ML20128H398

Notice of Issuance of Director'S Decision Re Action Taken on 960328 Petition for Action Under 10CFR2.206 Filed on Behalf of Bl Bennett Re Plant

ML20128H398
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	10/07/1996
From:	Miraglia F NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20128H356	List: ML20128H353 ML20128H398
References
2.206, NUDOCS 9610090331
Download: ML20128H398 (2)

Text

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

1 4

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-302 I

FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION CRYSTAL RIVER NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT. UNIT 3 4

ISSUANCE OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206

,1 Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), has taken action on a Petition of March 28, 1996 (Petition),

for action under Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (10 CFR 2.206) filed by Louis D. Putney, Esq., on behalf of Barry L. Bennett (Petitioner) concerning the Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant (CR3) of ,

the Florida Power Corporation (the licensee).

The Petition alleged a number of security-related deficiencies associated with the CR3 facility. The Petition requested, pursuant to 10 CFR  :

1 2.206, NRC to investigate security concerns at CR3 and, upon a determination '

of their validity, institute a proceeding to suspend or revoke the operating license of CR3 pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 until such time as these concerns are corrected. The Notice of Receipt of Petition Under 10 CFR 2.206 was published 1

in the FEDERAL REGISTER on June 20, 1996 (61 FR 31562).

The Director of NRR determined that the Petition should be denied for the reasons explained in the " Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206" (DD ), the complete text of which follows this notice and is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L j

Street, NW., Washington, D.C., and at the Local Public Document Room for the CR3 plant located at the Coastal Region Library, 8619 W. Crystal Street, Crystal River, Florida. I 1

9610090331 961007 PDR ADOCK 05000302 l C PDR l

J

1 i 2 i

A copy of this Director's Decision will be filed with the Secretary of ,

the Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c).

As provied by this regulation, the Decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after issuance, unless the Commisson, on its j own motion, institutes a review of the Decision within that time.

1 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of October 1996, i

j FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l Frank yfiiragh Acting Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1

4 d

1 l

h

~

)

i l

1

SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION 4

NOTICE OF VIOLATION Florida Power Corporation Docket No. S0-302 Crystal River License No. DPR-72 During an NRC inspection conducted on March 18-22 and April 3-5, 1996, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the 4

" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"

NUREG-1600, the violations are listed below:

A. The licensee's Physical Security Plan, Rev. 6-8, dated July 5, 1996, states, "This Plan states FPC's policy and commitment to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55. Written procedures are implemented and maintained to the detailed requirements necessary to implement the Security Plan for plant operations."

10 CFR 73.55(g)(1) states in part, "... physical barriers, and other

security related devices or equipment shall be maintained in operable condition. The licensee shall develop and employ compensatory measures including equipment, additional security personnel and specific I

procedures to assure that the effectiveness of the security system is not reduced by failure of other contingencies affecting the operation of the security related equipment or structures."

Contrary to the above, from February 29 to March 11, 1996, and from March 13 to March 22, 1996, the licensee failed to maintain the main vehicle barrier gate in operable condition and failed to implement compensatory measures to assure that the effectiveness of the vehicle barrier gate was not reduced.

4 This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement III).

B. Chapter 6, Section 6.3 of the licensee's Physical Security Plan,

Rev. 6-8, dated July 5,1996, states in part, " Illumination shall be at j least 0.2 footcandles measured horizontally at ground level."

Contrary to the above, on March 20, 1996, an area approximately 60 feet long by 6 feet wide failed to meet the illumination level of at least 0.2 footcandles when measured horizontally at ground level.

5 This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement III).

C. 10 CFR 73.21(d)(2) states in part, "While unattended, Safeguards j Information shall be stored in a locked security storage container."

Contrary to the above, on March 21, 1996, Safeguards Information, to include the Physical Security Plan, was left unattended in a unlocked j security storage container.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement III).

4 e ."- e "o O h Menensemnedhm SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION museawetelmhecomumaanoonvoueo. httactrnen't 1 0-

. . - - - _ . - - . _ _ . - . _ - = - - -_._-_ - -. . .

l SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION 2

l D.

10 CFR 50.54(p)(1) states in part, "The licensee may make no change which would decrease the effectiveness of a security plan, or guard nhgjn {ua f a n, plan, prepared pursuant to 10 CFR 50.34(c) or l

10 CFR 73.55(e)(1) states in part, "All alarms required pursuant to this

' part must annunciate in a continuously manned central alarm station located within the protected area and in at least one other continuously manned station, not necessarily onsite, so that a single act cannot remove the ca to an alarm."pability of calling for assistance or otherwise responding i

Coi.trary to the above, submittal of Revisions 6-7 and 6-9 of the i

licensee's Physical Security Plan decreased the safeguards effectiveness of the Physical Security Plan.

This is' a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement III).

j Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Florida Power Corporation is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C.

'20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region II, and a copy to the 4 NRC Resident Inspector at Crystal River within 30 days of the date of the i

letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice). This reply should be .

clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for {

each violation: (1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations ,

Your response may r,eference or include previous docketed corresand (4) the! '

the correspondence adequately addresses the required response.If pondence, an adequateif

" reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a l i

Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be

• modified, suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.

Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. However, if you find it necessary to include such information, you should clearly indicate the specific information that you desire not to be placed in the PDR, and provide the legal basis to support your request for withholding the information from the public.

Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this 1st day of May 1996 O J .'.".".=. h SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION

.. - _ . - - - - - - - - .. - -. - .-- __ _- . - .-.~. .- -. _

SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION I MAY 1,1996 Florida Power Corporation Crystal River Energy Complex Mr. P. M. Beard, Jr. (SA2A)

Sr. VP, Nuclear Operations '

ATTN: Mgr., Nucleer Licensing 15760 West Power Line Street gjg6 ppg @ k a%,9 Crystal River, FL 34428-6708

SUBJECT:

NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-302/96-02 AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION

Dear Mr. Beard:

, This refers to the inspection conducted on March 18-22 and April 3-5, 1996, at

the Crystal River facility. The purpose of the inspection was to determine I whether activities authorized by the license were conducted safely and in

! accordance with NRC requirements. At the conclusion of the inspection, the i j findings were discussed with those members of your staff identified in the l j enclosed report.  :

4

! Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report. Within

! these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures  !

j and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observation of j activities in progress. l l Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC has determined that  ;

j violations of NRC requirements occurred. These violations are cited in the '

4 enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice), and the circumstances surrounding them

! are described in detail in the subject inspection report. The violations are j of concern because they were identified by the NRC. In addition, a noncited

violation for your failure to obtain a cumplete background . investigation prior i to allowing an individual unescorted access into the protected area is also i noted in the Inspection Report. This licensee identified and corrected l violation is being treated as a noncited violation consistent with Section i

VII.B.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy.

t We are also concerned over Violation A because it displayed an inability to i meet a new regulatory requirement on time and a lack of understanding of what

! constitutes an effective compensatory measure despite industry efforts to j develop such guidance.

With respect to Violation D in the enclosed Notice, on April 2, 1996, the NRC l' met with you to discuss appropriate compensatory measures taken during your

! security upgrade. Although the NRC documented your established compensatory i , measures in Inspection Report No. 50-302/95-12, it was surmised to be i completed by the Fall of 1995. However, during the course of this inspection, j we concluded that Rc"isions 6-7 and 6-9 did not meet the criteria specified in 10 CFR 50.54(p) in that the compensatory measures you currently had in place were inadequate and did not meet the intent of 10 CFR 73.55. Your April 18,

= =a=*aa===a "

anelsewegh,Meemsnembm

,9AFEGUARDS INFORMATION DCIDSURE 3

_ %m q '

~ - . - - _ _ . _ __ _

i SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION FPC 4

2

' 1

1996 letter to the NRC documented those specific compensatory measures discussed as corrective actions to Violation D of our Notice of Violation,

therefore no response is required for that violation.

I You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your i

j response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. Your response may reference or include previous docketed corres addresses the required response.pondence, if theyour After reviewing correspondence adequately response to this i

Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future l inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is i necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.

f The material enclosed herewith contains Safeguards Information as defined by a

', 10 CFR Part 73.21 and its disclosure to unauthorized individuals is prohibited by Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Therefore, the material will agt. be placed in the Public Document Room.

The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.

Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY JOHNS JALDON EDR:

Albert F. Gibson, Director Division of Radiation Safety Docket No. 50-302 License No. DPR-72

Enclosures:

1. Notice of Violation

2. Inspection Report (Safeguards Information) cc w/encis:

Gary L. Boldt, Vice President Nuclear Production (SA2C) '

Florida Power Corporation Crystal River Energy Complex 15760 West Power Line Street Crystal River, FL 34428-6708 (cc w/encls cont'd - See page 2) w neswei

rnanseenemmunstsamed 7s.se ," E'"L SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION

, ,- l SAFEGUARDSWBORMATION y

[ .3%o, 4

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 11

~

101 H.ARIETTA STREET, N.W., SUITE 2000 5 E ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30354199 -

\.....

Report Nos.: 50-302/96-02

, Licensee: Florida Power Corporation l 3201 -34th Street, South St. Petersburg, FL 33733 j Docket Nos.: 50-302 License Nos.: DPR-72 Facility Name: Crystal River Nuclear Plant Unit 3 Inspectio Gnduc ed: rch 18-22 an April -5, 1996 Inspector:

M ards

~

< / /bb Date i Y ori L atton, a s tor ed Approv d by AME I'. ' Fredr l ck os C/

i n,' Chief ' Date Signed l i

pecial Inspecti n Branch '

Division of Rea or Safety i

SUMMARY

i Scope:

This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the various aspects of the

, Physical Security Program for Power Reactors. Specifically inspected were:

testing, maintenance and compensatory measures; training and qualification; 4

security program plans and implementing procedures; and records and reports.

Also, the inspector reviewed Safeguards Infonnation and the facility's Final Safety Analysis Report in the area of Security.

Results:

In the area of testing and maintenance, the inspector noted the absence of a lighting procedure that would clearly define and document lighting surveys and maintenance needs related to lighting. On March 20, the inspector and a security officer toured the protected area and found an area of darkness that did not meet the licensee's Physical Security Plan commitment of 0.2 footcandle. This is noted as Violation 96-02-01. Other lighting areas evaluated by the inspector were within regulatory requirements. Additional testing and maintenance records reviewed were well documented and in

, accordance with the licensee's Physical Semity Plan.

The main vehicle gate associated with the newly installed vehicle barrier system was inoperable during the course of this inspection. The gate was in a

the access position, and compensatory measures had been taken by the licensee.

The inspector determined that during the time period the gate remained in the access position, it was not maintained and failed to meet the requirements of 400 G'L'r T P

= " c**

^' tact =ent 2

~ ~ __. , SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION

t , M -=,*7e***'

j SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION i

)

4 2 i the licensee's Physical Security Plan and 10 CFR 73.55(g)(1). This violation is noted as 96-02-02. The compensatory measures the licensee established for 4

the degraded vehicle barrier gate were inadequate and neither met the guidance

{ delineated in Nuclear Energy Institute 96-01, " Guidelines for Operational i Planning and Maintaining Integrity of Vehicle Barrier Systems," dated February i 1996 and Regulatory Guide 5.68, " Protection Against Malevolent Use of Vehicles

{

at Nuclear Power Plants," dated August 1994, nor did they provide a suitable 4

alternative. On March 22, 1996, measures as immediate corrective action to address the violation.the licensee i

March 28, 1996, On

of April 5,1996.the vehicle barrier gate was repaired and was operational as In the area of training and qualification, the inspector reviewed random 1 records and determined that the licensee was meeting the criteria specified in 1 their NRC approved Training and Qualification Plan for those records reviewed.

j In the area of implementing procedures, the inspector determined the licensee 1

failed to have an adequate procedure in place that documented specific i compensatory measures for the vehicle barrier system in the event of a

failure. On March 22, 1996, the licensee added those specific compensatory l violation. toThis measures their procedure as an immediate corrective action to this issue is documented as part of Violation 96-02-02.

)

} Upon review of the Physical Security Plan, Rev. 6-7 and observation during the

' course of this inspection, the inspector noted that the absence of the secondary alarm station and the licensee's compensatory measures to i counterbalance that absence did not meet the requirements specified in 10 CFR 50.54(p) and 10 CFR 73.55(e). On April 2, 1996, the lic esee met with NRC in l

Region II, Atlanta i

During the course o,f the inspection conducted April 3-5, the inspec!

with licensee representatives to determine if compensatory meacures proposed i i for short term and long term would be appropriate. This item is noted as Violation 96-02-03.

i Other security procedures reviewed by the inspector were adequate and

implemented the requirements specified in the licensee's Physical Security Plan.

Upon review of the licensee's Safeguard Event Logs, the inspector noted

! an access authorization issue which allowed a contractor employee access into the protected area without a complete background investigation. This j

violation is characterized as a non-cited Violation 96-02-04.

i During a review of the new security system to be installed, the inspector noted that a licensee engineer failed to secure a Safeguards Information container after leaving the area.

i This is noted as Violation 96-02-05.

l

" hWW888 l ,,eswsM tom .m wepassen- - - - - - -

RAFFAIIAmnc IAtemumN

. _ .