ML20198L246

Notice of Violation from Insp on 970902-05.Violations Noted: on 960119,United States Enrichment Corp (Usec) Failed to Provide to Commission Complete & Accurate Info in Matl Aspects Re Security Plan

ML20198L246
Person / Time
Site:	Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
Issue date:	10/20/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20198L216	List: ML20198L213 ML20198L246 ML20198L259
References
70-7002-97-06, 70-7002-97-6, NUDOCS 9710240288
Download: ML20198L246 (4)

Text

.

4 NOTICE OF VIOLATION United States Enrichment Corporation Docket No. 70 7002 Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant Certificato No. GDP 2 During an NRC security inspection conducted from September 2 5,1997, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the ' General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG 1600, the violations are listed below:

l 1, 10 CFR 76.9(a) requires, in part, that information provided to the Commission be complete and accurate in all material aspects.

A.

Section 6.5.3 of the Security Plan for the Protection of Classified Matter (Security -

Plan) submitted by USEC in the January 19,1996 revision of its application states in part that iJcords of combinations are kept on computer diskettes and paper files.

Contrary to the above, on January id,1996, USEC failed to provide to the Commission complete and accurate information in all material aspects conceming its Security Plan in that Section 6.5.3 of the submitted Security Plan stated that combination records were being maintained on computer diskettes.

However, this was never the practice at Portsmouth. Only paper records of classified combinations are maintained. This information was material to the NRC because the Commission relied on it to grant USEC a certifica';e of compliance.

B.

Section 16 of the Security Plan submitted by USEC in the August 27,1997 revision of its application lists shredders approved for destruction of classified information.

Contrary to the above, on August 27,1997 USEC failed to provide to the Commission complete and accurate information in all material aspects concoming its Security Plan in that Section 16 did not provide a complete listing of shredders approved for destruction of classified information.

C.

Section 18 of the Security Plan submitted by USEC in the August 27,1997 revision of its application describes telecommunications of classified information and states that the Portsmouth Plant *is presently operating under guidelines set forth by the COMSEC Procedural Guide and the USEC Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, LMUS Standard Operating Procedure."

. Contrary to the above, on August 27,1997, USEC failed to provide to the Commission complete and accurate information in all material aspects concoming its Security Plan as evidenced by the examples below:

1.

On August 27,1997, USEC failed to provide the NRC with complete and accurate information in that Section 18.4 of the Security Plan did not provide a complete list of equipment that comprises Portsmouth's secure telecommunications systems.

9710240288 PDR 971020 ADOCK 07007002 PDR 1

u_

)

Notice of Violation 2

2. On August 27,1997. USEC failed to provide the NRC with an accurate reference to a Section of the Portsmouth Cryptocenter Standard Operation Proceduto (SOP)in that Section 18.7 of the Security Plan referenus Section 5 of the Porismouth Cryptocenter SOP in connection with cle faed facsimiles when, in fact, it should have referenced Sectiori 7.

I 3.

On August 27,1997, USEC failed to provide the NRC with complete and accurate information in that Figure 18.3 of the Security Plan did not i

provide enough information to accurately describe the Portsmouth secure telecommunications structure.

This information was material to the NRC because the Commission relied on it to grant USEC a certificate of compliance.

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

11.

Condition 8 of the certificate of compliance for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant requires in part that USEC conduct its operations in accordance with the statements and representations contained in the certification application dated September 15,1995, and revisions dated January 19,1996, July 1,1996, and April 18,1997.

Contrary to the above, as of September 2,1997, numerous aspects of the approved Security Pla,e for the Protection of Classified Matter were not implemented, as evidenced by the following examples:

A. ViolationsAssociate1WillderimetetSecurity 1.

Section 8.1.3 of the Security Plan submitted by USEC in the January 19, 1996 revision of USEC's application and figure 8.1 of the Security Plan submitted by USEC in its application dated September 15,1995, show Building X-3002 to be outside the controlled access area (CAA) barrier and Building X-3001 to be inside the CAA barrier. However, USEC failed to accurately identify the location of the CAA barrier of the plant as it relates to the GCEP area and Buildings X 3001 and X 3002.

2.

Section 6.1.2 of the Security Plan submitted by USEC in the January 19, 1996 revision of USEC's application requires that a complete listing of active alarm zones be included as Addendum 2. However, USEC failed to provide active alarm zones as Addendum 2 contained information that was no longer current.

3. Section 6.1.4 of the Security Plan submitted by USEC in its application dated September 15,1995, requires in part that work remained in progress to replace the Computer Based Integrated Security System (CBISS) with the new Portsmouth Access Control System (PACS).

a

s Notice of Violation 3 However, USEC failed to continue working to replace CBISS with the new PACS.

B. ViolationsAssociated.with. Storage _and_ControloLClassifiedMatter

4. Section 6.5.2 of the Security Plan submitted by USEC in the January 19, 1996 revision of its application requires in part that combinations to classified security containers be changed every 12 rnonths. However, USEC failed to update nume.ous SF 700,

• Security Container l

Information," forms, that are affixed to security containers, to indicate the

new date of combination change.

5. Section 6.6.1 of the Security Plan submitted by USEC in the January 19, 1996 revision of its application requires in part that SF 700 forms be l

posted on the outside of security containers. However, USEC failed to post SF 700 forms in accordanco with the approved Security Plan in that SF 700 forms were being posted on the inside of security containers.

6. Section 6.3 of the Security Plan submitted by USEC in the January 19, 1996 revis!on of its application requires in part that classified documents be stored in security containers fitted with locking bars secured by three-position combination padlocks. However, USEC failed to store classified documents in accordance with the approved Security Plan in that all classified documents are stored in GSA approved repositories or vaults / vault type rooms that are not fitted with locking bars and padlocks.

7. Section 6.7 of the Security Plan submitted by USEC in the April 18,1997 revision of its application requires in part that a report reflecting all actions taken when a security container is found unsecured by guard force personnel will be submitted to the NRC Division of Security (now the Division of Facilities and Security). However, USEC failed to provide reports regarding unattended security containers found unsecured in that since May 1997, there have been several instances where guard force personnel have found classified repositories unsecured and no written reports reflecting all actions taken have been provided.

8. Section 12.3 of the Security Plan submitted by USEC in the July 1,1996 revision of its application requires in part that portion markings be applied to documents that contain National Security Information (NSI). However, USEC failed to apply portion markings to documents that contain NSI in that a group within the Nuclear Materials Section of the Portsmouth plant was not applying portion markings to documente that contain NSI.

C. ViolationsAssociated wittdrotection_otClassifiedMatter

9. Section 19.2 of the Security Plan submitted by USEC in the August 21, 1997 revision of its application requires in part that classified ADP

4 Notice of Violation 4 systems are certified for operational use not to exceed 3 years from date of certification. However, USEC failed to have two classified computer systems recortified within the required 3-year period from original certification date.

l l This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 111).

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 70.60, USEC 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 111 and the Portsmouth Resident Office, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice). This reply should be cleariy 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 vblation, (2) the corrective rhps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the conective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may reference or include previous docketed correspondenm, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required response, if an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a Demand for information may be issued as to why the certificate should not be modified, suspended, or revoked, or why sudi >ther action as may be proper should not be taken.

Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.

Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act,42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation, t3ecause your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, safeguards or classified information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. If personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies tne information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such information if you request withholding of such material, you must specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the basis for your calm of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarrantad invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) to support a request for withholding confidential or financialinformation). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21.

Dated at Lisle, Illinois the 20 ay d of October 1997

-