IR 05000456/1988015

Advises That Severity of Violation Noted in Insp Repts 50-456/88-15 & 50-457/88-16 Reduced to Severity Level IV & Proposed Civil Penalty Withdrawn

ML20205F435
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	10/17/1988
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Oconnor J COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
References
EA-88-125, NUDOCS 8810280065
Download: ML20205F435 (3)

Text

UNITED STATES (b 8([ *%4 g

" E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 1Et4

.....

,l QO

'

OCT 171988

'

Docket Nos. 50-456; 50-457 License Nos. NPF-72; NPF-75 EA 88-125 Comonwealth Edison Company ATTN: Mr. James J. O'Connor President Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION AhD PROPOSED IPPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-456/88015(DRSS);

50-457/88016(DRSS))

This is in responte to your letter of July 22, 1988 concerning the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) forwarded by our letter of June 17, 198 In your response to the Notice, you admitted that an opening existed but stated thac the deficiency was different from and of a r:Uch lower significance than that contemplated by example D.3 of Supple-ment Ill of the NRC Enforcement Folicy, 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C. In support of this conclusion, you emphasized the fact that (1) the structure in question was inside of a separate protac+ed area, (2) all individuals granted access to this protected area are authorized access to the vital area and (3) for an unauthorized person to gain access to the vital area, there would have to be a failure of the protected area access control systen or of the protected l area intrusion detection system, neither of which occurre The vital area barrier deficiency lacked both barrier ard monitoring elements of access control. The absence of these two elerants at the same point in a sir.gle barrier norr.1 ally constitutes a Severity Level !!I violation. Powever, special circumstances may be taken into consideration when assigning severity levels to violations, particularly when access control violations include cuestions concerning the ease with which a deficiency imy be identified or exploited. In this case, althcugh the openirg was such that it could have allowed unauthorized and undetected access from the protected area into a vital area, the ease with which a person could exploit this vulnerability is subject to question. We also note thct it nay have been difficult for s person outside the protected area to have recognized that a vulnerability existe After careful consideration of the circumstances of the present case, and due to the difficulty of identification of the pathway, the Severity Level of the violatien has been reduced to Severity Level IV ond the proposed civil penalty has been withdraw This reductinn of the Sever 19 level for ne violatisr cited in the Notice does not alter the licensee's responsita lity to detect vulnerat.ilities ir, tie physical protection systen of the plant. The licensee is expr.ted to use roving guards, vital area barr tu waliccwns, and security-oriented QA 83102G0065 8G1017 PDR ADOCK v5000456 OCT 211988 O PDC

_ _ _ _ _ - .

_

_____

OCT 171989

'Conmonwealth Edison Company -2-l activities to uncover deficiencies in the plant physical protection syste The failure to do so may allow violations to go undetected, and may in itself l be considered a violation. Any similar violation in the future may result in additional enforcement action.

,

We note your argument that the significance of the vulnerability is lessened because all individuals granted access to the protected area are authorized access to the vital area in questien. While this is a consideration in this I case because of the uniqueness of the protected area, it is not controllin The vital area boundary provides protection not only against the insider but also the outsider who cefeats the protected area barrier. For this reason, the violation is of more than minor significanc A response to this letter is not necessary since you have already provided the necessary details concerning the violation cited in the Notice. The corrective actions which you described in your response are considered adequate and will be examined during future inspections. If you have any l

questions about this action, please contact James Lieberman, Director, Office j of Enforcement.

!

Sincerely,

/

'r 1 ayo[sDeputy Executive Director

/ or Regional Operations l

l

.

_

-

CCT 17 loss

,

Connonwealth Edison Company DISTRIBUTIGN:

5 Reed, Senior Vice President T. J. Maiman, Vice President, PWR Operations H. Bliss, Nuclear Licensing flanager M. Wallace, Manager of Projects M. Lohmann, Project Construction and Startup Superintendent W. Yahle, Construction Superintendent R. E. Querio, Station fianager P. L. Barnes, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor J. M. Taylor, DEDRO J. Lieberman, OE L. Chandler, OGC NRR/DRIS/SGB NRR/DRIS/ SIB NRR/DRIS/PEB Enforcement Coordinators RI, Ril, RIII, RIV, RV

'DCD/DCB(RIDS)

Licensing Fee fianagement Branch Resident Inspector, RIII Braidwood Resident Inspector, Rl!!

Byron

,

D. W. Cassel, Jr. , Es Richard Hubbard

' J. W. McCaffrey, Chief, Public Utilities Division H. S. Taylor, Quality Assurance Division E. Chan, OGC G. Cerry, OGC Stpehen P. Sands, NRR SECY CA OGPA RAO:RI!!

PA0:RI!! /r1 SLO:RI!! gg

!!. Stahulak, RIII j> p(j /

- c > J (

OE ,( PA:RI!!'P

-

OGC 4^ D- DE PRosano ABDavis LChan#dler 41 erman lbr 10/i i /88 10/l'{/88 10/t3/88 10 11/88 JM}q/88 10,

.

_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _