ML20137B102

Discusses 851209 Order Imposing Civil Penalty in Amount of $25,000 from Insp Rept 50-454/85-12.NRC Failure to Assess Security Significance Led to Improper Determination That Access Control Elements Inadequate.Fee Paid

ML20137B102
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	01/08/1986
From:	Farrar D COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
References
1098K, EA-85-052, EA-85-52, NUDOCS 8601150089
Download: ML20137B102 (2)

Text

N #. ,4~ N y l

. [. N Commonwealth Edison O / On3 First Nationti Plaza. Chictgo, lihnois

., [

5 O

• Addrzss Riply to: Post Office Box 767 Chicago Illinois 60690 January 8, 1986 Mr. James M. Taylor Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Byron Station Unit 1 Order Imposing civil Penalty, EA 85-52 IE Inspection Report No. 50-454/85-012 Reference (a): December 9, 1985 letter from J. M. Taylor to J. J. O'Connor.

Dear Mr. Taylor:

Reference (a) transmitted an Order Imposing a Civil Penalty regardhg the subject enforcement proceeding. In prior correspondence, Conunonwealth Edison provided the NRC its detailed evaluation of the facts underlying the violation, the reasons the Company did not believe a civil penalty was warranted in this case, and the corrective actions taken in response to the violation.

Having reviewed the NRC's evaluation of the Company's response, Commonwealth Edison cor.tinues to believe that your failure to properly

assess the security sihnificance of this event led to your improper

_ determination that access control elements were inadequate. That a strict and literal reading of the Enforcement Policy could lead to unintended results can be seen by considering the following example. Under your interpretation of Supplement III.C.1 of the Enforcement Policy discussed in

! .- reference (a), all 62 vital area doors at Byron could have been unlocked and

! improperly patrolled, and resulted in the same finding of inadequacy in two

! of the three elements of access control to the vital area. This situation is clearly distinguishable from the event at issue in this enforcement proceeding where only two vital area doors were unlocked and not properly l

patrolled. When considering the possibility of an intrusion to the vital l

area, one needs to consider whether an individual would need to know which j door is unlocked. Clearly there would be no such need to know if they were l all unlocked. In this case, the unlocked condition of 2 of 62 doors was not self revealing and therefore would have made an intrusion much more l difficult. The effect of this factor on the security significance of this  !

j event should have been considered in assessing the penalty here.

l l

9601150009 960100 PDR ADOCK 05000454 0 PDR 1 '

e@

\ -

M /f )'

p,

~

.- t ~ i.

J. M. Taylor January 8, 1986 Nonetheless, we do not wish to pursue this matter by way of a hearing. ~ As discussed in our response to the Notice of Violation, we have taken actions to prevent recurrence of this problem.

We are enclosing a check in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) as directed by the above-mentioned Order.

Sincerely, D. L. Farrar Director of Nuclear Licensing im Enclosure cc: J. G. Keppler - Region III 1098K