United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Protecting People and the Environment

EA-97-056 - Brunswick (Carolina Power and Light Company)

April 24, 1997

EA 97-056
EA 97-057
EA 97-058

Carolina Power and Light Company
ATTN: W. S. Orser
Executive Vice President
P. O. Box 1551
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

 

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION
(NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-325, 324/97-01, 50-400/97-02,
AND 50-261/97-02

Dear Mr. Orser:

This letter refers to the inspection conducted at the Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) General Office in Raleigh, North Carolina during the period January 13 through February 6, 1997. The inspection included a review of the Access Authorization and Fitness for Duty programs for the Brunswick, Harris, and Robinson plants. Particularly, the inspection reviewed the results of CP&L's audit of these programs conducted during July 1996. The results of the inspection were formally transmitted to you by letter dated February 28, 1997. That letter also provided you the opportunity to respond to the apparent violations or request a predecisional enforcement conference. Subsequently, you declined a conference, and by letters dated March 31, and April 4, 1997, you submitted additional information to us regarding the apparent violations, the root causes, and your corrective actions to preclude recurrence, as requested in our letter dated February 28, 1997. We have reviewed the inspection results and the additional information you provided and have concluded that sufficient information is available to determine the appropriate enforcement action in this matter.

Based on the information developed during the inspection and the information that was provided in your March 31 and April 4, 1997, letters, the NRC has determined that violations of NRC requirements occurred. The violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice), and the circumstances surrounding them are described in detail in the subject inspection report. The violations addressed in the Notice are associated with multiple failures to implement various aspects of your Access Authorization and Fitness for Duty programs at the Brunswick and Harris plants. In the area of access authorization, the violations include: (1) the failure to fingerprint and/or complete the criminal history check of individuals prior to granting unescorted access to the Brunswick plant; (2) the failure to verify properly an individual's prior employment before granting unescorted access to the Brunswick plant; (3) the failure to conduct adequate periodic reviews of the access list for vital areas at the Harris plant; and (4) the failure to document adequately decisions regarding the basis for granting unescorted access authorization at the Brunswick plant. In the area of fitness for duty, the violations include: (1) the failure to include three individuals who were granted unescorted access to the Brunswick plant in the random drug and alcohol testing program; and (2) multiple failures to follow documentation procedures associated with fitness for duty donor chain of custody for the Brunswick and Harris plants. The root cause of the violations appears to be a lack of management oversight and monitoring of program implementation prior to July 1996.

The NRC recognizes that the violations described in the Notice were identified through CP&L's audit and self-assessment program. Although your efforts in identifying the issues and determining the extent of condition were aggressive and are to be commended, collectively, the violations are of significant regulatory concern. Particularly, with the 1995 consolidation of the Access Authorization and Fitness for Duty programs under General Office control, management did not assure sufficient pre-planning, procedure development, and personnel training to facilitate the program's transition and subsequent implementation. As a result, programmatic issues of the type described above emerged. Although the Notice relates primarily to the Brunswick plant and, to a lesser degree the Harris plant, the deficiencies identified had the potential to impact all three of your licensed facilities significantly. Furthermore, the Notice reflects only a sampling of the issues you identified. Of individual concern are Violations A.2 and A.3 which involve the access or potential access of unauthorized individuals to the Brunswick and Harris plants, respectively. Specifically, due to your failure to perform an adequate verification of prior employment, which would have identified derogatory information, an individual was granted unescorted access to the Brunswick plant. Had the subsequently identified derogatory information been known at the time, the individual would not have been granted access. Secondly, the failure to perform adequate 31-day reviews of the vital area access list at the Harris plant resulted in the failure to identify two individuals whose employment had been terminated, but who retained the capability to gain unescorted access to the plant. Therefore, collectively, the violations are classified in the aggregate in accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, as a Severity Level III problem, applicable to both the Brunswick and Harris plants individually.

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 most 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 the Brunswick plant has been the subject of escalated enforcement action within the last two years (1) , 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 concluded that credit was warranted for Identification because the violations were identified as a result of your audit program. As stated previously and in the subject inspection report, the thoroughness and aggressiveness of this effort are noteworthy. With regard to consideration for Corrective Action , as documented in the inspection report transmitted to you on February 28, 1997, and your March 31 and April 4, 1997, written responses, the corrective actions for the violations include:

(1) assignment of new management to address the oversight issues; (2) conduct of training and a review of expectations for appropriate personnel; (3) initiation of a root cause analysis and condition review; (4) revision, either completed or planned, of appropriate access authorization and fitness for duty procedures; (5) conduct of a detailed review of the specific circumstances surrounding the individual access authorization cases; (6) issuance of expectations and more detailed requirements to contractors performing background investigations; (7) the conduct of additional audits of background investigation material to ensure completeness; (8) development of a formalized training program for access authorization personnel; and (9) implementation of a weekly cross-check of the random drug testing pool at the Brunswick plant until it is determined that a problem no longer exits. Based on the above, the NRC determined that your corrective actions were prompt and comprehensive, and credit was warranted for this factor.

Therefore, to encourage prompt identification of and comprehensive corrective action for violations, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, not to propose a civil penalty in this case for the Brunswick plant. In addition, no civil penalty is proposed for the Harris plant because the Harris plant has not been the subject of escalated enforcement action within the last two years and credit was determined to be warranted for the factor of Corrective Action as described above. However, significant violations in the future could result in a civil penalty.

With regard to the apparent violations described in the inspection report for the Robinson plant, EEI 50-261/97-02-01 and EEI 50-261/97-02-02, the NRC has concluded that these violations, absent additional violations related to these program areas for Robinson, are less significant. Although the fact that the specific violations identified at Robinson were fewer in number and of minor, overall significance (i.e., documentation issues), due to the programmatic nature of the issues described above, it was only fortuitous that other issues were not identified at Robinson. However, we have concluded that the two violations meet the criteria specified in Section VII.B.1 of the Enforcement Policy, and therefore will not be cited. For tracking purposes, the non-cited violations are identified as NCV 50-261/97-02-01 for access authorization documentation issues and NCV 50-261/97-02-02 for fitness for duty documentation issues.

The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reason for the violations, the corrective actions taken and planned to correct the violations and prevent recurrence, and the date when full compliance will be achieved are already adequately addressed on the docket in your letters to the NRC dated March 31 and April 4, 1997. Therefore, no response to this letter is required 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.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response, should you provide one, will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

    Sincerely,

    Original Signed by
R.V. Crlinjak for

    Luis A. Reyes
Regional Administrator

Enclosure: Notice of Violation

cc w/encl:

Mr. W. R. Robinson
Vice President - Harris Plant
Carolina Power & Light Company
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant
P. O. Box 165, Mail Code: Zone 1
New Hill, NC 27562-0165

T. D. Walt, Director
Operations & Environmental
Support MS OHS7
Carolina Power & Light Company
412 S. Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27601

J. W. Donahue
Director of Site Operations
Carolina Power & Light Company
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant
P. O. Box 165, MC: Zone 1
New Hill, NC 27562-0165

Bo Clark
Plant General Manager - Harris Plant
Carolina Power & Light Company
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant
P. O. Box 165
New Hill, NC 27562-0165

D. B. Alexander, Supervisor
Licensing/Regulatory Programs
Carolina Power & Light Company
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant
P. O. Box 165, Mail Zone 1
New Hill, NC 27562-0165

W. D. Johnson, Vice President
and Senior Counsel
Carolina Power & Light Company
P. O. Box 1551
Raleigh, NC 27602

Mel Fry, Acting Director
Division of Radiation Protection
N. C. Department of Environment,
Health & Natural Resources
3825 Barrett Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609-7721

Karen E. Long
Assistant Attorney General
State of North Carolina
P. O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602

Chairman of the North Carolina
Utilities Commission
P. O. Box 29510
Raleigh, NC 27626-0510

Robert P. Gruber
Executive Director
Public Staff NCUC
P. O. Box 29520
Raleigh, NC 27626

Stewart Adcock, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
of Wake County
P. O. Box 550
Raleigh, NC 27602

Margaret Bryant Pollard, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
of Chatham County
P. O. Box 87
Pittsboro, NC 27312

Mr. C. S. Hinnant
Vice President
Carolina Power & Light Company
H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant
Unit 2
3581 West Entrance Road
Hartsville, SC 29550

Dale E. Young
Plant Manager
H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant
3581 West Entrance Road
Hartsville, SC 29550

H. K. Chernoff, Supervisor
Licensing/Regulatory Programs
H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant
3581 West Entrance Road
Hartsville, SC 29550-0790

T. M. Wilkerson, Manager
Regulatory Affairs
Carolina Power & Light Company
H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant
3581 West Entrance Road
Hartsville, SC 29550-0790

Max Batavia, Chief
Bureau of Radiological Health
Dept. of Health and Environmental
Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201

Public Service Commission
State of South Carolina
P. O. Box 11649
Columbia, SC 29211

Hartsville Memorial Library
147 W. College Avenue
Hartsville, SC 29550

Mr. W. R. Campbell
Vice President
Carolina Power & Light Company
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant
P. O. Box 10429
Southport, NC 28461

W. Levis, Director
Site Operations
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant
P. O. Box 10429
Southport, NC 28461

R. P. Lopriore
Plant Manager
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant
Carolina Power & Light Company
P. O. Box 10429
Southport, NC 28461

K. R. Jury, Manager
Regulatory Affairs
Carolina Power & Light Company
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant
P. O. Box 10429
Southport, NC 28461-0429

Jerry W. Jones, Chairman
Brunswick County Board of
Commissioners
P. O. Box 249
Bolvia, NC 28422

Dan E. Summers
Emergency Management Coordinator
New Hanover County Department of
Emergency Management
P. O. Box 1525
Wilmington, NC 28402

William H. Crowe, Mayor
City of Southport
201 East Moore Street
Southport, NC 28461


NOTICE OF VIOLATION

Carolina Power and Light Company   Docket Nos. 50-325, 50-324, and 50-400
Brunswick Nuclear Plant   Licnese Nos. DPR-71, DPR-62, and NPF-63
Harris Nuclear Plant   EA 97-056 and EA 97-057

During an NRC inspection conducted on January 13 through February 6, 1997, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the violations are listed below:

A. 10 CFR 73.56(b) requires the licensee to establish and maintain an Access Authorization Program granting individuals unescorted access to protected and vital areas with the objective of providing high assurance that individuals granted unescorted access are trustworthy and reliable, and do not constitute an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public including a potential to commit radiological sabotage.

1. 10 CFR 73.56(b)(3) requires that the licensee base its decision to grant, deny, revoke, or continue an unescorted access authorization on review and evaluation of all pertinent information developed.

10 CFR 73.57(b) requires the licensee to fingerprint each individual who is permitted unescorted access to the nuclear facility. Based on the results of the criminal history check on the individual's fingerprint results, the licensee is to determine either to continue, to grant, or to deny further unescorted access to the facility.

Desk Top Instruction PA-DI-05, "In-Processing/Out-Processing," Revision 5, dated April 26, 1996, requires, in part, that employees who have lost access for over 365 days but less than five years shall complete fingerprinting prior to being granted unescorted access authorization.

Contrary to the above, the licensee failed to implement an Access Authorization Program to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 73.56, 10 CFR 73.57, and the requirements of Desk Top Instruction AA-DI-03 as evidenced by the following examples:

a. From March 31 through May 7, 1994, and July 1 through July 7, 1994, an individual was permitted final unescorted access to the Brunswick Nuclear Plant without the completion of the criminal history check based on the fingerprints; and

b. On March 28, 1990, an individual was granted unescorted access to the Brunswick Nuclear Plant; however, fingerprints results were not filed for the individual.

c. From August 1991 to August 1996, an individual was granted unescorted access to the Brunswick Nuclear Plant for whom more than 365 days but less than five years had elapsed since being initially fingerprinted and being approved for unescorted access. (01013)

2. Paragraph 1.0, of Procedure SEC-NGGC-2101, Nuclear Worker Screening Program for Unescorted Access, Revision 0, dated March 20, 1995, requires the licensee to implement an Unescorted Access Authorization Program which satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR 73.56.

Paragraph 5.1.1, of Procedure SEC-NGGC-2101, Nuclear Worker Screening Program for Unescorted Access, requires, in part, that employment history must be obtained for the past five years through contacts with previous employers by obtaining the following information: (1) verification of claimed periods of employment of 30 days or more; (2) reason for termination and eligibility for rehire; and (3) any other information that would adversely reflect upon the reliability and trustworthiness of the worker as it relates to the worker being permitted unescorted access.

Contrary to the above, from January 22 through March 1, 1996, an individual for whom the licensee had not verified prior employment was granted temporary, unescorted access to the Brunswick Nuclear Plant. Subsequently, the individual was determined to have been terminated from a previous employer for record falsification. (01023)

3. License Condition No. 2.E of Carolina Power and Light Company Operating License No. NPF-63 requires, in part, that the licensee fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the Commission-approved physical security plan.

Paragraph 6.2.1 of the Harris Nuclear Plant's Physical Security Plan (PSP), Revision 0, dated April 29, 1996, and Paragraph 1.6 of Revision 7, dated May 26, 1994, require that a current access list for vital areas must be upgraded and re-approved by the cognizant licensee manager or supervisor at least every 31 days. The PSP further requires that the names of personnel whose employment is terminated, for whatever reason, are purged from the access authorization list.

Contrary to the above, during the periods March 3 through April 24, 1995, and December 31, 1996 through January 17, 1997, the licensee's 31-day review of the access list for vital areas was inadequate in that it failed to identify and have purged from the access authorization list, two individuals whose employment had been terminated, resulting in their continued capability to gain unescorted access to the Harris Nuclear Plant. (01033)

4. 10 CFR 73.56(b)(3) requires that the licensee base its decision to grant, deny, revoke, or continue an unescorted access authorization on review and evaluation of all pertinent information developed.

Contrary to the above, the licensee failed to accurately document or note that documentation was missing upon which it had based its decision to grant unescorted access authorization as evidenced by the following examples:

a. On January 22, 1996, an individual was granted unescorted access to the Brunswick Nuclear Plant although adjudication of derogatory credit information was not documented.

b. On March 26, 1996, a contractor had been granted final clearance to the Brunswick Nuclear Plant without adjudication of the failure to provide a best effort to contact two developed references. (01043)

C. 10 CFR 26.24(a)(2) requires the licensee to implement unannounced drug and alcohol tests imposed in a statistically random and unpredictable manner so that all persons in the population subject to testing have an equal probability of being selected and tested.

Contrary to the above, the licensee failed to implement unannounced drug and alcohol tests for all persons in the population subject to testing. Specifically, from May 9, 1994, through February 2, 1995; April 26, 1994, through February 21, 1995; and January 24 through March 21, 1996, three individuals who were granted unescorted access to Brunswick Nuclear Plant were not included in the random drug/alcohol testing program. (01053)

D. 10 CFR 26.20(c) requires the licensee to develop procedures to be utilized in testing for drugs and alcohol, including procedures for protecting the employee and the integrity of the specimen, and the quality controls used to ensure the test results are valid and attributable to the correct individual.

Procedure SEG-NGGC-2143, Fitness for Duty Drug Testing Specimen Collection, Revision 0, dated September 13, 1996, Section 9.2 requires the licensee, if the specimen is of insufficient volume, to measure temperature and to record the information in the Permanent Record Book and in the Chain of Custody collector's notes section.

Urine Drug Testing Specimen Collection Instruction, dated May 12, 1995, requires, in part, the following: (1) that the collector print the name of the donor and have the donor sign their name on the Chain of Custody form; (2) that the collector enter the date on the Chain of Custody form; and (3) that the Permanent Record Book Form be completed (including a donor certification signature) and that the donor verify that the name, social security number, specimen number, dates signatures, etc... on all fitness for duty paperwork.

Desk Top Instruction-51, Blind Proficiency Sample Processing, Revision 2, dated October 11, 1995, requires the collector to print and sign the blind sample name on the Chain of Custody prior to submission.

Contrary to the above, the licensee failed to complete signature or other personal identification information on fitness for duty documentation at all three sites as evidenced by the following examples:

a. On August 2, 1995, the Brunswick Nuclear Plant fitness for duty staff failed to have the donor sign the Chain of Custody form.

b. On September 3, 11, and 19, 1996, the General Office fitness for duty staff on four separate occasions failed to ensure that the donor verified their name and signature on various fitness for duty forms.

c. On October 1, 1996, the Brunswick Nuclear Plant fitness for duty staff misspelled the donor's name on the Chain of Custody form.

d. On October 1, 1996, the Brunswick Nuclear Plant staff recorded the wrong social security number on the Chain of Custody form.

e. On October 7, 1996, the Brunswick Nuclear Plant fitness for duty staff failed to record that a specimen was of insufficient volume, in the specified box on the Chain of Custody form.

f. On November 11, 1996, a Harris fitness for duty staff member failed to date a donor's Chain of Custody.

g. On December 11, 1996, the General Office fitness for duty staff forwarded a blind sample to the testing laboratory without printing and signing the donor's name on the Chain of Custody form. (01063)

This is a Severity Level III problem (Supplements III and VII) and is applicable to Brunswick Units 1 and 2 and Harris Unit 1.

The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reason for the violations, the corrective actions taken and planned to correct the violations and prevent recurrence, and the date when full compliance will be achieved are already adequately addressed on the docket in your letters to the NRC dated March 31 and

April 4, 1997. However, you are required to submit a written statement or explanation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 if the description therein does not accurately reflect your corrective actions or your position. In that case, or if you choose to respond, clearly mark your response as a "Reply to Notice of Violation," and send it to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D. C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region II, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspectors at the Brunswick, Harris, and Robinson's plants within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice).

Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U. S. C. 2232, any response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.

If you choose to provide a response, it will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), and 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.

Dated at Atlanta, Georgia
this 24th day of April 1997


1. These escalated enforcement actions include EA 95-166, EA 95-228, EA 96-054, EA 96-181, EA 96-354, and most recently EA 96-442 which was issued on December 13, 1996, which related to exceeding the thermal power limit.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 29, 2012