ML17053B008
| ML17053B008 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1979 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Bartlett J NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053B009 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909170588 | |
| Download: ML17053B008 (6) | |
Text
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ATTN:
Mr. J. Bartlett Executive Vice President 300 Erie Boulevard, West
- Syracuse, New York 13202 Gentlemen:
This is in response to your letter dated June 22, 1979, which was in response to the Notice of Violation and Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties sent to you with our letter dated June 5,
1979.
The Notice of Violation accompanying our June 5,
1979 letter identified six items of noncompliance found during a Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspection on February 7-10,
- 1979, of the implementation of your physical security program at your Nine Mile Point 1 Nuclear Power Plant.
After careful consideration of'our June 22, 1979 response, we conclude that the i.tems of noncompliance did occur as described in the Notice of Violation.
With regard to Items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, your response does not'ispute the citations describing these items and admits that they are items of noncompliance.
With regard to Item 6, your response admits that the operator of the Central Alarm station failed to properly maintain a record of alarms and entered inaccurate information into the record about the reason for an alarm when in fact there was no response to the alarm which would form a basis for the entry.
You ask, however, that the
$3000.00 penalty proposed for Item 6 be eliminated because the individual was carefully selected and properly trained and supervised in his duties and that Niagara Mohawk could not preclude the individual from acting in the manner in which he did.
Your response indicates that you do not believe that the incident of February 6, 1979, reflected the overall effectiveness of your security program.
- However, it is clear that on that date your security program was uneffective in that it was not able to detect the movements of the NRC inspector.
In support of'your request for mitigation, you cite a recent Appeal Board decision (Atlantic Research Corp.
ALAB-542, May 24, 1979),
a case which took pains "to stress that the result we reach is founded entirely upon the specific--and in some respects perhaps unique--facts before us",
and which, incidentally, was the subject of a recent Commission order (Order of August 1, 1979) reflecting a formal decision by the Commission to review the Appeal Board's findings.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation It continues to be our view that facility licensees are responsible for the acts of their employees.
In explaining item 6, you have stated that it was "an indication of that particular individual's general attitude."
The attitude of a particular employee towards liis responsibilty is not an excuse for non-compliance with the Commission's regulations.
Your response to the proposed imposition of civil penalties indicated a prior awareness of management's part of attitude problems within the security force.
These problems apparently stem from what you term a lack of a credible threat.
The attitude or morale of a group of employees is a specific responsibility of management.
Since Niagara Mohawk Power had recognized the problem of employee motivation prior to the breach of security, and was able to take subsequent remedial action, it does not follow that the management involvement was lacking.
Therefore, we do not believe that Atlantic Research is controlling in this instance.
The deviation from procedures at the Niagara Mohawk site had the potential for affecting the health and safety of the general public beyond the boundaries of the site.
Unlike Atlantic Research this was not a violation of safety procedures which were established primarily to protect employees, but rather a violation of security procedures affecting the overall integrity of a power reactor site.
The Appeal Board noted that "more can be demanded in the instance of the operation of a nuclear power reactor."
4 Furthermore, we do not believe as stated in your response, that issuing a civil penalty for item 6 would constitute a punitive penalty.
The value of this civil pe'nalty is to impress upon your organization and other nuclear power reactor licensees that it is necessary to audit security force activities to ensure future compliance with all NRC regulatons.
Therefore your request for mitigation of the civil penalty for item 6 is denied.
An order imposing the proposed civil penalties is enclosed.
As to your corrective action, we note that it (your corrective action) focuses primarily on training.
While further tr aining may be of assistance, it appears that in view of the nature of the items of,noncompliance, increased audits appear necessary to ensure that your security force meets the vigilance that is required.
Finally, we note that you are concerned with Commission require-ments.
Should you believe changes are appropriate, procedures are available for
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation rulemaking and amendments to license conditions.
However, until these require-ments are
- changed, we expect compliance.
Accordingly, your actions will be reviewed during pending inspections to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary.
Sincerely, Victor Stello, Jr.
Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Order Imposing Civil Penalties cc w/enclosures:
R.
R. Schneider, Vice President, Electric Operations R.
T.
- Lempges, General Superintendent, Nuclear Generation T. J,
- Perkins, Stations Superintendent C.
L. Stuart, Operations Supervisor J.
J.
- Sunser, Manager - Systems Security F.
B.
Thomas, Jr., Attorney, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leivy, and MacRae SEE PREVIOUS YELLOW FOR CONCURRENCES IE:SI:0 0: IE E.
M.
Howard V. Stella, Jr.
8/
/79 8/.
/79 WPU/DLM Office XOOS: IE 8/15/79 Surname G. Barber Job J Date 8/
/79 XOOS:IE G.
Gower 8/
/79 ADD: IE ELD D,
Thompson J.
Murry 8/
/79 8/
/79
C ODtg 4,4b;."