l (Three Mlle Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2)

October 5,1992 The Licensing Board dismisses this proceeding, prior to admitting any party, in response to a joint motion of all Petitioners to withdraw the only pending contentions. Although the joint motion requested a dismissal "with prejudice,"

the Licensing Board refused to act on this request because it red not seen the settlement agreement, nor had it been given legal argument or factual evidence to persuade it to take the requested action.

j t

RULES OF PRACTICE: SETTLEMENT; DISMISSAL "WITil PREJUDICE"

}

A licensing board may refuse to dismiss a proceeding "with prejudice," even though all the participants jointly request that action. un'ess it is persuade 41 by legal and factual arguments in support of that request.

225 i

Ii

?

i

-e

. ~

~.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1

(Dismissing Proceeding) 1.

MEMORANDUM On September 28,1992, the Licensing Board received a " Jointly Stipulated j

Motion to Dismiss the Petition of Eric J. Epstein." The motion, filed by all participants in this case, requests permission for Mr. Epstein to withdraw his t

petition and requests us to dismiss the petition with prejudice.

We shall dismiss the petition. Although the parties may have a mutually binding contractual agreement that would prevent refiling of this case, we have not seen that agreement and have not been persuaded by legal authority or evidence to determine whether or not the dismissal is "with prejudice." A l

motion of a party for reconsideration of our decision -if a party still desires i

a dismissal with prejudice - may be filed within 10 calendar days of the date of issuance of our Order.

f i

II. ORDER Ibr all the foregoiag reasons and upon consideration of the entire record in tlus matter, it is, this 5th day of October 1992, ORDERED that:

t The Petiti3n of Eric J. Epstein is dismissed.

TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND l

LICENSING BOARD l

Dr. Frank F. liooper (by PBB) l ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dr. Charles N. Keller ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE i

Peter B. Bloch, Chair ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland

.i t

a 226 1,

I i

I j

i i

i

Cite as 36 NRC 227 (1992)

LBP 92-30 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• TOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4

Before Administrative Judges:

Peter B. Bloch, Chair Dr. Frank F. Hooper i

Dr. Charles N. Kelber in the Matter of Docket No. 50-320 OLA-2 (ASLBP No. 91-643-11-OLA-2)

(Re: License Amendment)

(Post-Defueling Monitored Storage)

GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION, et al.

[

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2)

October 16,1992 i

The Licensing Board, having been provided the text of the settlement reached by the participants, reconsidered its previous dismissal order and modified it to be a dismissal with prejudice.

RULES OF PRACTICE: PETITION; DISMISSAL WITli PREJUDICE A petition may be dismissed with prejudice providing that a board reviews i

the settlement and finds, consistent with 10 C.F.R. 6 2.759, that it is a " fair and j

l reasonable settlement" I

227 i

.i i

l MEMORANDUM AND ORDER i

(Reconsidering Order Dismissing Proceeding) i i

L MEMORANDUM On October 5, the Board issued LBP-92-29 (36 NRC 225), dismissing this proceeding. On October 8,1992, the Licensing Board received a " Joint Motion for Reconsideration" in which all the participants submitted additional information and legal argument and requested that we revise our Order so that l

the pmceeding would be dismissed "with prejudice."

Setdement in this case is encouraged by 10 C.F.R. f 2.759, providing that it is a " fair and reasonable settlement of contested initial licensing proceedings" or,

[

by inference, of amendment proceedings.' Now that we have seen the settlement

[

agree acnt, we hav-no casan to conclude that it is other than a fair and reasonable settlement. Hence, a dismissal of the Epstein petition with prejudice is appropriate.2 Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-92-15,35 NRC 209 (1992) (setdement agreement approved after examination); Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), CL1-79-3, 9 NRC 107 (1979) (dismissal with prejudice after study and modification of the proposed settlement); Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-89-24, 30 NRC 152 (1989) (dismissal with prejudice

-l after finding that the agreement is not inconsistent with applicable statutes i

and regulations); Arizona Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating l

Station, Units 2 and 3), LBP-85-26, 22 NRC 118 (1985) (dismissed with prejudice after a prehearing conference and preliminary evidentiary hearing to j

consider the effects of the settlement).

l a

a l

II. ORDER For all the foregoing reasons and upon consideration of the entire record in 7

this matter, it is, this 16th day of October 1992, ORDERED that:

-l

?

i i

i

[

I 3 our junsdiction is to determine whether or not to admit a pany. We umsider diat the dispute before us is subpct to se Cament under dw cited rule.

.l 2 We hewe no opinim anwerning the merits of the rpstein peution j

I f

228 1

L i

I

[

L I

\\

t

I

.i I

The Petition of Eric J. Epstein is dismissed with prejudice, t

i

.I THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND t

LICENSING BOARD i

Dr. Frank F. Hooper ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE.

Dr. Charles N. Kelber (by PBB)

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

,j Peter B. Bloch, Chair ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE l

Bethesda, Maryland i

i i

i I

i r

i r

I k

t I

l t

i

?

E

~I 229 i

J

't v

s

2 m2 aAm..s-.au 4

a-m.

m.r a

-** e

_m..-J ae a

me..a aAu 2;

me pe&.==.Md a_-...

4.44.. -

As.

A 44._,

m-___

_m

.pe l

l i

l i

l Directors' Decisions Under l

10 CFR 2.206 J

l I

i i

i l

l l

i

. l l

l I

2 I

t l

l l

l I

i l

l l

l l

i

~...... -...-

Cite as 36 NRC 231 (1992)

DD-92-5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Thomas E. Murley, Director in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-498 50-499 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2)

October 5,1992 The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation grants in part and denies in part a Petition submitted pursuant to 10 C.F.R. f 2.206 by Mr. "Ihomas J. Saporito (Petitionct) requesting action with regard to the South Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, of the Ilouston Lighting and Power Company (Licensee).

Petitioner requested the NRC to initiate swift and effective actions to cause the Licensee to adequately train all STP employees in Security Procedures, use of the Work Process Program, Maintenance Work Practices and Requirements, and use of the PJanner's Guide, as well as all STP Security Force personne'. in the use of security procedures. In response to the Petition, a special NRC team i

inspection was conducted which substantiated some of the Petitioner's coacerns l

f and resulted in corrective actions by the Licensee. Those aspects of the PcJ' ion substantiated by the NRC and corrected by the Licensee are granted.

With regard to the Petitioner's request for action pursuant to section 2.206 for the institution of proceedings pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.202 and for immediate revocation of all escorted access at the STP site, and for an immediate shutdown e

of all maintenance activity there, the Director finds minimal safety significance associated with the concerns raised in the Petition and denies those ponions of T

the Petition.

231 i

u h

-}

i DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 52.206 1.

INTRODUCTION i

On February 10,1992, Mr. Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. (the Petitioner), filed a Petition with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 62.206 requesting actions be taken regarding the South Texas Project tSTP), Units 1 and 2, of the Houston Lighting and Power Company (IIL&P or Licensee). Specifically, the Petitioner requested the NRC to institute a proceeding pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 62.202 and to take swift and effective actions because of the Petitioner's concerns in the areas of physical security, maintenance activities, compliance with technical specifications and procedures, and training at STP.

In the area of physical security, the Petitioner requested that the NRC cause the Licensec to revoke all esconed access to the South Texas site and to adequately train all employees and security force personnel in using relevant l

security procedures. With regard to maintenance activitics, the Petitioner requested that the NRC cause the Licensee to invoke an immediate stand-down of all maintenance activities, to adequately train personnel in the use of Revision 3 of the Work Process Progre.m. Revision 3 of the Maintenance Work Practices and Requirements, and Revision 0 of the Planner's Guide. The Petitioner also requested that the NRC take swift and effective actions to cause the Licensee to comply with the South Texas Project's technical specifications and procedures.

On February 18,1992, the Petitioner met with the NRC Staff in the Region IV offices to discuss certain issues presented in the Petition and other concerns.8 On March 24, 1992, I informed the Petitioner that the Petition had been referred to my Office for the preparation of a Director's Decision. I further informed the Petitioner that, after receiving the Petition, the NRC Staff imme-diately evaluated reactor safety at STP and performed a special team inspection to evaluate the concerns mised in the Petition. As a result of the evaluation and

{

inspection, the NRC Staff found that the concerns either could not be substan-tiated, or if they were substantiated did not involve nuclear safety, or were not

'I safety concerns of such importance to warrant the immediate and swift actions requested in the Petition. Therefore, I denied the Petitioner's request for the NRC to take immediate action. I also informed the Petitioner that the NRC would take appropriate action within a reasonable time regarding the specific concerns raised in the Petition.

I At this rneming, the Pet.&,ner raised a number of cuncarm other than thwe set aus in the Petitica. *nune uher j

concerns have beim handled separately by the NRC staff.

j i

232 s

1 J

l 1

i The Licensee also responded to the issues raised in the Petition. The Licensee

[

voluntarily submitted information to the NRC on March 11 and May 1,1992, regarding the issues raised by the Petitioner.

My Decision in this matter follows.

II. DISCUSSION.

l In response to the Petition and other concerns raised by the Petitioner, the.

.[

NRC Staff conducted a special team inspection at STP which included an

[

evaluation of the concerns raised in the Petition. The five-rnember team was on site during March 9-13, March 23-27, and April 14,1992. On June 1,1992, the l

NRC Staff issued Inspection Report 50-498/92-07, 50-499/92-07 documenting l

the results of the inspection, in a letter of June 18,1992, to the NRC Chairman, j

the Petitioner commended the NRC Staff inspection effort as extremely defmitive

?

with very comprehensive results, While the inspection team considered all of the concerns of the Petitioner, this Director's Decivion responds only to those issues raised in the Petition, j

specifically the twelu !!ans listed in the Basis and Justification" section of the Petition.

In evaluating the physical security concerns during the recent NRC special team inspection, the NRC Staff gathered specific information on the training and impicmentation of the security plan for the areas of concern to the Petitioner, including the control of visitors, the transfer of visitors between escorts, and tailgating. The NRC inspectors reviewed general employee training (GET) l lesson plans, the qualification and size of the instructional staff, and the cxaminations taken by individuals at the end of instruction. The inspectors j

reviewd lesson plans for both the initial training and requalification training i

of security personnel. In this way, the team could determine the manner in i

which the material was presented to the employees and could determine if l

the employees understood the requirements, in determining how effectively

[

the requirements were implemented, the inspectors reviewed security plaas, 4

procedures, and records governing the access and control of the visitors at STP.

'{

1he team also interviewed employees who were trained as escorts and those who had been escorted because they had at one *ime been classified as visitors.

-i i

The inspection team found the Licensee's stafting for conducting the GET program marginally acceptable. The allocated number of instructors, which had 1

been recently decreased, could cause significant stress on the Licensee's staff,

.l cspecially when large groups of people must be trained within a short time i

period. The Licensee's GET adequately covered the escort requirements that i

were in effect at the time of the NRC inspection. The Licensee addressed the

]

issue of escort changes in the initial training for security personnel, akhough this l

I i

233

!1 i

6

-. ~.

issue was not reinforced during requalification training. Ilowever, the inspection team noted that most of the employees and security officers interviewed could not successfully explain all of the aspects of visitor access and escon control, ne NRC inspectors reviewed the records and found that, on numerous k

occasions I etween January 15 and February 19,1992 (the time period selected nor inspection), visitors were transferred from assigned escorts to other escorts, but the visitor escort change logs did not reflect the escort changes. In some instances, the visitors telephoned security badging locations and requested escort changes at the request of the assigned or new escons. Some security force memters admitted they knew that visitors were requesting changes and did not realize such actions conflicted with specific procedum! requirements. Some plant employees who directed visitors to contact security for escon changes also indicated that they did not realize this conflicted with the Licensec's procedures.

Through interviews, it was confirmed that visitors were not always adequately controlled. It was apparently routine practice in the Instrumentation and Control (l&C) shop to leave visitors within the protected arca in the shop while escorts went to adjxent areas (such as restrooms). In one instance, an escort exited the protected area ahead of a visitor. in that instance, the security officer apparently did not realize that this act conflicted with the Licensec's procedures and did not take the procedurally required action in response to the incidc '

On March 13, 1992, the NRC Staff first informed the Licensee of the team's initial findings concerning the apparent security violations. After this notification, the Licensee briefed security officers in the proper way to conduct escon iransfers. During a meeting on April 14, 1992, the NRC Sta!T and the Licensec discussed the complete results of the inspection and the apparent violations. Licensee senior management's immediate response to the inspection findings was to discontinue all visitor access. in a letter of May 1,1992, the Licensee informed the NRC that, until making a permanent change, "the supervision of GET training has been temporarily assigned to repon to the same manager that directs IIP training." This action, the Licensee asserted, would allow control and coordination to quickly and casily suppon additional GET instructors as required. The Licensee further informed the NRC that it had revised its escort procedures to require the following: (1) specially qualified escorts, (2) visual contact with the visiter at all times, (3) a card carried by the visitor with the escon's name, and (4) provisions for changing escorts by requiring the new escort to sign the visitor's card. De procures no longer require the notification of security regarding the transfer of visitor escorts. The NRC Staff has concluded that the org:mizational changes and revised procedures address the deficiencies noted by the inspection team and will assess their implementation in future routine inspections.

On June 1,1992, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation to the Licensee for two violations based on the aforementioned securny inspection results. One violation 234

L was for the failure of the Licensee's employees to comply with the physical

[

security plan's implementing procedure governing escort view and control of j

visitors. Tic second violation was for the failure of the Lic~ensee's employees to comply with the procedure governing dw transfer or exit of visitors from the protected area.

In evaluating the maintenance concerns of the Petitioner, the NRC special inspection team reviewed both the training and implementation aspects of l

the concerns. The inspectors reviewed the training procedures listed by the Petitioner, the lesson plans upon which instruction was based, the qualification of tie instructors, and the results of tests at the end of the instruction sessions. The I

inspectors also interviewed other Licensee personnel whose jobs were infhenced by the maintenance instruction. The inspectors reviewed completed work packages and interviewed Licensee personacl, some of whom were associated with the work packages. Others were interviewed to permit the inspection team to assess maintenance implementation at STP.

De inspection team determined that the Licensec had a good maintenance work control process prognun. This program enabled the Licensee to fmd equip-ment problems, evaluate the effect of these problems on operability and the technical specification limiting conditions of operation, prioritize work activ-itics, plan work orders, conduct maintenance activitics, and close packages.

The inspection team concluded that the training provided on Station Pmcedure g

OPGP03-ZA-0090, Revision 3 (concern identified by the Petitioner), was appro-l priate to meet the course objectives. He inspection team concluded that course l

objectives were based on procedure requirements. In meeting the objectives, the

{

Licensee ensured that the fundamental program requirements could be imple-l mented by the I&C technicians, planners, owners (i.e., the Licensee's assigned system representatives), and supervisory personnel.

While overall implementation of maintenance activities was adequate, there were instances where personnel did not fully comply with some procedural requirements, For example, there were instances where individuals did not obtain i

work-start authority before giving work packages to craft people, individuals did not use the configuration control change log for lifting leads, and in two l

instances technicians worked on work requests without signing the work orders.

j However, the majority of the procedumi requirements were being met.

The identified instances of less than full compliance with maintenance procc-dures only concerned maintenance performed on nonsafety equipment. Exam-plcs arc the conductivity instrumentation for the makeup demineralized water and the level switches for the sodium hypochlorite dissolver tank. None of the equipment was required for safe shutdown of the plant, mitigation of acci-l dents, or would affect offsite radiological exposure to the public. Consequently, tiere was no violation of NRC requirements, the STP licenses, or the technical specifications. Nevertheless, the NRC Staff was concerned about two aspects r

i 235 i

i i

-=

~

e cf the findings. First, the procedural violations of the Licensec's requirements while performing nonsafety-related activitics could also occur while performing safety-related activitics because a singic set of administrative controls applied to all maintenance activitics. Ilowever, during interviews with personnel, they indi-I cated that their awareness was enhanced with regard to procedural requirements for safety-related activitics and those requirements that could affect personnel safety, Dere were indications of poor morale (e.g., worker attitudes) among some maintenance workers, but there was no evidence that poor morale had i

adversely impacted safety-related work.

i De int,pection team found that the work order planning process has been impmved to provide uniform guidance on developing work instructions. The work instructions have become more detailed and appeared to restrict some types of work activities that had previously been performed by the " skill of the craft." The planning process provided (1) for review of work instructions and, in some cases, an independent technical review, (2) for foremen or planners to make revisions to work instructions depending on scope of the work activity, and (3) for a means of providing feedback on work instructions to the planners and owners. Rese impmvements should not only enhance worker efficiency, I

but also improve safety in that they should provide additional barriers to human l

crror.

De inspection team ascertained that guidance provided to the plant staff on implementation of equipment clearance orders (ECOs) was not properly received or was not well understood. The Licensce's staff, responsible for implementing the equipment clearance program, indicated that the program was generally carried out in accordance with the procedural requirements. Within the scope of i

the inspection, the team did not find instances of improper execution of ECOs for safety-related equipment. Consequently, there were no cited violations. Because of the potential impact on safety-related activitics, the team recommended that the Licensee consider including guidance on implementing the program within i

the procedure. The Licensec's representatives stated that they would review the guidance and expected to conduct training on this matter.

Some signatures and corresponding dates on completed maintenance work packages appeared inconsistent with the times when the packages should have actually been signed and dated. During interviews of 1&C technicians, foremen, supervisors, and management, it became clear that the Licensec had not estab-lished a policy for late signing of a completed work package. The inspection team informed the Licensec that this lack of a consistent policy for backdating signatures was a weakness. The Licensec subsequently issued a station pro-cedure to instruct employees in the acceptable method for the late signing of documents.

The Petitioner expressed concern with maintenance, primarily regarding the i

use of the Work Process Program (OPGP03-ZA 710) Revision 3, which at the 236 i

i I

t 6

i i

time was a recent procedure. On March 9,1992, the Licensec issued Revision s

4 of this procedure, in which it had corrected problems that it found in the i

previous revision. In July 1992, the Licensee issued Revision 5, which was intended to further improve use of the procedure. While the Petitioner's major concerns related to Procedure OPGP03-ZA-0090, Revision 3, he also had con-.

cerns regarding Maintenance Procedure OPM01-2A-0040,"Maintemmcc Work Practices and Requirements," and the Planner's Guide, Revision O. Through' l

interviews, the inspection team concluded that I&C technicians demonstrated that they understood the program requirements referenced in the pmcedures.

Although the Planner's Guide is not required by the NRC and is not a con-

' tsulled document, the NRC Staff determined that maintenance activities were being impm.ed through its use.

-?

The inspection team fmdings related to physical security and maintenance were discussed with Licensec senior management on April 14, 1992, and are documented in the special team inspection report IR 50498/92-07,50499/92-

07. The NRC Staff will continue to monitor Licensee performance in these areas as a part of the routine inspection program activities.

1 The following are the issues raised by tie Petitioner, each followed by the NRC Staff's evaluation.

A.

Current Established Licensee Policies and Procedures Do Not Prmide Reasonable Assurances for the " Physical Control of j

STPEGS" In 10 C.F.R. Part 73, the NRC specifies the requirements for establishing j

?

and maintaining a security program for the physical protection of plants and materials. Before a plant can be licensed, the applicant must submit to the NRC t security plan addressing the requirements of Part 73 and the licensce's policies for the physical protection of the plant. Approval of the security plan f

is a requirement for plant licensing. Such a plan was submitted by the Licensee and approved by the NRC Staff. In its Supplement 4 to NUREG-0781," Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of the South Texas Project, Units 1

[

and 2," the N RC StafI concluded that the protection provided against radiological

-l sabotage by in,plementing the Licensce's plan met the requirements of Part 73 and that the health and safety of the public would not be endangered. Licensees are permitted to make changes to the plan pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 50.54(p) as long as the changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the security plan.

The NRC periodically inspects each Licensec's security program to determine if it is being maintained and implemented in a satisfactory marmer. In the most recent Systematic Assessment of Licensec Performance (SALP) for the period

' l cnding May 31,1991, the NRC Staff concluded that the Licensee management

[

continued to demonstate a strong comminnent to implementing the security 237 7

'i f

r 5

i 1

program (IR 50-498SI-99,50-499BI-99). In August 1991, the NRC conducted a team inspection of the security program at STP. The inspection found that, with isolated exceptions, the Licensee was meeting its plans and implementing an effective program to protect its facility against radiological sabotage (IR 50-t 498S I.21, 50 499S 1-21).

' The recent NRC special inspection team, as discussed above, found instances

{

of improper control of visitoni, improper transfer of visitors from one escort to another, and an improper exiting sequence of a visitor and escon, all of-l which were violations of the Licensec's procedures. The team found that certain maintenance workers and security officers had a relaxed attitude toward visitor escort requirements and that certain personnel failed to comply with

[

the implementing procedures for the security plan. The team documented this failure in its Inspection Report (IR 50-498B2-07,50-499S2-07), and the NRC issued a Notice of Violation with,the report. In part the Petitioner's i

concern was substantiated. Ilowever, the NRC Staff found no indications of a programmatic breakdown in the plant physical security such that the Licensee could not reasonably ensure that it was in full control of the site.

On March 13,1992, the NRC inspection team initially informed the 1.icensec of apparent violations regarding the visitor escort procedure. In a meeting on April 14,1992, the NRC Staff further discussed these issues with the Licensee.

The Licensee senior management immediately discontinued all escorted access until it revised the procedures and trained the personnel, in its letter of May i

1,1992, the Licensee informed the NRC Staff that its reviecd procedures for j

escorting individuals took effect on April 15, 1992. The revised procedures required the following: (1) specifically qualified escor's, (2) visual contact.

with the visitor at all times, (3) a card carried by the visitor with the escort's I

name, and (4) provisions for changing escorts by requiring the new [ receiving]

escort to sign the visitors' cards. The Licensee trained the identified escorts and implemented the new procedure. Upon conducting the reviews and inspections, the NRC Staff concluded that the Licensce's policies and procedures for physical security, properly implemented, would provide reasonable assurance that the South Texas Project is adequately protected. Implementation will be monitored through future NRC inspections.

{

11. Licensee Employees Are Not Adequately Trained and Knowledgeable of Existing STPEGS Security Procedures That Address Escort.

Responsibilities In reviewing the Licensee's GET program, the special inspection team i

reviewed security training including staffing, lesson plans, student materials,

{

and tests. The Licensce's GET adequately addressed the requircJnents for visitor

'L escorts.

238 t

P 2

i

i l

'1 I

ne inspectors reviewed the Licensee's GET tests and found that they typi-cally included two to four questions penaining directly to escort responsibilities.

]

i Conceivably, individuals could miss one panicular area of the test year after year and still receive a passing grade. However, upon reviewing successive test re-sults for selected individuals, the inspectors found no patterns suggesting that t

individuals did not know the requirements. Moreover, as pan of the training program, the trainees signed statements affirming that they had been informed of the correct answers to the questions that they had missed. In spite of this infonnation, the inspection team noted that most of the employees interviewed could not successfully explain all of the necessary aspects of visitor access and escort control. The Petitioner's concern was substantiated. Ilowever, the NRC Staff concluded that implementing the revised procedures as discussed in Sec-tion A, above, will adequately satisfy the escon requirements.

C.

Licensee Employees Are Not Adequatsly Trained and Knowledgeable of Existing STPEGS Security Procedures That Address Tailgating into Protected and Vital Station Areas The special inspection team found the Licensec's GET training, which included instructions for properly entering and exiting the plant, acceptabic.

However, the team found that the staffing levels for providing the training were marginal. De Licensec addressed this issue in its May 1,1992 Ictter through organizational changes that will provide for additional instructors as discussed above.

Further, the inspection team reviewed the access control records from the period of January 1,1992, through February 15, 1992. The NRC Staff found only one possible tailgating event in the records reviewed. The records of this event did not show that a visitor entered a vital area but indicated that the assigned escon had entered that vital area. However, at the next vital door requiring access, both the visitor and escon badges were recorded.

Consequently, the visitor apparently did not attempt to surreptitiously enter a l

vital area. The Petitioner's concern was not substantiated.

D.

Licensee's Security Force Personnel Are Not Adequately Trained and Knowledgeable of Existing STPEGS Security Procedures That i

Address Escort Responsibilities The Licensec's security personnel were initially trained through the GET followed by training specific to the security staff. The special inspection i

team also reviewed the specific training for security personnel and found it to contain all the requirements necessary for a security officer to understand I

i 239 l

I r

I

[

t

~

I

=

l and effectively perform duties concerning visitor access and escort control requirements. Ilowever, the team noted that, during the requalification training, tie Licensee did not reinforce the training objectives from the initial training regarding escort transfers. As discussed above, the team found that members of the security force had failed to comply with the procedures for escorting visitors.

i During interviews, the team found that some security personnel did not fully understand all aspects of the procedures for escorting visitors, ne Petitioner's concern was substantiated.

Responding to the NRC findings, the Licensee briefed all security officers on the proper way to transfer visitors between escorts and posted signs to remind personnel of escort requirements. De Licensee revised the procedures for escorting visitors and completed training on the new procedures. De NRC Staff concluded that the changes in escort procedures are acceptable, Initial implementation has been satisfactory. The continued implementation will be monitored by the NRC Staff through the routine inspection program.

E.

Licensee's Security Force Personnel Willfully and Intentionally Falsified STPEGS Security Documents During the February IR 1992 'necting, the Petitioner gave the NRC Staff the date of the alleged willful falsification, a reference to the falsified document, and the identity of the responsible person. De inspection team inspected the subject document, interviewed the involved personnel, and found no indication of the escort record teing falsified. The Petitioner's concern was not substantiated.

F.

Licensee's Security Force Personnel Willfully Violated STPEGS i

Security Procedure i

As noted in the response to Concern D, examples were found where security personnel were not fully knowledgeable of all aspects of the procedures regard-ing the escorting of visitors. The staff determined tiot, for sorne instances of l

notification of escort transfer by telephone, security force members did not know that it was the visitors who requested the changes. The security force members documented the transfers lecause all of the information provided concerning badge numbers and names appeared correct. Some security force memters ad-mitted knowing that visitors were requesting changes and did not realize such actions conflicted with specific procedural requirements. It appeared to the NRC i

inspection team that instances of failure to adhere to procedures by security i

personnel regarding transfer of escorts resulted from a lack of reinforcement during requalification training, cumbersome procedure, and difficulty in verify-ing personnel identities on the telephone.'110 wever, there were no indications i

240

-l f

i

t the actions of the security personnel were willful or that the security person-

-,i nel intentionally tried to compromise physical security at STP. The Petitioner's

.l concern that security procedures were violated was substantiated. However, the

{

inspection team did not substantiate that the Licensee willfully violated procc-i dures.

He Licensee was first informed of the team's findings on March 13,1992.

On March 27,1992, the Licensee briefed security officers in tlc proper way to conduct escort transfers. Subsequently, the Licensee temporarily discontinued visitor access, then made organizational and procedural changes and conducted t

training on the procedural changes. The corrective actions as described above are considered adequate.

I G.

Licensee's Employees Willfully and Intentionally. Violated STPEGS Security Procedures The inspection team found instances where employees violated security

- procedures for controlling visitors. As mentioned earlier, there were instances where the receiving escort telephoned security to transfer a visitor or where visitors telephoned security badging locations at the request of the assigned or new escort to request escort changes. Also, there were instances in the l&C shop when visitors were left within the protected area in the shop while the escorts went to adjacent areas. However, during interviews with plant personnel, it did not appear that there was an effon made to specifically subven the security procedures, and the special inspection team noted that the persomici believed that they maintained adequate control of their visitors. Instead, the NRC Staff found that employees did not fully comply with procedures because they did not completely understand them or believed that they were complying with the intent of the procedures in escorting their visitors. The inspection team did j

substantiate that there were procedural violations in this area. However, the k

team did not substantiate that the procedures were willfully and intentionally j

violated with the intent to subvert the security at STP. As mentioned previously, the escort procedures have been revised adequately to address the concerns.

f II. Your Licensee's Current Work Practices Do Not Provide Reasonable Assurance for the Safe Operetion of STPEGS and, Therefore, the lleahh and Safety of the General Public The maintenance portion of the special Icam inspection was in response to Petitioner's Concerns H through L, addressed in this Decision, and specific information obtained during a meeting of February 18,1992, with tic Petitioner regarding other concerns. The inspection team concluded that the Licensee had

}

+

241 I

i i

t h

l t

t u

_ ~,

established a good maintenance work control process for finding equipment problems, evaluating the effect of these problems on equipment operability and the technical specification limiting conditions for operation, prioritizing

-[

work activities, planning work orders, conducting maintenance activities, and closing maintenance work packages. Some personnel did not fully adfere I

to some procedural requirements as noted previously. Ilowever, most of the procedural reqairements were being met, he Licensee adequately completed work activities. In general, the personnel interviewed believed that shift turnovers were acequate and that their awareness was enhanced for procedural.

adherence with regard to procedural requirements for safety-related activities l}

and those requirements that could affect personnel safety. During interviews with some maintenance employees, the inspection team found some evidence of poor morale. This issue was previously discussed in NRC Inspection Report 50-498SI-16,50-499N1-16. Principal issues adversely affecting maintenance

L workers' attitudes were the move to a new building, upcoming realignment of and duration of shift schedules, and the perceived limited training opportunities for journeymen. Dere was no evidence that the concerns had adversely

[

impacted safety-related work. These matters were discussed in general terms with the Licensce's senior management on April 14, 1992. Tte Petitioner's concern was not substantiated.

Although the maintenance activities described by the Petitioner during the

}

February 18,1992 meeting were conducted on nonsafety-related systems, the team expressed concern that the Licensee used the same administrative controls l

for both safety-related and nonsafety-related activities. Carryover problems from l

nonsafety-to safety-related maintenance have not been identified. Nevertheless, the NRC Staff will continue to monitor Licensee performance in this area as part of the routine inspection program activities.

'i L Licensee Employees Are Not Adequalely Trained and Knowledgeable of the Current STPEGS Work Process Program (OPGP03-ZA-0090)

Revision 3 During the first part of 1992, the Licensee made several changes to its work process program. De principal change was to consolidate into one

'j procedure the various procedures for finding and requesting work activities and for conducting and closing out work packages. He Licensee revised Station

[

Procedure OPGP03-ZA-0090, " Work Process Program,several times.' Revision 3 of Station Procedure OPGP03-ZA-0090 became effective January 31, _1992.

'i During interviews, the I&C urhnicians described the training as appropriate to meet the course objectives. When completing the training, many I&C techni-

-}

cians believed that they could properly implement the procedural requirements of the maintenr e process. Ilowever, when called upon to use the procedure, i

242 l-i r

r h

t w

_.: ~ :-.-.:- -

^r2---.

~

~

~.

several 1&C technicians said they had to use the maintenance process flow chart (distributed during training) to assist them in implementing the procedure.

To assess the quality of training given regarding this procedure, the inspec-i tion team reviewed the procedure, lesson plans used by the instructors, student 4

materials, exaininations, and course critiques. De team interviewed instruc-tors, numerous planners, I&C technicians, and supervisory personnel who had i

received training on the procedure.

In the meeting on February 18,1992, the Petitioner stated several concerns l

with training on the Work Process Program Procedure, ne Petitioner alleged that the training was insufficient and included incorrect information in some I

cases, that testing was inadequate, and that instructors did not resolve concerns.

l' The Petitioner objected to the Licensce's definition of" unplanned exposure to radiation" and stated that (1) the Licensee gave incorrect information to the class regarding the composition of lubricants used at the plant, (2) the Licensec's policy of adhererce to procedures was vague, and (3) training was inader,uate l

to test the worker's knowledge because the workers were allowed to complete j

the examination using materials distributed previously.

ne inspection team confirmed that the Licensee gave incorrect informauon regarding the lubricant composition. As part of maintenance equipment quali-l fication training (on January 30,1992, following Lesson Plan MSS 108.01), the class watched a film on the use of lubricants at nuclear power facilities ihat was produced by the Electric Power Research Institute. The film included a state-ment that oils consisted of 80 to 98% tuse oil and the remainder was additive.

De examination following the training contained a ! cst question asking the per-centage of base oil required at the Licensee's facility. The correct answer,90%,

was not discussed by the instructor during the training. Possible answers to the examination question regarding site-specific requirements included multiple choices that were within the. range of values given in the film. Consequently, l

four to five trainees answered the examination question incorrectly. As a result

-f of student comments on the course critique, the Licensee agreed to take action to emphasize that the information in the film was general and te highlight the site-specific value, which was within the range given in the film.

i During interviews, the team found that some individuals did not fully understand the Licensec's policy on procedural compliance, nc Petitioner 3

contended that guidance involving instruction on the Licensce's policy of adherence to procedures was vague. Revision 1 of the trainee handout used with 1.esson Plan MSS 108.01 stated: " Verbatim compliance allows no deviation from procedural steps... Procedural adherence implies meeting the intent.

.,, Deviation is expected in cases where:

A. Personnel safety.... B.

Equipment safety" [is placed at risk]. No other discussion was included.

Workers receiving work process program training had mixed responses when questioned about their understanding of these terms and as to which term

.i i

243 i

i l

1

.4

.l I

4 t

1 i

i described tie policy in effect at the Licensce's facility. While all understood that the 1.icensec's policy was that there should be procedural adherence, some were not sure about verbatim compliance and one stated that verbatim compliance was expected. Instructors pointed out that the issue was not listed as an objective in that specific training; therefore, no examination questions addressed the issue to test (and document) workers' knowledge of the policy.

In response to the uncertainty of some employees regarding the definitions of procedural compliance and verbatim compliance, the Licensee's Revision 2 I

of the trainee handout (dated February 28,1992) expanded the discussion of the terms and defined verbatim compliance as "[a] term used in the past to demand that the performance of steps in a procedure were done exactly as they were written; without deviation," and added,STPEGS will no longer use the term."

It stated: " Field application of procedural adherence implies every individual responsible for independent performance of a procedure controlled task shall meet the intent of the procedure.., Anyone SilALL perform the steps of that procedure as written unless such performance would violate the intent of i

the procedure." These concernt of tic Petitioner were substantiated; however, the Licensee took acceptable action to resolve this matter.

De team questioned Licensee personnel, including members of the health physics organization, about the definition of " unplanned exposure," as referred to in the lesson plans. Licensee personnel stated diat, while the term had not been explicitly defined, the meaning was clear when considered in the context of the examples of industry events given in the student materials.

De team reviewed the industry events described in the student materials and noted that they were consistent with the manner in which the term was applied at the STP. Other workers who had received the training expressed no misunderstandings or concerns regarding this training. He Petitioner's concerns were not substantiated.

With regard to the use of reference materials during examinations, Licensee personnel stated that they designed the examinations to test the ability of the individuals to work withm the work control process, not their ability to memorize

[

the procedure. Rey also stated that if workers have access to references or i

procedures in the field, it is appropriate to allow them to demonstrate tic use of such references during the examination. De NRC Staff considers this testing method to be acceptable.

De team found that, in general, the classroom training on Station Procedure OPGP03-ZA-0090 Revision 3 was appropriate to meet the course objectives, which were based on the procedural requirements. He team did not substantiate the Petitioner's concern that the employees were not adequately trained.

)

t 244 i

i I

J.

Licensee Employees Are Not Adequately Trained and Emmledgeable i

of the Current STPEGS Maintenance Work Practices and Requirements (OPMP01-ZA-0040) Revision 0 On January 31, 1992, the Licensee implemented Maintenance Procedure OPMP01-ZA-0040 Revision 0, " Maintenance Work Practices and Require-meats." His procedure contained the guidelines for conducting corrective and l

preventive maintenance activitics in accordance with applicable site procedures l

and policies, conducting testing activitics after maintenance to verify function 1

l and operability, and performing minor maintenance activities.

Ec procedure included a summary of maintenance practices and require-ments and included appropriale references to supporting maintenance programs, supporting procedures, and applicable sections. The training on procedure OPMP01-ZA-0040 was incorporated with the training for OPG03-ZA-0090, which was discussed in the response to item 1, above. The training was found to be appropriate to meet the course objectives, which were based on the procedure requirements.

Two of the I&C technicians interviewed about the requirements and guidance in Maintenance Procedure OPMP01-ZA-0040 could not recall having reviewed the procedure, and the remaining I&C tecimicians could not recall the details in the procedure.110 wever, I&C tecimicians demonstrated that they understood the I

program requirements referenced in the procedure, including the requirements for equipment clearance orders, configuration control, and plant labeling. The concern of the Petitioner that employees were not adequately trained and knowledgeable with regard to this procedure was not substantiated.

K.

Licensee Employees Are Not Adequately Trained and Knowledgeable of the Current STPEGS Planner's Guide, Revision 0 I

The Licensec issued the Planner's Guide to enhance the maintenance pro-gram, ne guide was not required by the NRC and was not a controlled docu-

[

ment The Licensee developed the Planner's Guide to document good practices, i

guidance, and reference material in the different maintenance disciplines for per.ormance standards, the planning and writing of work documents, material requirements, computer applications available to planners, and scheduling and expediting.

During informal group meetings, supervisors would instruct I&C technicians in using the Planner's Guide and Station Procedure OPGP03-ZA4090 in writing l

l work packages. De I&C technicians would review selected areas by reading i

them and discussing them in groups. Many I&C technicians noted that the work packages were more uniform since the Licensee impicmented the Planner's Guide. All the individuals interviewed indicated that the Licensee had increased l

245 i

+

f 1

i y

the detail in the work instructions. While some believed that the increased detail limited use of the " skill of the craft," many believed that management had done this to reduce the number of personnel errors. The inspection team found that

[

there was more consistent use of cautionary statements in work packages than before implementation of the Planner's Guide.

The Licensce's managers established maintenance planning expectations, one of which was that the planners would " walk down" the work orders as part of the planning process for safety-related and most other work packages.1&C technicians noted seeing planners more frequently in the plant and indicated that

[

the quality of the work packages had improved. This indicated the successful use of the Planner's Guide.

I NRC does not require use of the Planner's Guide, which was developed to enhance the maintenance process. Although the Guide was not a controlled i

document, the Licensee appeared to be using it to improve maintenance. The Licensee provided acceptabic training on the document and used it properly.

'IYaining and knowledge of the STP Planner's Guide is not required. The Planner's Guide was being implemented at STP and appeared to be enhancing the maintenance process. This concern was not substantiated.

L.

Licensee Employees Are Engaged in Continuing Work Practices That Are in Violation of the STPEGS Work Process Program (GPGP03-ZA-0090) Revision 3 In implementing the work process program, the Licensee at times did not comply with its procedures. As mentioned in the introductory portion of the Discussica, examples included work start authority not obtained before work packages were given to crafts people, inadequate use of configuration control change log, and not following procedure regarding signing onto work orders.

Ilowever, the majority of the procedural requirements were being met. Fur-ther, with one exception (the boric acid tank level transmitter calibration), the 5

maintenance for the work packages reviewed was performed on nonsafety equip-ment (e.g., equipment not required for safe shutdown of the plant, mitigation of accidents, or equipment that could affect offsite radiological exposure to the l

public). During its inspection, the inspection team determined that because of

}

the administrative nature of deficiencies in procedure implementation coupled with the application to nonsafety equipment, it did not find indications of a s

compromise in the quality of work or of a threat to the public health and safety.

The Licensee identified the need to make some improvements through its own evaluations. Before the special inspection, the Licensee had issued Revision 4 to the procedure to address several implementation difficulties. To clarify the maintenance process, the Licensec issued Revision 5 to OPGP(G-ZA-0090 in 246 i

i 1

1 i

- _ - _ ~.

July 1992 nc inspection team found no evidence that current work failed to adhere to the maintenance work process program.

IIL CONCLUSION i

In responding to the concerns raised by the Petitioner, the NRC Staff conducted a special team inspection.

De NRC special inspection team concluded that training for both the plant employees and the security personnel was appropriate although the security l

requalification training did not address escort transfers. However, the team did l

substantiate some of the Petitioner's concerns, ne Licensee did not adequately i

implement the pmcedures for controlling visitors, and particularly those for escorting visitors. De team concluded that procedures. governing the transfer of visitor escorts were not always followed, visitor control in the I&C shop area was sometimes not rigorous, and, in one instance, an escort exited the protected area ahead of a visitor. Rese conclusions prompted the NRC to j

issue a Notice of Violation to the Licensee. The team did not substantiate the i

Petitioner's concerns that security documents had been i:nentionally falsified and that Licensee personnel (both general and security) willfully violated security r

procedures. He violations that were cited did not indicate a programmatic i

breakdown of security and did not significantly compromise the security at STP. Responding to the inspection team's findings, the Licensee took corrective l

actions that appear to be acceptable.

In reviewing the maintenance program, the NRC Staff concluded that the Licensee had a good maintenance work control program and appropriate training.

liowever, there were two instances (oil composition and procedural adherence) that were identified by the Petitioner, where instructional information presented l

in the classmom was confusing. De Licensee made changes to the lesson j

plans to clarify the information. He inspection team did recommend to the Licensec a refinement of the methods for reviewing course content to ensure

[

that conflicting or inadequate information was not presented to workers. De team reviewed the implementation of maintenance procedures and found that the implementation was done in general compliance with the procedures. However, the team did find examples of less than full compliance in the implementation of maintenance procedures as applied to nonsafety equipment and substantiated l

some of the Petitioner's concerns. He examples of less than full compliance

.l with procedures were essentially administrative in nature. Because they were l

administrative in nature or were applied to equipment not required for safe shutdown of the plant, mitigation of an accident, or equipment that could affect offsite radiological releases, there were no violations of regulatory requirements

.}

associated with the affected maintenance activities. He NRC Staff did note a D

b 247

)

i

)

t

~

concern that the same administrative controls on procedural compliance were in place for both safety and nonsafety maintenance. However, the NRC Staff has not found instances where maintenance on safety equipment has been compromised as a result of the commonly applied administrative procedures. In response to its own findings as well as those of the inspection team, the Licensee took actions to resolve these matters. Several implementation difficulties were addressed in Revision 4 to OPG03-ZA-0090 (April 1992). Revision 5 to OPG03-ZA-0090 was issued in July 1992 to improve usage of the procedure. 'Daining on the new revision was also conducted in July. The actions appear to be acceptable. Routine inspection of maintenance activities at STP by the NRC Staff will continue on an ongoing basis and will monitor the implementation of the new revision as well as the general conduct of maintenance at the site.

Several of the Petitioner's concerns were substantiated. When informed of the concerns, the Licensec took corrective action to revise procedures and retrain employees, as needed, in the proper implementation of the procedures.

He institution of proceedings pursuant to 10 C.F.R. !2.202, as requested by the Petitioner, is appropriate only where substantial health and safety issues have been raised. See Consolidated Edison Co. ofNew York (Indian Point, Units 1,2, and 3), CLI-75-8,2 NRC 173,175 (1975), and Washington Public Power System (WPPS Nuclear Project No. 2), DD-84-7,19 NRC 899,923 (1984). As discussed above, there is reasonable assurance the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, are being operated with adequate protection of the public health and safety. Therefore, I find no basis for instituting a proceeding pursuant to section 2.202 to modify, suspend, or revoke the NRC licenses held by HL&P in the areas stated by the Petitioner. This Decision is based on the minimal safety significance of the concerns stated by the Petitioner and substantiated and the adequacy of corrective actions initiated by the Licensce_ ror these reasons also, I have concluded that it is not necessary for the NRC to cause the Licensee to revoke all escorted access at the South Texas site or for the NRC to cause the Licensee to invoke an immediate stand-down of all maintenance activities, as requested by the Petitioner. To this extent, I have decided to deny the Petitioner's request for action pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206.

Ilowever, the Petitioner also requested that the NRC take swift and immediate actions to cause the Licensee to comply win facility technical specifications and procedures and to ensure adequate procudures and training in the areas of physical security and maintenance. Based on the NRC inspection activitics discussed above, which substantiated a numter of the concerns raised by the Petitioner, a Notice of Violation was issued to ?he Licensee to provide assurance that the Licensec will comply with regulatory requirements. In addition, in l

response to the NRC inspection findings, the Licensec temporarily discontinued all visitor access at South Texas, revised procedures and conducted additional 248

li e

training of its staff in the physical security and maintenance areas. To this extent, I

the Ittitioner's request for action pursuant to section 2.206 has been granted.

A copy of this Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission

{

for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 C.F.R. { 2.206(c).

1 FOR Tile NUCLEAR i

REGULATORY COMMISSION s

Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of October 1992.

4 I

I I

i J

E

)

249 l

1 i

l 5

.