NL-24-0042, Response to Request for Additional Information Exemption Requests for Physical Barriers
| ML24043A186 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch, Vogtle, Farley  |
| Issue date: | 02/13/2024 |
| From: | Coleman J Southern Nuclear Operating Co |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Document Control Desk |
| References | |
| NL-24-0042 | |
| Download: ML24043A186 (1) | |
Text
A Southern Nuclear February 12, 2024 Docket No.:
50-321 50-348 50-424 52-025 50-366 50-364 50-425 52-026 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Southern Nuclear Operating Company Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Farley Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 Response to Request for Additional Information RE:
Exemption Requests for Physical Barriers Ladies and Gentlemen:
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
3535 Colonnade Parkway Birmingham, AL 35243 NL-24-0042 10 CFR 73.5 In accordance with 10 CFR 73.5, Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) submitted NL-23-0555, an exemption request to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regarding the physical barrier definition in 10 CFR 73.2 on July 7, 2023 (ADAMS Accession No. ML23188A163). On January 12, 2024, the NRC staff requested additional information regarding the exemption request. The enclosure to this letter provides SNC's response to this request.
This letter contains no regulatory commitments. This letter has been reviewed and determined not to contain security-related information.
If you have questions, please contact Ryan Joyce at 205-992-6468.
Respectfully submitted, Jamie M. Coleman Regulatory Affairs Director Southern Nuclear Operating Company
Enclosure:
Response to Question for Withholding Information from Public Disclosure cc:
Regional Administrator, Region II NRR Project Manager - HNP 1 &2, FNP 1 &2, VEGP 1 &2, VEGP 3&4 Senior Resident Inspector - HNP 1 &2, FNP 1 &2, VEGP 1 &2, VEGP 3&4 Document Services RTYPE: CGA02.001, VND.LI.L00 File AR.01.02.06
Southern Nuclear Operating Company Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Farley Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 Response to Request for Additional Information RE:
Exemption Requests for Physical Barriers Enclosure to NL-24-0042 Response to Request for Additional Information This enclosure contains 7 pages, including this cover page.
Enclosure to NL-24-0042 Response to Request for Additional Information (U) RAl-1 (U) Regulatory Basis:
(U) The requirement in 10 CFR 73.2 states, in part, that "Physical barrier means: (1) Fences constructed of No. 11 American wire gauge, or heavier wire fabric, topped by three strands or more of barbed wire or similar material on brackets angled inward or outward between 30° and 45° from the vertical, with an overall height of not less than eight feet, including the barbed topping;... "
(U) Issue:
(U) The licensee's submittal does not adequately describe the protected area perimeter fence characteristics for each of its three power reactor sites.
(U) In the first basis for its exemption request on page 3 of the submittal, the licensee stated that
"[t]he majority of fencing credited as a physical barrier at each of the SNC commercial nuclear sites is explicitly compliant with the language contained in the definition of 10 CFR 73.2 in that it is topped with three strands of barbed wire installed at an inward or outward angle. The number of, and relative length of, those locations currently affected as listed in the Attachment constitute a small portion of the physical barrier as a whole." In the second basis on page 4 of its submittal, the licensee stated, in part, that "a vertical configuration of three stands of barbed wire atop fencing utilized as a physical barrier would meet the alternative barrier allowance in that it provides an equal penetration resistance to three strands of barbed wire installed at an angle. Vertical bracket configuration has no impact to adversary or responder timeliness in the protective strategies."
(U) The NRC staff understood the licensee's statements to mean that the only difference that exists with the fencing that comprises the protected area perimeter barriers at Farley, Hatch, and Vogtle is that a limited number of locations at all three sites have barbed wire brackets installed at zero degrees from vertical, rather than the 30- to 45-degree angle described in paragraph (1) of the definition for physical barrier in 10 CFR 73.2. The licensee's submittal implied that the remaining attributes of the protected area perimeter fencing at all three sites comply with the remaining requirements in paragraph (1 ), meaning that all the fencing at each site is: constructed with No. 11 American wire gauge or heavier wire fabric; topped with at least three strands of barbed wire or similar material; and at least 8 feet in height, including the fence toppers (i.e.,
angled brackets or outriggers).
(U) Request:
(U) Describe the protected area perimeter fencing used at Farley, Hatch, and Vogtle in sufficient detail to demonstrate which portion(s) of the protected area perimeter fencing meets each fence attribute required by paragraph (1) of the definition of physical barrier in 10 CFR 73.2.
SNC's Response:
The NRC's understanding is correct. SNC performed walkdowns at each plant site and identified that the following locations meet the listed fence attribute.
Page 2 of 7
Enclosure to NL-24-0042 Response to Request for Additional Information Fences constructed of No. 11 American wire gauge, or heavier wire fabric o
Hatch: Fully meets attribute, or a building of equivalent penetration resistance is provided.
o Farley: Fully meets attribute, or a building of equivalent penetration resistance is provided.
o Vogtle: Fully meets attribute, or a building of equivalent penetration resistance is provided.
Topped by three strands or more of barbed wire or similar material o
Hatch: Fully meets attribute o
Farley: Fully meets attribute o
Vogtle: Fully meets attribute On brackets angled inward or outward between 30° and 45° from the vertical o
Hatch: Does not meet attribute: 6% of main PA, 3% of ISFSl--see locations in figures submitted with original exemption request (Figures H1 and H2). Balance meets attribute.
o Farley: Does not meets attribute: 15% of main PA, 39% of SWIS--see locations in figures submitted with original exemption request (Figures F1, F2, and F3). Balance meets attribute. (Note: Additional non-conforming sections of barrier were identified at the Farley site subsequent to submission of the exemption request. These represent a short section of fence between the areas denoted as #6 and #7 and a short section of fence between the areas denoted as #9 and #10 on previously submitted Figure F3.
These affected areas were omitted in error and are being described herein for accuracy. An updated Figure F3 reflecting the addition of these areas can be provided by SNC upon request.)
o Vogtle: Does not meet attribute: 3% of main PA, 4% of ISFSl--see locations in figures submitted with original exemption request (Figures V1, V2, and V3). Balance meets attribute. (Note: Subsequent to submission of the exemption request, integration of VEGP Units 3 and 4 into the VEGP site Protected Area rendered one of the identified non-conforming sections of barrier at the VEGP site outside the scope of the request as it is no longer on a Protected Area boundary. This section of barrier is denoted as area #3 on previously submitted Figure V2. An updated Figure V2 reflecting this change can be provided by SNC upon request.)
With an overall height of not less than eight feet, including the barbed topping o
Hatch: Fully meets attribute o
Farley: Fully meets attribute o
Vogtle: Fully meets attribute Page 3 of 7
Enclosure to NL-24-0042 Response to Request for Additional Information (U) RAl-2 (U) Regulatory Basis:
(U) The requirement in 10 CFR 73.2 states, in part, that "Physical barrier means: (1) Fences constructed of No. 11 American wire gauge, or heavier wire fabric, topped by three strands or more of barbed wire or similar material on brackets angled inward or outward between 30° and 45° from the vertical, with an overall height of not less than eight feet, including the barbed topping;... "
(U) Issue:
(U) The licensee's submittal does not clearly describe why it cannot meet the required characteristics for fences required by paragraph (1) of the physical barrier definition in 10 CFR 73.2.
(U) The licensee indicates in the first basis on page 3 that the length of fencing that does not meet the angled bracket (i.e., outrigger) requirement for fences is a relatively small portion of the total length of protected area perimeter fencing at Farley, Hatch, and Vogtle. In the second basis on pages 3 and 4, the licensee asserts that vertical brackets with barbed wire provide equivalent deterrence and penetration time to those provided by angled brackets or outriggers with barbed wire. The licensee indicated that it analyzed penetration times pursuant to Regulatory Issue Summary 2003-06, "High Security Protected and Vital Area Barrier/Equipment Penetration Manual," dated March 2003 (not publicly available), and routine force-on-force exercises and determined that the time it takes to penetrate its fencing with vertical brackets did not change the timelines it uses for the design basis threat adversary or armed responders. In the third basis on page 4, the licensee argues that vertical brackets in the existing locations at all three sites enhances their protected area perimeter barriers by enabling greater tension on the strands of barbed wire than what is possible with angled brackets or outriggers.
(U) None of the bases explain why the licensee cannot meet the Commission's requirement that a fence be topped with an angled bracket or outrigger. For example:
The NRC does not require licensees to tension barbed wire to a certain specification (e.g.,
a specific pound force, kilogram force, or Newton). The Commission has determined that angled brackets with three strands of barbed wire is an adequate characteristic for the top of a fence. Therefore, configuring a fence with hardware that permits tensioning of the barbed wire strands to a greater tautness than they would have with angled brackets does not explain why the licensee cannot meet the Commission's requirement that fences have angled brackets.
The submittal does not explain why gates that comprise a portion of the protected area perimeter barrier were not, for example, configured with inward swinging hinges or installed with sufficient vertical offset that would prevent angled outriggers on the gates from contacting the outriggers on adjacent static fencing. Such a configuration would enable the licensee to maintain the function of those gates and meet the requirements in paragraph (1) of the physical barrier definition.
The submittal does not explain why vertical brackets are installed in specific locations at one site, while angled brackets that comply with the requirement in paragraph (1) of the physical barrier definition in 10 CFR 73.2 are used in similar locations at one or both of Page 4 of 7
Enclosure to NL-24-0042 Response to Request for Additional Information the licensee's other two sites. For example, it appears as if the licensee has installed vertical brackets on every, or nearly every, corner post and gate support post at Farley.
Yet, the licensee has apparently installed angled brackets on every corner post and gate support post at Hatch and Vogtle because it is not requesting exemptions for those locations at either site.
o Even if the NRC staff were to accept the licensee's argument that increasing barb wire tension "creates a more effective and consistent barrier," the submittal does not explain why the licensee needs to increase barbed wire tension on the protected area perimeter fencing to a significantly greater extent at Farley than at Hatch or Vogtle.
(U) Request:
(U) For each specific location where a vertical bracket is installed on the protected area perimeter fencing, explain why it is not possible to comply with the angled bracket requirement.
SNC's Response:
SNC has the engineering and construction capabilities to plan, design, and implement technically feasible modifications to the affected portions of each site's protected area boundaries to comply with the angled bracket requirements in 10 CFR 73.2. However, the design change process required to modify the vertical bracket locations would result in a significant resource burden with no resultant increase in the effectiveness of the overall physical protection program at any of the SNC sites.
The currently installed configuration meets the intent of the regulation and associated regulatory guidance to provide deterrence and delay to potential site intrusion; therefore, the barbed wire installed with vertical brackets at the affected locations "will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security." Maintaining the current configuration is in the public interest as the resources required for such a modification could instead be utilized in areas that improve plant performance and safety. Note that § 73.5 Specific exemptions (in contrast to § 50.12 Specific exemptions) does not require "special circumstances" such as undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted. (See
§ 50.12(a)(2)(iii)). Though not required, SNC's request does satisfy the§ 50.12(a)(2)(ii) criterion:
"Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule."
To the extent that RAl-2 implies that an exemption from the 10 CFR 73.2 requirement is only available where the licensee is unable to comply, that position is not consistent with the language of 10 CFR 73.5 or Commission precedent. NRC has granted exemptions from the angle requirement for physical barrier "toppers" when the applicant for the exemption stated that it was not the applicant's "preferred" configuration, provided adequate physical protection was maintained, as it is here. (See First Energy Nuclear Operating Company Exemption, (ADAMS Accession No. ML18171A334)). The Commission may grant an exemption from 10 CFR 73.2 if it determines the exemption is authorized by law; will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security; and is otherwise in the public interest. SNC's July 7, 2023, exemption request provides adequate justification for the Commission to grant this exemption.
Page 5 of 7
Enclosure to NL-24-0042 Response to Request for Additional Information (U) RAl-3 (U) Regulatory Basis:
(U) The requirement in 10 CFR 73.2 states, in part, that "Physical barrier means: "(3) Any other physical obstruction constructed in a manner and of materials suitable for the purpose for which the obstruction is intended." Section 4.9.3 in Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 5.76, "Physical Protection Programs at Nuclear Power Reactors," dated November 2020 (not publicly available),
states, "(U) Alternative barriers may be used if the penetration resistance of the barrier is equal to or greater than the chain link fencing described in this section."
(U) Issue:
(U) The licensee's penetration time analysis is incomplete because it evaluates only the time it takes to penetrate through an alternative barrier and not also over it.
(U) In the second basis on pages 3 and 4, and the in basis for meeting criterion 2 at the bottom of page 4, the submittal declares that the licensee analyzed the penetration times of its alternative barrier configuration with vertical brackets based on the breaching methods described in RIS 2003-06, "High Security Protected and Vital Area Barrier/Equipment Penetration Manual," dated March 20, 2003 (not publicly available), and routine force-on-force exercises. The licensee indicates in both instances that the breaching that the licensee analyzed circumvents the barbed wire completely, which leads the NRC staff to conclude that the licensee evaluated only breaching through the fence fabric and not also breaching that occurs when an adversary traverses over the alternative barrier.
(U) The design basis threat adversary described in 10 CFR 73.1 (a)(1 ), "Radiological sabotage,"
may penetrate a protected area perimeter fence by going over it, through it, or under it. The NRC staff expects a licensee's evaluation of penetration time to account for two of those three types of penetration: 1) the time it takes to penetrate through the alternative barrier, and 2) the time it takes to traverse over the alternative barrier. The reason both times are important is because either type of penetration represents defeating the barrier.
(U) Because a fence is normally constructed such that the fencing material extends close enough to the ground to prevent circumventing the barrier between the ground and the bottom of the fence (see characteristic 8 in section 4.9.2 of Revision 1 to RG 5.76), penetrating a fence between the fence bottom and the ground or other terrain against which the fence is constructed requires penetrating through the fence. Additionally, the staff does not typically expect a licensee to evaluate tunneling as part of its penetration time evaluation because a fence with the characteristics required by paragraph (1) of the 10 CFR 73.2 definition of physical barrier is the standard for penetration time equivalency. That fence is likely be the thinnest physical barrier a licensee can use, and therefore, it would have the shortest penetration distance and time via tunneling. Stated differently, any alternative barrier would have a penetration time via tunneling that is equal to or greater than a fence with the characteristics that are required by paragraph (1) because the alternative barrier would have more depth, and thus require a longer tunnel to circumvent it.
Page 6 of 7
Enclosure to NL-24-0042 Response to Request for Additional Information (U) Request:
(U) For each specific location, provide information regarding the time it takes to climb or otherwise traverse over the fencing that does not meet the characteristics required by paragraph (1) of the definition of physical barrier in 1 0 CFR 73.2.
SNC's Response:
SNC does not possess specific information regarding the time it takes to climb or otherwise traverse over the nonconforming fencing. SNC has not and does not intend to perform unassisted climbing of the barrier in its current configuration due to the inherent personnel safety risks associated with the activity. However, based on review of the affected locations by security management and knowledgeable staff, SNC concludes that the vertical orientation of barbed wire at the affected areas of the protected area boundary are bounded by, or equivalent to, the existing penetration times provided by the NRC in referenced RIS 2003-06. 1 For additional insight, SNC communicated with security professionals from the commercial nuclear power industry and Sandia National Labs who indicated that they were unaware of testing related to penetration of fencing in the configuration at question utilizing an unassisted climbing method. Sandia did conduct climb testing on fencing with outward rigged barbed wire and determined that the associated support brackets provided an additional means for an intruder to defeat the barrier. Based upon review of this testing, SNC concludes that the demonstrated penetration (delay) time is bounded by that of a vertical configuration in that the vertical arrangement of barbed wire does not provide the same means of support for use by an intruder.
Within the context of the overall physical protection program at each SNC site, the delay time provided by the barbed wire at the top of the protected area barrier is considered insignificant, based on the impact to postulated timelines necessary for radiological sabotage, with respect to the defense-in-depth developed and routinely tested in accordance with NRC regulation and guidance.
This response is germane to each specific location identified in the application, as supplemented in this response.
1 RIS 2003-06 addresses penetration by means such as cutting, explosives, or assisted climbing using ladders or similar materials.
Page 7 of 7