ML19316A178
| ML19316A178 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 06/21/1979 |
| From: | Howard E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Willie Lee DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19316A179 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911280715 | |
| Download: ML19316A178 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000269/1978006
Text
.
- ~;__
__
- _ . .
~ . . . _ . . . . . . . .
.
.
./
1
UNITED STATES
'
,
w
\\
!
>
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisSIOu
O
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%v f
- #
R N t 1 1978
Duke Power Company
Docket 'l
ATTN: Mr. W. S. Lee, President
2-70 '
Post Office Box 2178
50-287
Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
Gentlemen:
,
This refers to the inspection conducted on March 14-17 and March 21-23,
1978, by the NRC Regional Office, of activities authorized by NRC
License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55; and to the meetings held on
March 17,1978, and March 23, 1978, with Mr. J. E. Smith, Station Manager,
'
and other members of the Oconee staff to discuss the inspection findings.
This also refers to the meeting conducted by Mr. James P. O'Reilly, NRC
Region II Director, at the Atlanta office on March 30, 1978, and attended
by Mr. W. O. Parker, Jr., Vice President, Steam Production, and other
members of your staff.
This inspection concentrated on activities associated with the physical
security program of the Oconee Nuclear Station and compliance with
.
Regulatory requirements.
Within this area, the inspection consisted of
selective examinations of procedures and representative records, inter-
views with personnel, and observations by the. inspectors,
i
l
Based on the results of this inspection, it appears that certain of your
activities were not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements
as set forth in the Notice of Violation, enclosed herewith as Appendix A.
Three of the apparent items of noncompliance found during this inspection
are similar to items previously identified by our Region II office and
for which you stated that corrective actions were taken to prevent
recurrence.
The number, nature, and repetitiveness of the items of
'
, noncompliance indicate that management had not taken adequate measures
to establish and execute an effective security program.
Consequently,
the enforcement aspects of this case were escalated from the Regional
Office to Headquarters Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
Our understanding of your immediate corrective actions were confirmed
in Mr. O'Reilly's letter to your company dated March 17, 1978.
Further
corrective measures were defined in a letter from Mr. Parker to
,
j
Mr. O'Reilly dated May 12, 1978, and in a letter from Mr. Thies to Mr.
j
O'Reilly dated May 31, 1978.
'
-
,
l
CERTIFIED MAIL
[
0
RETURN RECEIPT RE0 VESTED
g 2,3
f,
,
-
-
_
.-
_
- ._.
.
-
. _.
-.
.
,
,
l
/
O
'
JUN
1 N
-2-
~
As you are aware from the " Criteria for Determining Enforcement Action,"
provided to you by letter dated December 31, 1974, and from discussions
subsequent to the conclusion of this inspection, enforcement actions
available to the Commission in the exercise of its responsibilities
include administrative actions in the form of written notices of
violation, civil monetary penalties, and orders pertaining to the modifi-
cation, suspension, or revocation of a license.
Taking into
consideration the number and seriousness of the items of noncompliance
delineated in Appendix A, this office considered the imposition of
civil penalties. We have also considered mitigating factors... including
pending changes in the Oconee Security Plan, assurances by you of new
and continuing management involvement in the security program at the
Oconee site, and the voluntary identification of specific corrective
action which you state has been initiated.
Based on these factors, we
conclude that this Notice of Violation is the appropriate enforcement
action at this time. We assume that this decision will be a positive
incentive to your organization.
However, your reply to this letter and
the results of future unannounced inspections to review implementation
of your corrective actions will determine if additional escalation of
enforcement action is necessary.
Your letters dated May 12 and May 31, 1978, outlined program changes and
your initial corrective actions on items of noncompliance identified in
Appendix A.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.201, additional information is
requested within twenty (20) days of receipt of this letter with respect
to the matters described in the Request for Supplementary information,
enclosed herewith as Appendix B.
In this reply, you should describe in
more detail those actions taken or planned to assure the continuing
effectiveness of management controls for the Oconee Physical Security
Program.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(d), details of activities involving
.
security measures are exempt from public disclosure; therefore, the
. Appendices to this letter will not be placed in the Public Document
Room.
Your response is also exempt from disclosure and should be
' incorporated in a separate paper and referenced in your reply.
,
.
O
t
a
mm :
, _ - . - - - -
. -
.
- . . .
..
. - -
,
_
~
+
~
.
.
JUN 211978
-3-
As discussed in your letter of May 31, Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director
of our Region II Office, will be contacting Mr. Thies in the near future
to make arrangements to meet at the Oconee Nuclear Station to review the
total iacurity program, actions taken and actions that will be taken.
Sincerely,
NM
E. M. Howard, Director
Division of Safeguards
Inspection
'
Office of Inspection
,
and Enforcement
Enclosures:
1.
Appendix A, Notice of
Violation (Exempt
from Disclosure)
2.
Appendix B, Request for
Supplomentary Information
(Exempt from Disclosure)
cc w/ encl:
A. C. Thies, Senior
Vice President
.
P.O. Box 2178
Charlotte, NC 28242
.
.
W. 0 . Parker Jr.
Vice President
Steam Production
P. O. Box 2178
Charlotte, NC 28242
J. E. Smith,
Station Manager
j
.
Oconee Nuclear Plant
1
P. O. Box 1175
Seneca, SC 29678
-
i
.
4
5
'l
_
M