IR 05000312/1985029

Forwards Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty Per Safeguards Insp Repts 50-312/85-29 & 50-312/85-34 on 850925-1024 & 851114-1212,respectively,re Control of Protected Area.Encls Withheld (Ref 10CFR73.21)

ML20210B929
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	02/05/1986
From:	Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:	Rodriquez R SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
References
EA-85-120, NUDOCS 8602100165
Download: ML20210B929 (2)

Text

'

, SAFEGtJARDS lNFORMATION /

o UNITED STATES g

{ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 j REGION V S .f 1450 MARIA LANE,sulTE 210

+4 / WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA 94596 Docket No. 50-312 License No. DPR-54 FEB 5 1986 EA: 85-120 Sacramento Municipal Utility District P. O. Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95813 Attention: Mr. R. J. Rodriguez Executive Director, Nuclear Operations Gentlemen:

Subject: Notice of Violation (NRC Inspection Reports No. 50-312/85-29 and 50-312/85-34)

During two recent safeguards inspections conducted at Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant, violations of NRC requirements were identified. The violations concern inadequate access control of the protected area. The violations were discussed with you and members of your staff during an enforcement conference held in the NRC Region V office on November 15, 1985 (NRC Inspection Report No. 50-312/85-33 dated November 29, 1985).

The first inspection was conducted on September 25 - October 24, 1985 to review the circumstances and corrective actions associated with a safeguards event during which a weapon had been brought into the protected area without detection. The event was reported by you to the NRC by telephone on September 16, 1985. The results of the inspection were discussed by the inspector with Messrs. R. Moore, G. Coward and other members of your organization at the conclusion of the visit on October 24, 198 This inspection is documented in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-312/85-29 which was provided to you by letter dated November 5, 198 The second inspection, conducted on November 14 - December 12, 1985, was prompted by a second security incident reported to the NRC by you on November 13, 1985. The second incident involved two individuals being admitted to the site protected area without undergoing security processing and without appropriate site identification badges. The cause of this violation appears to have been a failure by the security organization to verify that the individuals had been properly processed and badged before granting unescorted acces The results of the second inspection were discussed with Messr Hammond, McColligan and others and documented in NRC Inspection report 50-312/85-34 which was provided to you by letter dated January 30, 198 UI,020S PDR ADOCK 05000 o CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED f

L' -

EncLOSM CONTAINS r im.

8g3ss ogxs iO lf I

SAFEGt)ARDS INFORMATION

,m is ==r /

o e

To emphasize the need to improve access control, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) for the violations described in the enclosed Notice. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1985), the violations described in the enclosed Notice have been categorized at a Severity Level III proble The base value of a civil penalty for a Severity Level III violation or problem is $50,00 The NRC Enforcement Policy allows for reduction of a civil penalty under certain circumstances. In this case, the base civil penalty is reduced by 50 percent because: (1) the violations were promptly identified and reported to the NRC; and (2) the corrective actions for the specific violations were prompt and comprehensiv Further mitigation was not deemed appropriate because we are concerned that these violations and other deficiencies identified during the inspections represent a developing programmatic problem in controlling protected and vital area access at Rancho Sec Further evaluation of these problems will be the subject of a subsequent inspectio 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 should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirement In accordance with Section 2.790(d) of the NRC's " Rules of Practice", Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, documentation of the findings of your safeguards and security measures are exempt from putlic disclosure; therefore, the enclosed Notice of Violation will not be placed in the Public Document Room and will receive limited distributio We have determined that the enclosures so designated contain Safeguards Information and therefore are subject to the controls of 10 CFR 73.2 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, PL 96-51 Since ely, h6 N ohn B. Martin Regional Administrator Attachment:

Notice of Violation