Search Options | ||||
Index | Site Map | FAQ | Facility Info | Reading Rm | New | Help | Glossary | Contact Us |
EA-97-012 - Crystal River 3 (Florida Power Corp.)EA 97-012 Florida Power Corporation SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY - $50,000 (NRC Inspection Report 50-302/96-18) Dear Mr. Beard: This refers to the inspection conducted during the period December 2 through 19, 1996, at your Crystal River Unit 3 facility. The inspection was conducted to review the implementation of the Crystal River Physical Security Plan. The results of this inspection were discussed with members of your staff on January 10, 1997, and were formally transmitted to you by letter dated January 31, 1997. A closed, predecisional enforcement conference was conducted in the Region II office on February 14, 1997, with you and members of your staff to discuss the apparent violations, the root causes, and corrective actions to preclude recurrence. A letter summarizing the conference was sent to you on February 18, 1997. Based on the information developed during the inspection and the information that was provided during the conference, the NRC has determined that violations of NRC requirements occurred. The violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice), and the circumstances surrounding them are described in detail in the subject inspection report. The violations involve multiple failures to implement the requirements of your Physical Security Plan including: (1) two examples of the failure to have adequate Physical Security Plan implementing procedures for the operation of the newly installed security computer in the Temporary Central and Secondary Alarm Stations and the implementation of adequate measures to compensate for degradation of vital area doors; (2) the failure to respond properly to a protected area alarm resulting in the perimeter intrusion detection system being inoperable in excess of two hours; (3) the failure to employ the capability to immediately assess more than one protected area alarm at a time; (4) the failure to maintain a physical barrier to the protected area for a period in excess of 12 hours at the Circulating Water System; (5) the failure to appropriately control and safeguard weapons stored in your armory, and (6) the failure to submit Physical Security Plan changes to the NRC in accordance with the time limits of 10 CFR 50.54(p). Most of the violations were associated with the implementation of the security upgrade project. The violations are of significant regulatory concern in that they are indicative of a lack of management attention to the program and a fundamental lack of understanding of regulatory requirements related to the security program. Although the overall security program has been functioning adequately and the working level performance of the security force has been generally good, the underlying programmatic deficiencies manifested themselves during the implementation phase of the security upgrade program. At the conference, you stated, that as a result of the violations, no significant threat of radiological sabotage existed. Although the violations associated with degraded assessment capability, alarm station operator failure, procedural deficiencies, degraded protected area barriers, and exposure of weaponry at your armory may not individually represent easily exploitable deficiencies, collectively, they weakened your overall ability to respond to a security threat. Individually, the violations normally would be categorized at Severity Level IV; however, in this case, the violations have been evaluated in the aggregate and assigned a single, increased severity level due to their similar underlying causes. Therefore, the violations are classified in accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, as a Severity Level III problem. In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $55,000 is considered for a Severity Level III problem occurring on or continuing after November 12, 1996 (61 Federal Register 53554). However, since several of the violations occurred prior to November 12, 1996, the base civil penalty considered for this case is $50,000 (NUREG-1600, July 1995). Because your facility has been the subject of escalated enforcement action within the last two years1, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for Identification and Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process described in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. The NRC determined that credit for Identification was not warranted in that the majority of the violations cited in the Notice were identified by NRC. At the conference, you stated that the new management team and the Management Corrective Action Plan-Phase II (MCAP II) which is in-place to bring about broad management, design, and corrective action changes, will also address the root causes of these violations. In addition, you stated that the corrective action taken or planned for these specific violations include: (1) addition of security to the Design Review Board for security modifications; Based on these actions, the NRC concluded that your corrective actions to restore degraded conditions were prompt and comprehensive; therefore, credit for Corrective Action was warranted. Therefore, to emphasize the importance of maintaining an adequate physical security program and the need for prompt identification of violations, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice in the base amount of $50,000 for the Severity Level III problem. You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will consider 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, its enclosure, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). Sincerely, Luis A. Reyes Regional Administrator Docket No. 50-302 Enclosure: cc w/encl: John Cowan, Vice President B. J. Hickle, Director D. Kunsemiller, Director (SA2A) R. Alexander Glenn, Corporate Counsel Attorney General Bill Passetti Joe Myers, Director Chairman Robert B. Borsum AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Florida Power Corporation Docket No. 50-302 Crystal River Nuclear Plant License No. DPR-72 Unit 3 EA 97-012 During an NRC inspection conducted during the period December 2 through 19, 1996, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, 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 particular violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below: A. Condition 2.D, Physical Protection, of Operating License Number DPR-72 states that Florida Power Corporation (FPC) shall maintain in effect and fully implement all provisions of the Commission approved Physical Security, Safeguards Contingency, and Guard Training and Qualification Plans.This is a Severity Level III problem (Supplement III). Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, the Florida Power Corporation (Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within 30 days of the date of this Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each alleged violation: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, and if denied, the reasons why, (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. 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 license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation. Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, the Licensee may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draft, money order, or electronic transfer payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, 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 the time specified, an order imposing the civil penalty will be issued. 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, (2) 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. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply 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. Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which subsequently has been determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, 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. The response noted above (Reply to Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalties, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: Mr. James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 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 Crystal River Nuclear Plant. Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards 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 the 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 bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.790(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. Dated at Atlanta, Georgia 1. A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $500,000, was issued on July 10, 1995, associated with poor engineering, operations and corrective actions (EA 95-126). A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $25,000, was issued on March 24, 1995, associated with non-conservative setpoints for safety related equipment (EA 95-016). |