ML20117H054

Responds to RAI Re Requesting Withholding Encl Info from Public Disclosure.Withholding Requested Because Encl Identifies Individuals Associated W/Pilgrim Security. Encl Withheld

ML20117H054
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	08/27/1996
From:	Olivier L BOSTON EDISON CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
BECO-LTR2.96-07, BECO-LTR2.96-7, NUDOCS 9609090104
Download: ML20117H054 (6)

Text

l 1

- =., 1 Boston Edison Pdgnm Nuclear Power Station Rocky Hill Road Plymouth. Massachusetts C2360 L J. Olivier vice President Nuclear Operations August 27, 1996 and station oirector BECo Ltr. #2.96075 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Docket No. 50-293 License No. DPR-35 l Response to Reauest for Additional Information This letter is in response to your request for additional information conceming our request to withhold the enclosure to our April 10,1996, letter (BECo Ltr. #96-032) from public disclosure.

Our request to withhold the enclosure from public disclosure is advanced in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a)(4) because the enclosure contains information which reflects the nature of our security response, the response time and staffing of our security force. In addition, we request the inrormation in the enclosure to our April 10,1996, letter be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 10CFR2.790(a)(6) because the enclosure identifies a number of individuals associated with Pilgrim Security and disclosure of their names would constitute an unwarranted invasion of their personal privacy. Enclosed is the affidavit of L. J. Olivier provided in support of this request.

In addition, we are providing the following information in response to the specific request for additional information in your letter of July 15,1996. The information sent in our April 10, 1996, letter was transmitted to, and we believe received by the NRC in confidence. To the best of our knowledge, the information is not available in public sources. Information of this type is customarily treated as confidential for the raasons stated in the previous paragraph.

Disclosure of the information is not likely to cause substantial harm to our competitive position because it primarily concerns security and person.1elissues. No events have altered the character of the information subsequent to our Aprii 10th transmittal of the information.

Sc: We believe the enclosure to the April 10,1996, letter should be withheld from public SE@ disclosure. In accordance with your request, we have also provided a copy of the enclosure

@@ with brackets around those portions of the enclosure which we believe should be withheld from g@ public disclosure. We have attached a red, acted copy of the enclosure which deleted the specific wording in the enclosure that deals with the security response, response times, ou security staffing and personnelissues. In addition, we have attached a response which can be

$8 released to the public and placed in the public document room because it contains no personal 7 privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information.

Should you need any additional information, please do not hesi ate to contact me.

eclosunscorrAINSSAMMEAMOS 9 FORMATION UPON SEPARATION

['

L. . Olivier C Ogc)/

WWPAGE IS DECONTROLLED. '

=.. ,

{

DCC Desk Page 2 LJO\ RAH \pkk\ rap 96\publicds. doc Attachment cc: Mr. Alan B. Wang, Project Manager Project Directorate 1-1 i Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation  ;

Mail Stop: 14B2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

Region I  ;

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Senior Resident inspector ,

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station I I

l l

l 1

AFFIDAVIT OF LEON J. OLIVIER I, Leon J. Olivier, hereoy depose and say as follows:

1. My name is Leon J. Olivier. I am and have been for some time, the Vice President-Nuclear, at Boston Edison Company (" Boston Edison"), a Massachusetts corporation with its principle location of business at 800 Boylston Street, Boston Massachusetts, 02199.

2. On April 10,1996, Boston Edison Company sent a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC"). This letier is Boston Edison Letter # 96-032. To the best of my knowledge, the information contained within the enclosure attached to Letter # 96-032 was provided to the NRC in confidence.

3. The enclosure to Boston Edison Letter # 96-032 contains information relating to the security program at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (" Pilgrim Station"). Information of this nature, to the best of my knowledge, is consistently and customarily held in confidence by Boston Edison and the NRC and withheld from public disclosure.

4. The enclosure to Letter # 96-032 also contains information relating to the personal integrity and performance of an individual employed by the Security Force at Pilgrim Station, and release of this information to the public would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Information of this nature, to the best of my knowledge, is-consistently and customarily held in confidence by Boston Edison and the NRC and withheld from public disclosure.

To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the above information is true and correct.

BOSTON EDISON COMPANY BY; Leon J. C)ffyier DATE: Aa m f ?'J /ff'g j

/

Vice PresWent Nuclear Operations and Station Director Commonwealth of Massachusetts County of Plymouth Subscribed and swom to me this d7 day of [Woh .1994

/W sc.

j.

Notary Public .

,.}.y

xu s*d

($

• n.s. ' 'pf} , .

m.s

Allegation Review i The Nuclear Regulatory commission (Pilgrim NRC Resident Office) received information concerning [

] personnel competence at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. The NRC received this information in an anonymous [ ] memorandum which copied the NRC and members of the Boston Edison (PECO) security staff including Protection Services Department Manager, [ ] The memorandum decribcd action taken by [ ] of the [ ] security force at PNPS. h summary, the a thor has the following four concems with [ ]:

1. Abandoned designated post

2. Fai'ed to notify supervision of [ ] condition

3. Improperly performed a test [ ]

4. Question as to member's trustworthiness and ability to perform duties Summary of [ ] Problem On January 21,1996, from [ ] until[ ].

There were no apparent problems and no alarms. The first alarm was at [ ] was dispatched [ ] and arriveu at [ ] The [ ]

detarmined to be prcperly working, and the alarm was cleared.

At approximately [ ] was advised there was a potentiel for further problems [

] was dispatched [ ] and arrived at [ ] arriveo i ] and remained until[

] he retumed to [ ] for shift tumover. [ ] remained [ ] until relieved [

< ] performed simple [ ] tests [ ] There were some alarms during this testing. Because of the w.itinuing problems, compensatory measures were established [ ] These measures were lifted [ ] to be working properly. The compensatory measures were reestablished [ ] due to continued problems and remained in place until [

~

}

Investiaation Various personnel on-shift on 31e specific day have been interviewed. We have also rev;wed security logs and various printouts from the security computer to determine personnel actions during the time period in question. [ ] This does not show [ ]

l l

L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Allegation Review t

i l[ i i l i i i i i ] i lI 1

l I

1*= 1 i

l 1

l 1

l i

l i

lI1*=

i 1

l l

1 1

1 I I I I I I I I j i I  !

l!

i I l 1 I I

I l

i i

! I l l i

I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1l I 4 1 i I I I I I i 1 I I 1 i i i i 1 1 i I l l 1, I j i I i l i I I I I I

II i 1 1 1 i I i i l I i l I i i i l i I I I fr i i l i i i Il I i i 1

i l i l i i l i I l 1 1 1 t 1 I I I I I I I I I I )

I I I I l i I I j l i 1 i il i i 1 i i i l i i i l

i l i I i l i i i i i Responses to SDeCific Concerns .;

. Abandoned designated post -[ ] did not aoandon his designated post. [ ]left [

l

] when the compensatory measures were lifted [ .

]. In both cases, ,

l he [ ] When he left the area at the end of his shift, [ ] was standing  :

l watch.  :

f . Failed to notify supervisor [ ] condition - our investigation had determined that this l claim is not valid. [ ] notified the [ ] and the [ ]

l when they reported for duty at [ ]. He also notified [ ] of the problems that were l occurring [ ]. Finally,[ ] was present [ ] when the compensaury '

l measures were reestablished at [ ].

. improperly performed a test [ ] - there was nothing improper with the testing that was performed [ j

] Therefore, [ ] was a proper test.

• TAember's trustworthiness and ability to perform duties - [ ] is a valued member of the [

] security force. No proof, past or present, exists that questioris [ ] trustworthiness or his ability _to perform assigned duties.

In conclusion, no violation of NRC rules or regulations has occurred.

1 i

, 1 5 I i

I l

1

- o .,  :

s-l .

• ALLEGATION REVIEW The Nuclear Regulatory Commission received an allegation concerning the performance and  !

competence of a member of the security force. The allegation was transmitted to the NRC in the fonn of an anonymous memorandum. It concemed actions taken by a member of the l

security force. It advanced the following concems:

1. A designated post was abandoned

2. Appropriate supervisory personnel were not notified

3. Improper testing was performed, and

4. The individual's response was not appropriate, calling into question the individual's ability to perform the duties and the individual's trustworthiness.

1

SUMMARY

OF OUR INVESTIGATION in response to the allegation, various on-shift personnel were interviewed, and the security logs and computer printouts were reviewed to evaluate the actions of personnel involved in the event. Based on a review of the event and the actions of the individuals involveu. we have reached the following conclusions:

. The individualin question did not abandon his designated post. Appropriate compensatory measures were taken during the event. ,

I

. The individual in question notified appropriate supervisory personnel.

. The individualin question conducted a proper test.

. The individualis a valued member of the security force. There is no proof, past or present, that questions the individual's trustworthiness or ability to perform the assigned duties.

l In conclusion, no violation of NRC rules or regulations has occurred.

l i

i

<