ML20045D806
| ML20045D806 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1993 |
| From: | Milhoan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Graham P GULF STATES UTILITIES CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045D807 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-93-118, NUDOCS 9306300083 | |
| Download: ML20045D806 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000458/1993014
Text
RRfG
UNITED STATES
,
f.
.g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
l %i
REGloN IV
8
611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 400
o
e
AR LINGTON, T E XAS 76011-8064
.....
JUN 2 5 1993
Docket:
50-458
M2 51993
License:
EA 93-118
Gulf States Utilities
ATTN:
P. D. Graham
Vice President (RBNG)
P.O. Box 220
St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-458/93-14)
This is in reference to the inspection conducted April 20-23, 1993, in
response to an incident that occurred during a security drill conducted at the
River Bend Station facility on April 16, 1993.
The inspection, which was
described in a report issued on May 17, 1993, identified an apparent
repetitive violation involving Gulf States Utilities' (GSU) failure to follow
established procedures for conducting security drills.
This violation was
discussed with you and other GSU representatives during an enforcement
conference conducted in the NRC's Arlington, Texas office on May 28, 1993.
GSU telephoned the NRC's Operations Center on April 16, 1993, to inform the
NRC about a shooting incident that occurred during a security drill at the
plant.
The incident involved an on-duty security officer drawing and firing
her revolver at " intruders" who were involved in the drill; no one was
injured.
GSU immediately suspended training exercises using weapons and blank
ammunition and promptly investigated the incident.
GSU identified the root
causes of the incident as: 1) the realistic nature of the training coupled
with the officer's having just participated in similar realistic drills,
resulting in a reflexive action; and 2) the lack of a physical restraint or
other barrier to cause an on-duty officer to think before reacting to a drill
situation.
As a result of its investigation into this incident, GSU has
proposed a " cool-down" period between an of ficer's participation in a
realistic exercise and an on-duty assignment.
The NRC considers GSU's
response to the incident both prompt and appropriate.
i
Although the incident itself does not appear to have occurred as the direct
,
result of any violations of requirements or procedures, the inspection
disclosed a repetitive violation involving a failure to conduct security
drills in accordance with written procedures; as discussed below, this
violation is similar to a violation cited by the NRC on February 26, 1993.
There were two departures from procedures (PSP-4-501) during the April 16
drill: 1) the words "This is a drill" were not used prior to and following all
drill communications (the term " Code Blue" was used instead); and 2) drill
participants used revolvers that were in firing order and capable of firing
live ammunition, although blank ammunition was used during the drill.
The NRC issued a Notice of Violation to GSU on February 26, 1993 (NRC
Inspection Report 50-458/93-02) for failing to conduct a July 27, 1992
9306300083 930625
-
j, f
ADOCK 05000458
f,p
G
f
l
I
e
.
JUN 2 5 1993
Gulf States Utilities
-2-
security drill in accordance with procedures.
In that case, GSU failed to
notify the appropriate personnel that a drill was being conducted and failed
to adequately search a package that penetrated the protected area.
In its
March 29, 1993, reply to the Notice of Violation, GSU stated, "As future
drills are requested, Security management will ensure that drills are
conducted in accordance with established guidance and procedures." Thus, the
NRC views GSU's failure to ensure that the April 16, 1993 drill was conducted
in accordance with established procedures as a repetitive violation.
The significance of this repetitive violation is based on: 1) GSU management's
failure to assure the effectiveness of its corrective actions for a previous
violation; and 2) the fact that the involved drill procedures are intended, at
least in part, to assure the safety of personnel involved in the drills.
The
failure to conduct security drills in accordance with established procedures
is of concern because it increases the risk to involved personnel.
The NRC
notes, however, that it has no evidence that the procedural violations that
occurred on April 16, 1993, directly resulted in the shooting incident.
In
accordanct with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC
Enforcement Actions," (Enforcement Policy) 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, this
violation has been categorized at Severity Level IV.
In the course of preparing for the enforcement conference, GSU came to the
belief that PSP-4-501, " Training Program (Security Force Drills)," was not
applicable to the drill conducted on April 16, 1993.
At the conference, GSU
characterized the April 16 drill as a " training exercise" designed to train
students on tactics and validate defense strategies and noted that it was not
conducted to test on-duty security personnel.
Based on this, GSU concluded
that the drill procedure was not applicable to training exercises conducted by
a consultant to evaluate defensive strategies and tactical training.
GSU
stated that PSP-4-500, " Training Program (Administration)," was applicable to
the April 16 drill, but acknowledged that it did not provide any guidance on
how drills (or training exercises) should be conducted.
GSU concluded that
the deficiencies in this procedure constituted a violation of 10 CFR 50,
Appendix B, Criterion V, " Instructions, Procedures and Drawings."
We have thoroughly evaluated GSU's position and disagree with GSU's position
that PSP-4-501 did not apply to " training exercises" conducted by a consultant
to evaluate defensive strategies and tactical training.
We base our
conclusion on several f actors, not the least of which is the fact that PSP-4-
500 provided no guidance whatsoever to assure the safety of personnel during
the conduct of such training exercises.
It is difficult to accept GSU's
assertion that this procedure was intended to apply to such exercises when the
procedure contains no such guidance and makes no reference to such exercises.
Based on the absence of guidance and the reasons discussed below, the NRC is
left to conclude that the procedure that governed the conduct of security
drills was PSP-4-501 and that it was not followed in this instance.
In contrast to PSP-4-500, PSP-4-501 contains explicit precautions to be
observed in conducting security drills and exercises (we note that the terms
.
" drill" and " exercise" are not defined in the procedure).
Furthermore,
PSP-4-501 was revised in October 1992 via an interim change notice to
I
\\
.
.
>
'
__ _ - - - -_-_
l
l.
! .
JW 2 5 1993
Gulf States Utilities
-3_
l
specifically make mention of drills requested by private consultants.
The
revised procedure states in Section 5.0 that " Security force drills are
.
conducted in order to provide training for the security force in reacting to
l
safeguard contingencies ... Security force drills conducted at the request of
. . private consultants and others, outside of Security, require the approval
of the DNSS ..." This revision appears to have been made specifically in
reponse to Quality Condition Report P-92-08-004 which recommended, in part,
that the procedure be revised to reflect the practice of conducting only one
type of drill (the procedure had previously referred to three categories of
l
drills).
Section 6.1 of the procedure was revised at the same time to state that
" Security force drills are conducted at the direction of the SSS or the
Security Training Department to provide contingency training for the security
i
l
force ..." Section 6.2.2 provides that " Training drills and exercises shall
be recorded on a drill report." A drill report was prepared for the April 16
drill which stated that "The objective of the drill was to test the response
force to see if they could prevent adversaries from penetrating the vital
islands and causing a radiological release." When GSU conducted the April 16
1
drill, it apparently believed PSP-4-501 applied and at least partially
complied with that procedure.
In view of the above, the NRC concludes that
the April 16 drill fits both the purpose and description of security force
l
drills governed by PSP-4-501 and that GSU was required to follow the
i
precautions in Section 6.3 of the procedure.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions
specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response.
In your
response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional
actions you plan to prevent recurrence.
The NRC requests that GSU
specifically address what actions it is taking to assure that the corrective
actions it commits to in response to a Notice of Violation are implemented and
are effective in preventing a recurrence of the same violation.
After
reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective
actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether
further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC
regulatory requirements.
l
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of
i
this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject
to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required
i
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.
Sincerely
e
,i
I. L
d
I
/ames L. Milhoan
b
gional Administrator
t Re
Enclosure: Notice of Violation
!
,
M2 5 1993
-
Gulf States Utilities
_ 4_
cc w/ Enclosure:
Gulf States Utilities
ATTN:
J. E. Booker, Manager-
Nuclear Industry Relations
P.O. Box 2951
Beaumont, Texas 77704
Winston & Strawn
ATTN: Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
1401 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005-3502
Gulf States Utilities
ATTN:
Les England, Director
Nuclear Licensing
P.O. Box 220
St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775
Mr. J. David McNeill, III
William G. Davis, Esq.
Department of Justice
Attorney General's Office
P.O. Box 94095
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9095
H. Anne Plettinger
3456 Villa Rose Drive
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70806
President of West Feliciana
Police Jury
P.O. Box 1921
St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775
Cajun Electric Power Coop. Inc.
ATTN:
Philip G. Harris
10719 Airline Highway
P.O. Box 15540
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70895
Hall Bohlinger, Administrator
Radiation Protection Division
P.O. Box 82135
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2135
~
s
-
- -