ML20134F886

Discusses Insp Repts 50-352/96-03 & 96-08,50-353/96-03 & 96-08,50-277/96-11 & 50-278/96-11 on 960305 & 0506 & Between 961003-1107 & Forwards Notice of Violation

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: ML20134F886 ML20134F905
References
EA-96-144, EA-96-243, NUDOCS 9702100195
Download: ML20134F886 (5)

See also: IR 05000277/1996011

Text

. . . _. . _. . _

'

!

.

ga arow

f k'q UNITED STATES

{ 3 e<

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

5- 'j REGION I

0,, 4 475 ALLENDALE ROAD

D

KING oF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 1M061415

%*****,o

February 3,1997

EA 96-144

96-243 i

i

Mr. D. M. Smith, President

PECO Nuclear

Nuclear Group Headquarters

Correspondence Control Desk

Post Office Box 195

Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087-0195

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION l

(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:

1

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 Li ll

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

PDR ADOCK 05000277

G PDR

.

.

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 l

l

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

I

.- .

.

.

.

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 I

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

'

DCS

NUDOCS

! DScrenci, PAO-RI

NSheehan, PAO-RI

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident inspector - Peach Bottom

'

NRC Resident inspector - Limerick

,

,

,

/

4

100017