ML072420225

Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant - NRC Office of Investigations Report No. 2-2006-011 and Inspection Report No. 05000400-07-403)

ML072420225
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	08/30/2007
From:	Travers W Region 2 Administrator
To:	Duncan R Carolina Power & Light Co
References
2-2006-011, EA-07-040 IR-07-403
Download: ML072420225 (10)

See also: IR 05000400/2007403

Text

August 30, 2007

EA-07-040

Carolina Power & Light Company

ATTN: Mr. Robert Duncan, II

Vice President - Harris Plant

Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant

P. O. Box 165, Mail Code: Zone 1

New Hill, NC 27562-0165

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY

(SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT - NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS

REPORT NO. 2-2006-011 AND INSPECTION REPORT NO.

05000400/2007403)

Dear Mr. Duncan:

This refers to an investigation completed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) Office

of Investigations (OI) on September 27, 2006, (Report 2-2006-011) and an NRC in-office

inspection completed on April 13, 2007, (Report 05000400/2007402). The purpose of the

investigation and inspection was to determine whether contract security officers at Progress

Energy/Carolina Power and Light Companys (CPL) Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant (HNP) were

provided answers by supervisors during the administration of NRC required requalification

testing. The results of our review of this matter, including the identification of two apparent

violations, were transmitted to CPL by our letter dated April 13, 2007.

On May 30, 2007, a predecisional enforcement conference was conducted in the NRCs

Region II Office with CPL to discuss the apparent violations, the significance, root causes, and

CPLs corrective actions. At the conference, CPL did not contest the apparent violations, and

provided a detailed description of its corrective actions taken in response to the issue. CPL

stated that its root cause analysis concluded that the violations were caused by a lapse of

integrity on the part of contract supervisors and inadequate management oversight.

Based on the information developed during the inspection and investigation, and the

information you provided during the conference, the NRC has determined that one violation of

NRC requirements occurred. The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice)

and the circumstances surrounding it are described in detail in the subject inspection report and

OI investigation.

CPL 2

The violation involved the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55(b)(4)(I),Section II.E. of Appendix B to

10 CFR Part 73, the Shearon Harris Security Training and Qualification Plan, Revision 9,

Section 3.3.1, and Technical Specification (TS) 6.8. In September 2005, a supervisor

deliberately provided the answer key with tests he handed out during NRC-required annual

written security re-qualification testing (Armed Guard/Responder Crucial Task Test). During

2005, that same supervisor and two other supervisors deliberately provided answers to security

officers while administering NRC-required annual written security re-qualification testing (Armed

Guard/Responder Crucial Task Test) and while administering the NRC required annual re-

qualification computer based testing (Plant Access, Radiation Worker and Respiratory

Protection Training). As a result, numerous security officers were not tested or qualified as

required. Consequently, it could not be concluded with any degree of certainty that contract

security officers achieved the minimum passing score of 80 percent on the Plant Access,

Radiation Worker and Respiratory Protection Training, as specified by TS and Progress Energy

Nuclear Generation Group (Shearon Harris) Standard Procedure TRN-NGGC-0010, Plant

Access, Radiation Worker and Respiratory Protection Training, Revision 5. It also could not be

concluded with any degree of certainty that contract security officers achieved the minimum

passing score of 70 percent on the Armed Guard/Responder Crucial Task Test, as specified by

the Shearon Harris Security Training and Qualification Plan.

Although CPLs subsequent actions confirmed that contract security officers, in fact, possessed

the requisite knowledge as evidenced by their satisfactory completion of additional

examinations, the NRC considers the above violation to represent a significant deficiency in

CPLs processes for qualifying and testing of officers. In addition, the deliberate misconduct of

security supervisors raises a significant concern regarding CPLs oversight of its security

contractor, and calls into question the integrity of its contractors implementation of the

qualification process for its security officers. Therefore, this violation is categorized in

accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy at Severity Level III.

In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $65,000 is

considered for a Severity Level III violation. Because the violation was willful, the NRC

considered whether credit was warranted for Identification and Corrective Action in accordance

with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.C.2 of the Enforcement Policy.

In this case, concerns regarding possible improper testing were brought to the attention of the

NRC by outside stakeholder organizations in December 2005. The NRC notified CPL of the

concerns during its investigation into the matter as part of an on-site inspection/investigation in

January 2006. Therefore, credit is not warranted for the factor of Identification.

In response to this incident, CPL took numerous corrective actions, including: (1) performance

of a root cause investigation into the circumstances of this matter; (2) changes in the

administration of examinations such that examinations now will be given only by State certified

HNP security training personnel; (3) developing and including formal documentation of

examination requirements in HNPs procedures; and (4) re-administering examinations to

security officers by State certified training personnel.

CPL 3

CPL also noted that the individuals involved in the deliberate misconduct were no longer

employed by its security contractor, and provided details of various activities at the site to

improve the recruitment and retention of security staff.

Additional corrective actions included licensee and contractor emphasis on improvements in

communications at all levels of the security organization, the performance of additional field

observations of security related activities, and the increased use of the corrective action

program by security personnel. Based on the above, credit is warranted for the factor of

Corrective Action.

Therefore, to emphasize the importance of prompt identification of violations, and in recognition

of the significance of deliberate violations involving the training and qualification of security

officers, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, to

issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) in the

base amount of $65,000 for this Severity Level III violation.

The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reasons for the violation, the corrective

actions taken and planned to correct the violation and prevent recurrence and the date when

full compliance was achieved is already adequately addressed on the docket in this letter and in

the information provided by CPL at the conference. Therefore, you are not required to respond

to this letter unless the description therein does not accurately reflect your corrective actions or

your position. In that case, or if you choose to provide additional information, you should follow

the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice.

For administrative purposes, this letter is issued as a separate NRC Inspection Report,

05000400/2007403, and the above violation is identified as VIO 05000400/2007403-01,

Administration of NRC Required Annual Security Re-qualification Testing. Accordingly,

Apparent Violations (AVs)05000400/2007402-01, Administration of NRC Required Annual

Written Security Re-qualification Testing, and 05000400/2007402-02, Administration of NRC

Required Annual Plant Access, Radiation Worker and Respiratory Protection Training Testing,

are closed.

If you disagree with this enforcement sanction you may request Alternative Dispute Resolution

(ADR) with the NRC in an attempt to resolve this issue. ADR is a general term encompassing

various techniques for resolving conflicts outside of court using a neutral third party. The

technique that the NRC has decided to employ is mediation. Additional information concerning

the NRC's program is described in the enclosed brochure (NUREG/BR-0317) and can be

obtained at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/adr.html. The Institute on

Conflict Resolution (ICR) at Cornell University has agreed to facilitate the NRCs program as an

intake neutral. Please contact ICR at 877-733-9415 within 10 days of the date of this letter if

you are interested in pursing resolution of this issue through ADR.

CPL 4

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this letter and

enclosures will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document

Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRCs document system

(ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-

rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact Mr. Joseph Shea,

Director, Division of Reactor Safety, at (404) 562-4600.

Sincerely,

/RA/

William D. Travers

Regional Administrator

Docket No.: 50-400

License No.: NPF-63

Enclosures:

1. Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition

of Civil Penalty

2. NUREG/BR-0317

3. NUREG/BR-0254

CPL 5

cc w/encls:

Paul Fulford, Manager

Performance Evaluation and

Regulatory Affairs CPB 9

Carolina Power & Light Company

P. O. Box 1551

Raleigh, NC. 27602-1551

Eric McCartney

Plant General Manager - Harris Plant

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.

Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant

P. O. Box 165, Mail Zone 3

New Hill, NC 27562-0165

Thomas Natale, Manager

Support Services

Carolina Power & Light Company

Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant

P. O. Box 165, Mail Zone 1

New Hill, NC 27562-0165

J. Wayne Gurganious

Training Manager-Harris

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.

Harris Energy & Environmental Center

P. O. Box 327

New Hill, NC 27562-0327

David H. Corlett, Supervisor

Licensing/Regulatory Programs

Carolina Power & Light company

Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant

P. O. Box 165, Mail Zone 1

New Hill, NC 275-0165

David T. Conley

Associate General Counsel - Legal Department

Progress Energy Services Company, LC

P. O. Box 1551

Raleigh, NC 27602-1551

_________________________

OFFICE EICS:RII DRS OE NSIR OGC

SIGNATURE /RA Ssparks for/ /RA/ /RA Mburrell via /via email/

telephone for/

NAME CEVANS JSHEA R. Correia G. Longo

DATE 8/24/07 8/28/07 7/22/07 8/22/07

E-MAIL COPY? YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO

CPL 6

Subject: Letter to Mr. Duncan Dated:

Distribution w/encls:

L. Reyes, OEDO

M. Virgilio, DEDMRT

J. Dyer, NRR

W. Travers, RII

V. McCree, RII

L. Chandler, OGC

B. Jones, OGC

C. Carpenter, OE

E. Julian, SECY

B. Keeling, OCA

Enforcement Coordinators

RI, RIII, RIV

E. Hayden, OPA

G. Caputo, OI

H. Bell, OIG

M. Burrell, OE

M. Ashley, NRR

C. Casto, RII

J. Shea, RII

C. Evans, RII

S. Sparks, RII

R. Musser, RII

P. OBryan, RII

K. Clark, RII

R. Hannah, RII

R. Trojanowski, RII

OEMAIL

PUBLIC

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

AND

PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY

Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-400

Unit 1 License No. NPF-63

EA-07-040

During an NRC investigation completed on September 27, 2006, and NRC in-office inspection

completed on April 13, 2007, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance

with the NRC Enforcement Policy, the NRC proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to

Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205. The violation and associated civil penalty are set forth below:

10 CFR 73.55(b)(4)(I), states, in part, that each guard, watchman, armed response

person, and other member of the security organization shall requalify in accordance with

Appendix B to this part at least every 12 months.

10 CFR Part 73, Appendix B, Section II.E., states, in part, that security personnel shall

be requalified at least every 12 months to perform assigned security-related job tasks

and duties for both normal and contingency operations. Requalification shall be in

accordance with NRC-approved licensee training and qualification plan.

Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant, Security Training and Qualification Plan, Revision 0,

dated October 18, 2004, Section 3.3.1, states, in part, that an annual written

examination shall be administered to armed security officers which samples the

knowledge requirements identified in the security training program.

Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant Technical Specification 6.8, requires, in part, the licensee

to develop and adhere to procedures listed in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.33, including

procedures for instructing workers on radiological safety.

Progress Energy Nuclear Generation Group (Shearon Harris) Standard Procedure TRN-

NGGC-0010, Plant Access, Radiation Worker and Respiratory Protection Training,

Revision 5, Section 9.5.2, paragraph 6, states in part, Plant Access Re-training (PAR) is

required annually with a tolerance of the remainder of the month in which the training

was completed. Section 9.5.3, paragraph 5, states in part, Radiation Worker Retraining

(RWR) is required annually with a tolerance of the remainder of the month in which the

training was completed. Section 9.8.3 states in part, Respiratory Protection Retraining

(RPR) is required annually with a tolerance of the remainder of the month in which the

training was completed.

Contrary to the above, in September 2005, the licensee failed to requalify members of

its security organization as required by 10 CFR Part 73 and Shearon Harris Nuclear

Plant Technical Specification 6.8. Specifically, a security supervisor provided the

answer key with tests he handed out during NRC-required annual written security re-

qualification testing (Armed Guard/Responder Crucial Task Test). Also, in 2005, that

same supervisor and two other supervisors provided answers to security officers during

Enclosure 1

Notice 2

the administration of NRC-required annual written security re-qualification testing

(Armed Guard/Responder Crucial Task Test) and while administering the NRC-required

annual re-qualification computer based testing (Plant Access, Radiation Worker and

Respiratory Protection Training). As a result, numerous security officers were not tested

or qualified as required.

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

Civil Penalty - $65,000.

The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reasons for the violation, the corrective

actions taken and planned to correct the violation and prevent recurrence and the date when

full compliance was achieved is already adequately addressed on the docket in the information

provided by licensee at the pre-decisional enforcement conference, and in the cover letter

transmitting this Notice. However, if the description therein does not accurately reflect your

position or your corrective actions, you are required to submit a written statement or explanation

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201. In that case, or if you choose to respond, clearly mark your

response as a Reply to a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty, EA-07-

040 and send it to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville, MD 20852-2738, with a copy to the Regional

Administrator, U.S., Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II, and a copy to the NRC

Resident Inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice.

Within 30 days of the date of this Notice, the Licensee may pay the civil penalty proposed

above in accordance with NUREG/BR-0254 and by submitting to the Director, Office of

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a statement indicating when and by what

method payment was made, or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part, by

a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission. Should the Licensee fail to answer within 30 days of the date of this Notice, the

NRC will issue an order imposing the civil penalty. Should the Licensee elect to file an answer

in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such answer

should be clearly marked as an "Answer to a Notice of Violation" and may: (1) deny the

violations listed in this Notice, in whole or in part; demonstrate extenuating circumstances; (3)

show error in this Notice; or (4) show other reasons why the penalty should not be imposed. In

addition to protesting the civil penalty in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or

mitigation of the penalty.

In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the response should address the factors

addressed in Section VI.C.2, Civil Penalty Assessment, of the Enforcement Policy.

Any written answer addressing these factors pursuant to 10 CFR 2.205, should be set forth

separately from the statement or explanation provided pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may

incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g., citing page and

paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of the Licensee is directed to the other

provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty.

Enclosure 1

Notice 3

Upon failure to pay any civil penalty which subsequently has been determined in accordance

with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205 to be due, this matter may be referred to the

Attorney General, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be

collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c.

If you choose to respond, your response will be made available electronically for public

inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the NRCs document system (ADAMS),

to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, classified or

safeguards information so that it can be made available to the public without redaction.

ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If

personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide an acceptable response,

then please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that

should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such information. If you

request that such material is withheld from public disclosure, you must specifically identify the

portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for

your claim (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of

personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.390(b) to support a request

for withholding confidential commercial or financial information). If safeguards information is

necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described

in 10 CFR 73.21.

In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice within two working

days.

Dated this 30th day of August 2007

Enclosure 1