96-26160. Florida Power Corporation; Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3 Issuance of Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206  

  • [Federal Register Volume 61, Number 199 (Friday, October 11, 1996)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 53461-53463]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 96-26160]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
    [Docket No. 50-302]
    
    
    Florida Power Corporation; Crystal River Nuclear Generating 
    Plant, Unit 3 Issuance of Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206
    
        Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
    Regulation (NRR), has taken action on a Petition of March 28, 1996 
    (Petition), for action under Sec. 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of 
    Federal Regulations (10 CFR 2.206) filed by Louis D. Putney, Esq., on 
    behalf of Barry L. Bennett (Petitioner) concerning the Crystal River 
    Nuclear Generating Plant (CR3) of the Florida Power Corporation (the 
    licensee).
        The Petition alleged a number of security-related deficiencies 
    associated with the CR3 facility. The Petition requested, pursuant to 
    10 CFR 2.206, NRC to investigate security concerns at CR3 and, upon a 
    determination of their validity, institute a proceeding to suspend or 
    revoke the operating license of CR3 pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 until such 
    time as these concerns are corrected. The Notice of Receipt of Petition 
    Under 10 CFR 2.206 was published in the Federal Register on June 20, 
    1996 (61 FR 31562).
        The Director of NRR determined that the Petition should be denied 
    for the reasons explained in the ``Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 
    2.206'' (DD-96-13), the complete text of which follows this notice and 
    is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document 
    Room at 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, D.C., and at the Local Public 
    Document Room for the CR3 plant located at the Coastal Region Library, 
    8619 W. Crystal Street, Crystal River, Florida.
        A copy of this Director's Decision will be filed with the Secretary 
    of the Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 
    2.206(c).
        As provided by this regulation, the Decision will constitute the 
    final action of the Commission 25 days after issuance, unless the 
    Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the Decision 
    within that time.
    
        Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of October 1996.
    
        For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    Frank J. Miraglia,
    Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    
    DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206
    
    I. Introduction
    
        On March 28, 1996, Louis D. Putney, Esq., on behalf of Barry L. 
    Bennett (Petitioner), filed a Petition pursuant to Sec. 2.206 of Title 
    10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 2.206) and alleged a 
    number of security deficiencies at Florida Power Corporation's (the 
    licensee's) Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3 (CR3). The 
    Petitioner requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC 
    or the staff) investigate the security deficiencies at CR3 and, upon 
    determination of their validity, institute a proceeding to suspend or 
    revoke the operating license of CR3, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, until 
    such time as these concerns are corrected. The Petition was referred to 
    the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) for action in accordance 
    with 10 CFR 2.206.
        In a letter dated April 24, 1996, to the Petitioner, the Director 
    of NRR acknowledged receipt of the Petition and informed the Petitioner 
    that his request was being treated as a petition under 10 CFR 2.206. 
    The April 24th letter also informed the Petitioner that as provided by 
    10 CFR 2.206, action will be taken on his request within a reasonable 
    time. Receipt of the petition was noticed in the Federal Register (61 
    FR 31562). The staff has completed its review of the issues and has 
    reached its conclusions, which are discussed herein.
    
    II. Background
    
        The Petitioner alleged security deficiencies at the CR3 plant and 
    stated that they render the nuclear security program at CR3 
    ineffective. As the basis of his request, the Petitioner described 
    examples of the security concerns,
    
    [[Page 53462]]
    
    which involved the following four areas: Compliance with licensing 
    requirements and maintaining an effective security program; a pattern 
    of lax security and failure to report security breaches; a practice of 
    using only one guard to monitor several protected zones or entrances to 
    the protected area; and a reduction of security force personnel.
        The NRC staff has reviewed the Petition and the results of this 
    review are discussed below.
        A special inspection was conducted during the periods of March 13-
    22 and April 3-5, 1996, and is documented in NRC Inspection Report (IR) 
    50-302/96-02. This IR contains safeguards information as defined by 10 
    CFR 73.21 and its disclosure to unauthorized individuals is prohibited 
    by Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended and 
    therefore, is not available for public review. However, the IR summary 
    does not contain safeguards information and, therefore, is available 
    for public review at the Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L 
    Street, NW., Washington, DC and at the local public document room 
    located at Coastal Region Library, 8619 W. Crystal Street, Crystal 
    River, Florida 32629.
    
    III. Discussion
    
        The Petitioner alleged that CR3's compliance with one of its 
    licensing requirements, that is, maintaining a security program that 
    would be effective against terrorist attack, is inadequate. 
    Specifically, the Petitioner alleges that an operational security 
    response effectiveness drill conducted in 1995 was unsuccessful and the 
    results were not formally documented and reported to the NRC. Further, 
    the Petitioner claims that the deficiencies revealed by the drill have 
    never been corrected, and thus the plant remains susceptible to 
    terrorist attack.
        Two types of security drills have been conducted at CR3: an 
    Operational Safeguards Response Evaluation (OSRE) by the NRC and a 
    Security Organization Response Exercise (SORX) by the licensee. The NRC 
    staff conducted an OSRE on February 15-18, 1994, and its results are 
    documented in a letter to the licensee dated August 11, 1994. The 
    licensee conducted SORX drills during May and June 1995. The staff 
    contacted Louis D. Putney, the attorney for the Petitioner, to clarify 
    whether the Petitioner's concern is related to the licensee's SORX or 
    the NRC's Operational Safeguards Response Evaluation. Mr. Putney 
    confirmed that the issue is related to the licensee's SORX drill.
        In the course of the March 18-22 and April 3-5, 1996 inspection, 
    the inspector reviewed documentation, and interviewed licensed 
    representatives to determine whether the licensee was meeting 
    commitments specified in the Training and Qualification Plan (T&QP).
        The inspector verified during these two inspection periods that the 
    security force was being trained in accordance with the provisions 
    outlined in the T&QP by reviewing 1995 records for 10 randomly selected 
    security force members employed in the position of either response team 
    member, alarm station operator/analyst, or access control officer. All 
    members of the security force were appropriately equipped. The records 
    reviewed indicate that the tasks, weapon requalification scores, and 
    physical fitness requirements were documented satisfactorily. 
    Interviews with security officers in various positions verified that 
    they were knowledgeable for their duties and responsibilities. The 
    inspector concluded that the licensee, at the time of these 
    inspections, was meeting the commitments specified in the licensee's 
    T&QP.
        The inspector reviewed the licensee's documentation for SORX 
    drills, which were conducted during May and June 1995. The licensee 
    used attendance sheets to document each participant's attendance and 
    performance. All participants for the seven SORX drills were documented 
    as performing satisfactorily. In addition, these attendance sheets were 
    signed and dated by the instructor/assessor, who on several occasions 
    was the Petitioner. The licensee stated that the drills were 
    successful, and inspection of the licensee's records and interviews 
    with its employees did not show otherwise. Upon further discussion with 
    licensee representatives, the inspector learned that licensee 
    documented the 1993 and 1994 drills on Form TDP-307 and the 1995 drills 
    on the attendance sheets as discussed above. Based on review of the 
    documentation, interviews of the licensee representatives and security 
    officers, and direct observations, the inspector concluded that there 
    were no discovered vulnerabilities in the licensee's safeguards system 
    or violations of licensed requirements during the licensee's SORX 
    drills and that the licensee's training and qualification program meets 
    the requirements in the T&QP.
        The NRC inspector verified that the 1995 SORX drill results were 
    not reported to the NRC, as alleged by the Petitioner. However, there 
    is no regulatory requirement to report the results of drills unless 
    certain safeguards system weaknesses are discovered during the drills 
    that could allow unauthorized or undetected access to protected or 
    vital areas of the reactor. If the above weaknesses are discovered they 
    are required to be compensated, corrected and reported or documented in 
    accordance with NRC regulations; 10 CFR 73.55 and 73.71. No such 
    vulnerabilities in the 1995 SORX drills were identified. The staff did 
    not find violations of regulatory requirements in the conduct or 
    documentation of the 1995 drills, and the Petitioner's concerns are not 
    substantiated.
        The Petitioner states that ``there is a general laxity of 
    security'' and ``a pattern of failure to report security breaches'' at 
    Crystal River. As the basis for these claims, the Petitioner cites 
    three separate incidents that occurred in 1995 for which security 
    reports were not filed: (1) A guard was found asleep at a compensatory 
    post, (2) a security lieutenant took his badge off site, and (3) a 
    guard was found reading a book instead of watching three security zones 
    as assigned.
        Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.71, licensees are required to report certain 
    safeguards events to the NRC within one hour of discovery and other 
    events must be recorded within 24 hours in the Safeguards Event Logs 
    that are maintained by each licensee. During the weeks of March 18-22 
    and April 3-5, 1996, the inspector reviewed the licensee's Safeguards 
    Event Logs for the period January 1995 to March 1996 to verify that the 
    criteria specified in 10 CFR 73.71 were being met. The inspector 
    verified that the three safeguards events identified by the Petitioner 
    were documented in Security Incident Reports and logged in the 
    licensee's Safeguards Event Log as required by 10 CFR 73.71. The 
    inspector also determined that these three events were not one hour 
    reportable events pursuant to 10 CFR 73.71, Appendix G. All of the 
    three events identified by the Petitioner were properly logged and 
    compensated for in accordance with 10 CFR 73.71. Therefore, the staff 
    substantiated that these incidents occurred, but did not substantiate 
    the Petitioner's claim of ``failure to report security breaches.''
        During the March and April inspections, the inspector identified 
    four violations of regulatory requirements relating to failure to 
    adhere to the licensee's Physical Security Plan but unrelated to the 
    specific issues raised by the Petitioner. By letter dated May 1, 1996, 
    the staff issued a Notice of Violation citing these violations.
        Three of these violations are related to operability of the vehicle 
    barrier gate,
    
    [[Page 53463]]
    
    protected area lighting and storage of safeguards material. In 
    response, on May 31, 1996, the licensee submitted its corrective action 
    plan to ensure that such violations would not recur.
        The fourth violation related to certain compensatory measures that 
    the licensee implemented as part of its security upgrade. Specifically, 
    the violation cited that the licensee's compensatory actions decreased 
    the effectiveness of the alarm stations and did not meet the provisions 
    specified in 10 CFR 50.54(p). The NRC staff, in a letter dated March 
    29, 1996, informed the licensee to cease the compensatory measures. In 
    a subsequent meeting with the NRC on April 2, 1996, the licensee 
    informed the NRC of the actions that it would take to maintain 
    compliance with regulatory requirements. During the inspection of April 
    3-5, 1996, the NRC staff verified that the licensee was adhering to its 
    commitments. Although this violation was serious, the NRC staff 
    believes the timely actions implemented by the licensee to correct 
    these deficiencies were satisfactory and that no further action by the 
    NRC is warranted. Further, the staff concludes that neither the 
    incidents identified by the petitioner with respect to security 
    personnel's performance, nor the violations identified by the staff 
    constitute ``a general laxity of security.''
        The Petitioner states that the licensee's current practice of using 
    only one guard to monitor several protected zones or entrances to the 
    protected area does not provide adequate security. The licensee has 
    committed to monitoring multiple protected zones or entrances in its 
    NRC-approved Physical Security Plan (hereinafter referred to as the 
    Plan) which describes compensatory measures that must be implemented 
    when equipment or other resources are not in service. During the weeks 
    of March 18-22 and April 3-5, 1996, the inspector reviewed the 
    licensee's security program at CR3 with respect to guard monitoring of 
    protected zones and found it to be in compliance with the Plan. 
    Additionally, the inspector reviewed the established compensatory posts 
    and determined that they were in accordance with the licensee's Plan 
    and also with the recommended NRC guidance developed in NUREG-1045, 
    ``Guidance on the Application of Compensatory Safeguards Measures for 
    Power Reactor Licensees,'' dated January 1984.
        On the basis of its inspection, the staff finds that the licensee's 
    current practice of monitoring multiple protected zones or entrances to 
    the protected area is consistent with the Plan and provides adequate 
    security. Therefore, the Petitioner's concern regarding the adequacy of 
    having one guard monitor several protected zones or entrances to the 
    protected area was not substantiated.
        The Petitioner states that the licensee intends to reduce its 
    security force at CR3, and on that basis, the Petitioner raises a 
    concern that the reduction in the security force would compromise 
    security at the plant. In a discussion with licensee representatives on 
    April 4, 1996, the inspector confirmed that the licensee intends to 
    implement cost-saving measures that would employ new technology and 
    result in a slight reduction in the number of security officers. The 
    mere reduction in force does not indicate that plant security will be 
    compromised. The licensee must ensure that, notwithstanding its cost-
    saving measures, its plan and security staffing will meet NRC 
    requirements and are adequate to protect public health and safety. The 
    number of security officers the licensee intends to utilize is required 
    to, and will, meet the current commitments specified in the licensee's 
    Plan. If the licensee decides to change the Plan commitments, it must 
    identify the changes and submit them to NRC in accordance with NRC 
    regulations. Therefore, the staff finds that the Petitioner's concern 
    regarding personnel reduction and its consequent effect on plant 
    security is not substantiated.
    
    IV. Conclusion
    
        The Petitioner's allegations have been partly substantiated. 
    However, the NRC staff concludes that these concerns do not warrant 
    suspension or revocation of Florida Power's license to operate CR3. 
    With respect to violations identified, the NRC is satisfied that the 
    licensee has taken appropriate action to correct the deficiencies. No 
    further action based on concerns raised by the Petitioner is warranted. 
    See Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Indian Point Units 1, 2, 
    and 3), CLI-75-8, 2 NRC 173, 175 (1975); Washington Public Power Supply 
    System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), DD-84-7, 19 NRC 899, 924 (1984). 
    Therefore, any further action on the issues addressed in this 
    Director's Decision is not warranted and the Petitioner's request for 
    suspension or revocation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 is denied. As 
    provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c), a copy of this Director's Decision will be 
    filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review.
        As provided by this regulation, the Decision will constitute the 
    final action of the Commission 25 days after issuance, unless the 
    Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the Decision 
    within that time.
    
        Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of October 1996.
    
        For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    Frank J. Miraglia,
    Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 96-26160 Filed 10-10-96; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
10/11/1996
Department:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Entry Type:
Notice
Document Number:
96-26160
Pages:
53461-53463 (3 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. 50-302
PDF File:
96-26160.pdf