IR 05000348/1988009
| ML20195E333 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1988 |
| From: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Mcdonald R ALABAMA POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8806240015 | |
| Download: ML20195E333 (4) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:m .. . ,v ' r. JJN 101R Docket Nos. 50-348, 50-364-License Nos. NPF-2 and NPT-8 Alabama Power Company ATTN: Mr. R. P. Mcdonald Senior Vice President P. O. Box 2641 Birmingham, AL 35291-0400 Gentlemen: SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPORT i 3. 50-348/88-09 AND 50-364/88-09 Thank you for your response of May 18, 1988, to our Notice of Violation issued on April 19, 1988, concerning licensed activities conducted at the Farley Nuclear Plant.
After careful consideration of the basis of your denial that a violation occurred, we have concluded for the reasons presented in the enclosure to this letter that the violation remains as presented in the Motice of Violation.
Additionally, after careful review of your response to the violation, we are concerned that the personnel respc.nsible for implementing the regulatory security requirements may not be aware of what is considered "attended" Safeguards Information, and.that only those personnel with the "need to know" have access to Safeguards Information. We are also concerned with the response since you failed to present any information to support your claim that the document control area was attended or that the safeguards cabinet, while open, was under the control of an authorized individual.
If you have specific information that would support your claim that persons who do not have a "need to know" and visitors could not have had access to Safeguards Information during this specific period, please let us know.
Otherwise, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.210 please submit to this office within 30 days of the date _of this letter your written statement describing steps which - have been taken to correct the violation, the results achieved, corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations, and the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Sincerely, h < fil)$ Of J. fielson Grace Regional Administrator Enclosure: (See page 2) ! , . BBP2;ggg ggggg . & O DCD u ZEo/ _ _ _ _
__ - ___ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _. _- _ _-_ . - .. g, . ' Alabama Power Company
will be-achieved.
Also please respond to our question concerning you administrative controls at the document control room which is addressed in the Enclosure.
-
Sincerely, J.-Nelson Grace cc w/ encl: B. M. Guthrie, Executive Vice President J. D. Woodard, General Manager - Nuclear Plant W. G. Hairston,~III, Vice President - Nuclear Support J. W. McGowan,. Manager-Safety Audit .and Engineering Review S. Fulmer, Supervisor-Safety Audit and Engineering Review- .bcc w/ encl: NRC Resident Inspector E. Reeves, Project Manager, NRR State of Alabama Document Control Desk - e P g(R d if e RII RII RII D pY re ine S ohr 6/J/88 6/7/88 6/]/88 6/7/88 RII [M{y Rf Fg RII- [6/F/88 Ernst DVerrelli LReyes G3 s 6/q/88 6/ /88 6/g/8
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - - _ _ _ _ . -{,. JUN 101988 ENCLOSURE STAFF ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE RESPONSE On April.19, 1988, a Otice of Violation was issued for a violation of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements.
Alabama Power Company's (APC) response to the Notice of _ Violation was provided in a letter dated May 18, 1988.
A restatement of the violation, a summary of the licensee's response, and a summary of the NRC evaluation and conclusion are set forth below.
Restatement of Violation 10 CFR 73.21(a) requires protection of safeguards information against unauthorized disclosure.
Information to be protected includes: (b)(1)(vii) documents and other matters that contain lists or location of certain safety-related equipment explicitly identified in a document as vital for the purposes of physical protection, as contained in physical security plans; (b)(3)(1) portions of safeguards inspection reports, evaluations, audits, or investigations that contain details of the , licensee's weaknesses, physical security system or that disclose uncorrected defects, or vulnerabilities in the system.
10 CFR 73.21(d)(2) requires that safeguards information shall be stored in a locked security container while unattended.
Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP) Procedure AP-4, dated February 19, 1987, Revision 12, states in paragraph 6.1.1, safeguards information will be stored in a locked security storage container when unattended.
The procedure additionally states in paragraph 6.2.1 that safeguards information is required to be under control of an authorized individual while it is in use to preclude unauthorized disclosure to persons who do not have a need to know.
Contrary to the above, on February 25, 1988, a Region II Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspector found a cabinet containing safeguards information unsecured and unattended.
Summary of Licensee's Response The licensee denied that the violation occurred because, the document control area was attended by authorized personnel at the time in question; there were no unescorted visitors in the document control area during the time in question; that the inspector entering the document control area unchallenged and unescorted was irrelevant and that there was no procedural or regulatory requirement to keep the door leading into the
saferoom locked.
! l
. __. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _. % l,'- Enclosure
NRC Evaluation of the Licensee's Response We do not take exception with the licensee's statement that there were no unescorted visitors in the document control area during the time in question; that the inspector entered the document control area unchal- ' lenged and was escorted by a Safety Audit Engineering Review (SAER) individual who was authorized in writing to have spe:.ial access to the area; or that there is no procedural or regulatory requirement to keep the door leading to the the room in question in a locked condition.
However, the inspector who identified the violation stated that the document control area was unattended, (other than a supervisor who was in his enclosed office with the door shut) and that there were no other document control aersonnel in the immediate area.
Additionally, the inspector who reviewed the event was told that although visitor personnel were signed in at the owner-controlled area, they were rnt continuously escorted while in the service building, and : hat ail cleared Farley Nuclear Plant personnel did not have a need to: access to Safeguards Information, nor have a need to know.
Therefore, the safeguards safe having been left unattended and unlocked, for a specific period, could have afforded a person without the need to knw accon to safeguards material.
While reviewing your response, we also noted that you state in FNP-0-AP-72, Protection of Safeguards Information, implementing procedure in paragraph 6.2.1, that, "access to the document control area is administratively controlled." Based on information from the inspector who identified t~ e violation, there was not a Farley Nuclear Plant employee n > controlling access to the document control area; therefore, please address in your response to the violation: what administrative controls are used within the document control area.
Conclusion The licensee has not provided any information which was not previously considered; therefore, the violation occurred as stated in the Notice of Violation. }}