ML20134F886
| ML20134F886 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom, Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1997 |
| From: | Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Danni Smith PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134F889 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-96-144, EA-96-243, NUDOCS 9702100195 | |
| Download: ML20134F886 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000277/1996011
Text
.
. .
_.
.
_.
.
_
'
.
ga arow
k'q
f
UNITED STATES
{
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
3 e<
'j
REGION I
5-
~
0,,
4
475 ALLENDALE ROAD
D
%*****,o
KING oF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 1M061415
February 3,1997
EA 96-144
96-243
i
Mr. D. M. Smith, President
PECO Nuclear
Nuclear Group Headquarters
Correspondence Control Desk
Post Office Box 195
Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087-0195
SUBJECT:
(NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-352/96-03 and 96-08; 50-353/96-03 and
96-08; 50-277/96-11, and 50-278/96-11)
Dear Mr. Smith:
This letter refers to the two NRC inspections conducted between March 5 and May 6,1996,
and between October 3 and November 27,1996, at your Limerick Generating Station (LGS)
as well as at your Chesterbrook Engineering Information Center facilities. The purpose of the
inspections was to review the circumstances associated with your failure to control
Safeguards Information (SGI) at your facilities. The findings of the inspections were discussed
with members of your staff during exit meetings on May 6 and November 27,1996. The
inspection reports were sent to you on June 13,1996, and December 19,1996, respectively.
Both letters provided you with an opportunity to attend a predecisional enforcement
conference to discuss these findings. In your response letters, dated July 15,1996,and
January 21,1997, you indicated that a predecisional enforcement conference would not be
necessary.
Based on the information developed during the inspections, and information contained in your
/
July 15,1996, and January 21,1997, responses to the inspection reports, two violations are
being cited involving the failure to control SGIin accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR
j
73.21. The violations are set forth in the enclosed Notice of Violation.
The first violation of failure to protect SGI occurred at the Lill
when an individual working on a computer to make revisions to the Limerick Physical Security
Plan (a document containing SGI), inadvertently saved the plan on the PECO Local Area
Network (LAN) computer hard drive. As a result, access to the Plan was not controlled until
a licensed operator discovered the condition on April 11,1996. The NRC commends the
licensed operator who identified this condition and immediately notified your security
department. As a result, your computer specialists were promptly contacted to delete the
document from the LAN. However, the NRC is concerned that this vulnerability created the
opportunity for unauthorized individuals to gain access to the SGl. The NRC recognizes your
contention that the name of the file on the LAN did not indicate any relationship to SGI, and
such access was unlikely.
,
9702100195 970203
ADOCK 05000277
G
.
.
PECO Nuclear
2
The second violation of failure to control SGI was also discovered by your staff and was
documented in your investigation report on October 17,1996. Your report documented
separate instances of failure to control SGIinformation (affecting both Limerick and Peach
Bottom) at severallocations, including your offices in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania. In these
cases, the SGI primarily consisted of aperture cards (of equipment drawings) which had been
stored in an uncontrolled manner at five different locations for periods of up to eight years.
While the NRC similarly commends your effort in (1) investigating and identifying the
magnitude of this problem, and (2) including your vendors as part of this review, the NRC is
concerned that a breakdown in the control of SGI existed for an extended period, because of
organizational changes, unclear roles, and a lack of assigned responsibility, as you found
during your investigation.
Although your staff determined that the uncontrolled SGI did not constitute the potential to
significantly assist an individual in an act of radiological sabotage, these failures to protect
SGI, represent a significant regulatory concern.
Therefore, the violations have been
categorized in the aggregate at Severity Levellliin accordance with the " General Statement
of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600.
In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $50,000 is
considered for a Severity Level lli violation or problem. You have been the subject of
escalated enforcement actions within the last two years. For example, a Severity Levellli
violation without a civil penalty issued on October 17,1996, failure to have an appropriate
foreign material exclusion program for the suppression pool at Limerick Unit 1 (EA 96-209).
Therefore, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for /denti// cation and Corrective
Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the
Enforcement Policy. Credit is warranted for identification since you identified all of the
examples of this violation of 10 CFR 73.21. Credit is also warranted for your corrective action
because those actions were considered both prompt and comprehensive once the violation
was identified in 1996. Your corrective actions included, but were not limited to (1) promptly
deleting the computer file containing the copy of the Physical Security Plan at Limerick;
(2) performing a comprehensive review to determine whether other SGI was stored on the
LAN: (3) designating a stand-alone computer that is controlled by the LGS Security Section
for generation and revisions to safeguards information; (4) retraining the LGS Security
Secretary on the procedures for control of SGl;(5) temporary suspension of duplication, filing,
and distribution of SGI while your investigation was in progress; (6) recall of SGI from various
sites to restrict the number of access locations; (7) establishing a single supervisory point of
contact for approving access to SGl; (8) training of individuals involved with SGI,(9) planned
revision of the procedure for control of SGI to upgrade expectations for handling SGl.
Therefore, to encourage prompt and comprehensive identification and correction of violations,
I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, not to
propose a civil penalty in this case. However, significant violations in the future could result
in a civil penalty.
T
i
.
l
PECO Nuclear
3
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the
'
enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you may reference, as
appropriate, your prior submittals to the NRC. The NRC will use your response, in part, to
determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with
regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, and
its enclosure, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).
Sincerely,
Hubert J. Miller
Regional Administrator
Docket Nos. 50-352;50-353;50 277;50-278
License Nos. NPF-39; NPF-85; DPR-44; DPR-56
Enclosure: Notice of Violation
.- .
.
.
t
.
PECO Nuclear
4
cc w/ encl:
G. Hunger, Jr., Chairman, Nuclear Review Board and Director - Licensing
W. MacFarland, Vice President - Limerick Generating Station
J. Kantner, Regulatory Engineer - Limerick Generating Station
T. Mitchell, Vice President, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station
G. Rainey, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Operations
D. Fetters, Vice President, Nuclear Station Support
T. Niessen, Director, Nuclear Quality Assurance
C. Schaefer, External Operations - Delmarva Power & Light Co.
G. Edwards, Plant Manager, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station
G. Lengyel, Manager, Experience Assessment
J. Durham, Sr., Senior Vice President and General Counsel
P. MacFarland Goelz, Manager, Joint Generation, Atlantic Electric
B. Gorman, Manager, External Affairs
R. McLean, Power Plant Siting, Nuclear Evaluations
J. Vannoy, Acting Secretary of Harford County Council
R. Ochs, Maryland Safe Energy Coalition
J. Walter, Chief Engineer, Public Service Commission of Maryland
L. Jacobson, Peach Bottom Alliance
Secretary, Nuclear Committee of the Board
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
State of Maryland
TMl - Alert (TMIA)
l
.
.
-.
.
- . .
_ _ _ . - - -
. - . .
. - .
-.-
-
- . -
e
i
.
l
PECO Nuclear
i
i
.
DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC
1
SECY
,
CA
HThompson, DEDR
j
EJordan, DEDO
!
JLieberman, OE
HMiller, RI
FDavis, OGC
FMiraglia, NRR
RZimmerman, NRR
,
Enforcement Coordinators
Rl, Ril, Rill, RIV
"
BBeecher, GPA/PA
,f
GCaputo, 01
DBangart, OSP
i
HBell, OlG
Dross, AEOD
,
j
OE:Chron
'
OE:EA
i
'
NUDOCS
!
DScrenci, PAO-RI
NSheehan, PAO-RI
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident inspector - Peach Bottom
'
NRC Resident inspector - Limerick
,
,
,
/
4
100017