ML20129H981
Text
.
~ ~ - -. -.
/
- [O
%~
UNITED STATES k
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
AEGION il -
)
-[
ei
,7 l
101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.
)
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323 i
DEC s 1 1991' 1
Docket'No. 55-20117 L
License No. SOP-20467-1 EA 91-064-F Mr. William F. Kitchens HOME ADDRESS DELETED UNDER 10 CFR 2.790 L
Dear Mr. Kitchens:
SUBJECT:
ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE OF. SEPTEMBER 19, 1991
- By letter dated June 3,1991, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC)
.l.
. Deputy Executive Director'for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations j
and Research notified you of a pending enforcement conference and provided you
- with a Demand for Information. Those actions were predicated upon an apparent
~ willful violation of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Technical Specification
.3.4.1.4.2 involving the opening of Unit 1 Reactor Makeup Water Storage Tank n
JRMWST)-valves to facilitate chemical cleaning of the Reactor Coolant System l
when Technical Specifications required the valves be closed and secured in position while the plant was in Mode 5.
This event occurred while you were Operations Manager.
F Your August 29, 1991 response to the Demand for Information was reviewed by the L
staff. On September 19, 1991, an enforcement conference was conducted with you in the NRC Region 11 office with your attorney, and several members of the i
Georgia Power Company staff in attendance at your request.
t 1
Following completion of a detailed review and evaluation of all relevant information in this matter by the staff, and after careful deliberation and subsequent consultation with the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation,. Regional Operations and Research, and the Commission it has been
'L decided that no additional enforcement action will be taken regarding your NRC license. Although your actions did not meet NRC expectations, there is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that your actions relative to j.
opening the RMWST valves on October 12 and 13, 1988, were a deliberate attempt
- to disregard and intentionally circumvent plant Technical Specifications.
Nevertheless, the NRC maintains that the TS was violated in that the words of the TS clearly prohibit uncontrolled boron dilutions in Mode 5, loops not filled, by prohibiting all dilutions through the specific flow path. Further.
{
the NRC recognizes the atguments you made about the acceptability of voluntary i
entry into the TS ACTION requirement. However.the words of the requirement preclude such an entry.
-In-reaching this conclusion, the overall unacceptability of your actions was balanced against several. factors that, after considerable review, were found to ultimately weigh in your favor. Some of those factors included your stopping
- operations.to review the chemical-cleaning evolution after members of the plant L
operations staff raised the potential-conflict between the chemical addition
[/
activity and the Technical Specification; your admittedly brief discussions r
, ith another management level person regarding the applicability of the w
v 9611040159 960827 1
.PDR
o Mr. William F. Kitchens Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation with the associated Action Statement requiring imediate action; your review of the Technical Specification basis and relevant portions of the Final Safety Analysis Report for the plant that apparently led you to the erroneous conclusion that opening the valves for a short period of time was permissible; the operations log entries for the dates in question indicating that the valves were opened; and, the absence of any indication that attempts were made to conceal the valve manipulations on October 12 and 13, 1988.
In retrospect, some of the actions you took were inadequate under the cir-cumstances, and reflect adversely on your control of operational activities.
We recognize that you accepted full responsibility for the decision to open the valves and now accept the NRC conclusion that it was not permissible to volun-tarily enter. an imediate action statement.
It would appear that your conduct in this matter lacked the high degree of discipline and judgment expected of a licensed individual in your position. Your haste to justify the valve manipu-lations with logic that does not support a conclusion that valves required to be closed and secured could be opened, even momentarily, gives the appearance of prioritizing critical scheduling requirements over prudent operational safety considerations.
i You are reminded that you hold a license from the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission which confers upon you a special trust and confidence that you will do your utmost to ensure the safe operation of the Vogtle i
i Electric Generating Plant.
Inherent in this is the presumption that your approach to operational decisions which could affect the safety of the plant are made with extreme care and conservative deliberation that ensures that such critical decisions are in full compliance with regulatory requirements.
You are not required to respond to this letter, which will be made a part of your NRC docket file.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in theNRC'sPublicDocumentRoom(PDR). Also being placed in the PDR, now that our evaluation of these events is complete, are the Demand for Infonnation that was sent to you and your response to it.
Sincerely,
/
/g-tewart D. Ebneter Regional Administrator cc: Georgia Power Company ATTN:
W. G. Hairston, III Sr..Vice President -
Nuclear Operations Post Office Box 1295 Binningham, Alabama. 35201
Mr. William F. Kitchens Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation with the associated Action Statement requiring immediate action; your review of the Technical Specification basis and relevant portions of the Final Safety Analysis Report for the plant that apparently led you to the erroneous conclusion that opening the valves for a short period of time was permissible; the operations log entries for the dates in question indicating that the valves were opened; and, the absence of any indication that attempts were made to conceal the valve manipulations on October 12 and 13.1988.
In retrospect, some of the actions you took were inadequate under the cir-cumstances, and reflect adversely on your control of operational activities.
We recognize that you accepted full responsibility for the decision to open the valves and now accept the NRC condlusion that it was not permissible to volun-It would appear that your conduct tarily enter an imediate action statement.
in this matter lacked the high degree of discipline and judgment expected of a licensed individual in your position.
Your haste to justify the valve manipu-lations with logic that does not support a conclusion that valves required to be closed and secured could be opened, even momentarily, gives the appearance of prioritizing critical scheduling requirements over prudent operational safety considerations.
You are reminded that you hold a license from the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission which confers upon you a special trust and confidence that you will do your utmost to ensure the safe operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant.
Inherent in this is the presumption that your approach to operational decisions which could affect the safety of the plant are made with extreme care and conservative deliberation that ensures that such critical decisions are in full compliance with regulatory requirements.
You are not required to respond to this letter, which will be made a part of your NRC docket file.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2 Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR). Also being placed in the PDR now that our evaluation of these event is complete are the Demand for Infonnation that was sent to you and your response to it.
Sincerely.
Origine) Signed 9f.
Stewart D. Ebnew Stewart D. Ebneter Regional Administrator cc: Georgia Power Company ATTH:
W. G. Hairston, III Sr. Vice President -
Nuclear Operations Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 bec:
Public Document Room RI RII RII R
W AReyes CFEvans GJn ns JLMilhoan
' o '
17/ /91 12Al/91 12/d/91
$rEh
/
UNITE 3 STATES y
k NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMIS$10N
[
REGION il c
p 5
y 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
AT4.ANTA. GEoRGl A 30323
.....+
DEC 11981 Docket No. 55-20551 License No. 50P-20461-1 EA 91-065 Mr. Jimy P. Cash HOME ADDRESS DELETED UNDER 10 CFR 2.790
Dear Mr. Cash:
SUBJECT:
NRC REVIEW 0F DEMAND FOR INFORMATION RESPONSE By letter dated June 3,1991, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission's (NRC)
Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research prov4ted you with a Demand for Infomation. The basis for the Demand for Information was your involvement in an apparent willful violation of Vogtle Electric Gerierating Plant Technical Specification 3.4.1.4.2.
The event in question occurred on October 12 and 13,1988, and involved the opening of Reactor Makeup Water Storage Tank (RMWST) discharge valves 1-1208-U4-176 and 1-1208-U4-177 to facilitate a chemical cleaning evolution of the Reactor Coolant System when Technical Specifications required the valves to be closed This event occurred and secured in position while the plarit was in Mode 5.
while you were on duty as Operations Superintendent On SH ft.
We received your August 29, 1991 response to the Demand for Infonnation and a careful review ar,d evaluation has been completed.
In the Demand for Informa-tion of June 3,1991, you were advised that various sources of information would be used in deciding what NRC actions, if any, would be appropriate regarding your continued involvement in 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 55 licensed activities.
We have carefully considered your detailed response which provided additional clarification of the issues, infomation received during enforcement conferences conducted on September 19, 1991, with representatives of Georgia Power Company, and other infomation developed during the course of NRC's review of this matter.
After dmliberation and subsequent consultation with the Deputy Executive Director for Nudear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research, and the Commission it has been decided that no additional enforcement action will be taken regarding your NRC license. Although your actions did not meet NRC expectations, there is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that your actions relative to the opening of the RMWST valves on October 12 and 13,1988, involved a deliberate attempt on your part to disregard and intentionally circumvent plant Technical Specifications. Nevertheless, the TS was violated in that the words of the TS clearly prohibit uncontrolled boron dilutions in Mode 5, loops not filled, by prohibiting all dilutions through the specific flow path.
g l
'I
t
(
2-Mr. Ji m y P. Cash As a Senior Reactor Operator serving as the Operations Superintendent On Shift, a position of critical importance and high responsibility, it was incumbent upon you to be totally aware of those activities under your direct responsibil-ity.
In your August 29, 1991 response, you stated that_ you were not involved in the evolutions in question, but that others on your shift were; that the chemical addition was a pre-planned outage activity; that you and others on your shift had a less than adequate understanding of mid-loop operation; and that you were involved in several significant activities other than the Reactor Coolant System cleaning evolution. Your involvement in other activities is understandable but that involvement should not be used to minimin your overall responsibility for ensuring your awareness of activities involvNg.nid-loop operations wherein the manipulation of RMWST valves conflicted with Technical Specifications.
You are reminded that you hold a license from the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission which confers upon you a special trust and confidence that you will do your utmost to ensure the safe operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant.
Inherent in this is the presumption that your approach to operational decisions is made with extreme care and in full compliance with regulatory requirements.
You are not required to respond to this letter, which will be made a part of your NRC docket file.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR). Also being placed in the PDR, now that our evaluation of these events is complete, are the Demand for Infomation that was sent to you and your response to it.
Sincerely, ewart. Ebneter Regional Administrator cc: Georgia Power Company ATTN:
W. G. Hairston, III Sr. Vice President -
Nuclear Operations i
Post Office Box 1295 Bimingham, Alabama 35201 4
i
..w I
Y
!, t l
l i
i' Mr. Jimmy P. Cash DECs!IWf i
1 As a Senior Reactor Operator serving as the Operations Superintendent On Shift, l
a position of critical importance and high responsibility, it was incumbent upon you to be totally aware of those activities under your direct responsibil-b-
i ty.
In your August 29, 1991 response you stated that you were not involved in the evolutions in question, but that others on your shift were; that the i
chemical addition was a pre-planned outage activity; that you and others on your shif t had a less than adequate understanding of mid-loop operation; and that you were involved in several significant activities other than the Reactor Coolant f
System cleaning evolution. Your involvement in other activities is understandable but that involvement should not be used to minimize your overall responsibility for ensuring your awareness of activities involving mid-loop operations wherein i
j the manipulation of RMWST valves ' conflicted with Technical Specifications.
{
You are reminded that you hold a license from the United States N" clear 4
Regulatory Commission which confers upon you a special trust and confidence i
that you will do your utmost to ensure the safe operation of the Vogtle 3
i Electric Generating Plant.
Inherent in this is the presumption that your
' approach to operational decisions is made with extreme care and in full l
4 l
compliance with regulatory requirements.
l You are not required to respond to this letter, which will be made a part of
[f your NRC docket file.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in j
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR). Also being placed in the PDR now that f
l our evaluation of these events is complete,are the Demand for Information that was sent to you and your response to it i
Sincerely,
[
bnet l
Stewart D. Ebneter i
Regional Administrator i
cc: Georgia Power Company 3
ATTN:
W. G. Hairston III I-Sr. Vice President -
Nuclear Operations Post Office Box 1295
^
Birmingham, Alabama 35201 bec: Public' Document Room I
b I
RII RII RI '
Reyes CFE ns ns JL i lhoan Y12/if/91 12/5t/91 12/3l/91 12/
/91 I
^ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
^ ~ ^ ^ ~
(
~
. / j ase U881783 STATES
'{-
p NUCLEAR RE20LATCRY COMMIT $lON -
.RE060N11 g
,,.i l 101 MARIETTA STREET.NE t
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323 N
DEC 3 f1997 Docket No. 55-20395 License No.' SOP-20458-1
,EA 91-066 Mr. John E. Bowles HOME ADDRESS DELETED' UNDER 10 CFR 2.790
Dear Mr.'Bowles:
-SUBK CT: NRC REVIEW OF DEMAND FOR INFORMATION RESPONSE By letter dated June 3,1991, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC)
Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research provided you with a Demand for Information. The basis for the Demand for Inforination was your involvement in an apparent willful violation of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Technical Specification 3.4.1.4.2.
The event in question occurred on October 12, 1988, and inifolved the opening of Reactor 1
Makeup Water Storage Tank (RlWST) discharge italves 1-1208-U4-176 and 1-1208-U4-177 to facilitate a chemical cleaning evolution of the Reactor Coolant System when Technical Specifications required the valves to be closed and secured in position while the plant was in Mode 5.
This event occurred while you were on duty as a Shift Supervisor.
We received your August 29, 1991 response to the Demand for Information and a careful review and evaluation has been completed.
In the Demand for Informa-tion of June 3.1991, you were advised that various sources of information would be used in deciding what NRC actions, if any, would be appropriate
.regarding~your continued involvement in 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 55 licensed activities.
We have carefully considered your detailed response which provided additional clarification of the issue, inforination received during enforcement conferences i
conducted on September 19, 1991, with representativer of Georgia Power Company, l
and other'information developed during the course of NRC's review of this matter.
l After deliberation and subsequent consultation with the Deputy Executive
~ Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation Regional Operations and Research, and the Commission it has been decided that no additional enforcement action will be taken regarding your NRC license. Although your actions did not meet NRC expectations, there is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that your actions tilative to opening the RMWST valves on October 12, 1988,' involved a e
deliberate attempt on your part.to disregard and intentionally circumvent plant Technical. Specifications. Nevertheless, the TS was violated in-that the words of the TS clearly prohibit uncontrolled boron dilutions in Mode 5, loops not filled, by prohibiting all dilutions through the specific flow path.
1, b
~
II Mr. @hn E. Bowles As a licensed Senior Reactor Operator serving as a Shift Supervisor, it is incumbent upon you to remain totally involved in those activities under your direct responsibility. Your admitted reliance on assumptions, lack of aware-ness of ongoing operational conditions, and a less than adequate understanding of mid-loop operation collectively contributed to your inability to identify the manipulation of the RMWST valves as a conflict with Technical Specifications.
You are reminded that you hold a license from the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission which confers upon you a special trust and confidence that you will do your utmost to ensure the safe operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant.
Inherent in this is the presumption that your approach to operational decisions is made with extreme care and in full compliance with regulatory requirements.
You are not required to respond to this letter, which will be made a part of i
your NRC docket file.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR). Also being placed in the PDR, now that our evaluation of these events is complete, are the Demand for Information that was sent to you and your response to it.
Sincerely, A
Ebneter Regional Administrator cc: Georgia Power Company ATTN:
W. G. Hairston, III Sr. Vice President -
j Nuclear Operations 1
i Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201
}
DEC 81 W Mr. John E. Bowles As a licensed Senior Reactor Operator serving as a Shift St.pervisor it is incumbent upon you to remain totally involved in those activities under your direct responsibility. Your admitted reliance on assumptions, lack of aware-ness of ongoing operational conditions, and a less than adequate understanding of mid-loop operation collectively contributed to your inability to identify the manipulation of the RMWST valves as a conflict with Technical Specifications.
You are reminded that you hold a license from the United States Nuclear Regulatory Conrnission which confers upon you a special trust and confidence that you will do your utmost to ensure the safe operation of the Yogtle Electric Generating Plant.
Inherent in this is the presumption that your approach to operational decisions is made with extreme care and in full compliance with regulatory requirements.
You are not required to respond to this letter, which will be made a part of your NRC docket file.
in accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR). Also being placed in the PDR now that our evaluation of these events is complete, are the Demand for Information that was sent to you and your response to it.
Sincerely, Original Signed W Mewart D. Ebnete-Stewart D. Ebneter Regional Administrator l
cc: Georgia Power Company ATTN:
W. G. Hairston, 111 Sr. Vice President -
Nuclear Operations Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 bec: Public Document Room R
Ril Rll RI A eyes CF ans GRJe, ins JLNi' hoan 12/j/91 12/jj/91 12/ /91 p2/,/91 3
-~.... -..,
5,,,,,
8 (,
/
g' NN UNIT t O ST AT E S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMtssioN g
h,,,.[
3
- f f
RtctoW se e
101 MARit11 A $f RE E T. N.W.
ATLANTA,CEORGIA 30333 DEC 8 f1991 j
Docket No. 50-424 j
License No. NPF-68
)
EA 91-141 l
Georgia Power Company ATTN: Mr. W. G. Hairston, III i
Senior Vice President -
Nuclear Operations Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 i
l Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY - $100,000 (NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS REPORT NO. 2-90-001) 4 f
This refers to the investigatior mnducted by the Nuclear Regulatory j
Comission's Office of Investigations (01) at Georgia Power Company's (GPC)
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) which was completed on March 19, 1991.
j The investigation was initiated as a result of information received by Region !!
in January 1990, alle ing that VEGP Unit I was intentionally placed in a con-dition prohibited by echnical Specifications (TS). The event in question 4
involved the alleged willful violation of TS 3.4.1.4.2 that occurred when Unit 1 Reactor Makeup Water Storage Tank (RMWST) valves were opened to facilitate chemical cleaning of the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) in October 1988, while the plant was in a refueling outage. The T5 required the RWST valves to be closed and secured in position while the plant was in Mode 5 with the reactor coolant loops not filled. A notice of enforcement conference and l
Demand for 1r. formation was sent to you on June 3,1991. An enforcement F
conference was held on September 19, 1991, in the Region !! office to discuss this issue, its cause, and subsequent corrective actions taken. As a result of i
questions raised during the enforcement conference, a supplemental response to the Demand for Information was requested. The additional information was L'
received by the NRC on October 1,1991. The list of personnel in attenW: 4t the enforcement conference and copies of the presentation material prodAM ky j-your staff during the enforcement conference are enclosed, l
The violations described in the enclosed Notice of Violation and P sed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) resulted from the failure of GWannage-ment to provide adequate procedures, appropriate training and guidance relativc to mid-loop operation, and planning assistance to operat' ons personnel at VEGP i
during the first refueling outage and associated chemical cleaning evolution that ' nyolved the injection of chemicals into the RC3. As a resu.t of this failure, several VEGP operators and operations management personnel placed the plant in an unanalyzed condition. Furthermore, the root cause that led to the rt improper valve manipulations condition were not fully addressed by GPC manage-ment until more than a year after the events.
y e
i D!16 c 1 : m b W '..
I l'.
['< DEC3t*1 ggt f
i Georgia Power Company The NRC staff recognizes that GPC maintains that the basis of TS 3.4.1.4.2, i
precluding an uncontrolled boron dilution, was met by operating the valves However, the words of the T.S. prohibit under administrative controls.
uncontrolled boron dilutions in Mode 5, loops not filled, by prohibiting all i
Additionally, the NRC staff under-i dilutions through the flow path at issue.
stands your position about voluntary entry into the TS ACTION requirement.
j Again the NRC staff concludes that the words of the requirement clearly i
prohibit entering ACTION 6c, of TS 3.4.1.4.2.
the T5 aside, procedures ano training were inadequate.
i i
The violations, when considered collectively. Indicate a significant breakdown I
in managerial and admiinhtrative controls of licensed activities in a nzber of Such a breakdown is also indicative of a signifkant lack t
interrelated areas.
This breakdown of attention to licensed responsibilities by plant personnel.
l in control was wide-ranging in that it not only involved inadequate actions and i
faulty decisions during the event by individual senior licensed operators in management positions, but included the Plant Review Board which subseque perfonned an inadequate review of reportability, failed to recognize tn.i. Sn j
unanalyzed condition existed, and consequently confirmed the reasonabl l
j a flawed Technical Specification interpretation.
the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,'
l (Enforcement Policy) 10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C (1988), the violations are l
classified in the aggregate as a Severity I.evel !!! problem.
After careful deliberation, the NRC has concluded that based on the evidence available a willful violation of regulatory requirements due to the manipu-l This 1ation of the RMWST valves in October 1988 could not be substantia l
conclusion was based on the 0! report, a review of the information provided by your staff in the several responses to Demands for Information which were as well as presentations at the enforcement 1
l received on August 29,1991, conferences on September 19,1991. The NRC also recognizes that the person who were directly involved in this matter provided credible assurances that they intend to comply with regulatory requirements in the future.
j To emphasize the importance of ensuring that plant staff is complying with Technical Specifications and that management is ma i
Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation Regional Operations and Research, and the Connission to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed i
Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $100,000 for the Severity le 1
The base value of a civil penalty for a Severity Level III proble.a is 4
$50,000. The escalation and mitigation factors in the Enforcement Policy were problem.
considered.
The base civ11 wnalty was escalated by 50 percent because the violations were identified by tse NRC and should have been identified when the l
i raised by your staff.
action factor since no long-ters corrective action was taken to recurrence.
4
c -- -
I Georgia Power Company 3-i Review Board had still not made the appropriate reportability decis on regarding the circumstances of opening the RMWST valves because an adequate root cause evaluation had yet to be made. They did, however, initiate actions to change the applicable Technical Specification. The other adjustment factors in the Policy were considered and no further adjustment to the base civil penalty is considered appropriate. Therefore, based on the above, the base civil penalty has been increased by 100 percent.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. Your response may cross reference your previous submittals concerning these events.
In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional After reviewing your response to this action you plan to prevent recurrence.
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.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice." a copy of this letter and its enclosure's will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). Also being placed in the PDR, now that our evaluation of these events is complete, are the Demand for Infonnation sent to you and your response to it.
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 by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 Pub. L. No.96-511.
51ncerely.
t art D. Eb ter Regional Administrator j
Enclosures:
i 1.
Notice of Violation and Proposed l
Imposition of Civil Penalty 2.
Copy of licensee presentation material 3.
List of Attendees at NRC enforcement conference. 9/19/91 l
ccw/ enc 1s:
R. P. Mcdonald Executive Vice President-Nuclear l
Operations l
Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 1295 Binningham, AL 35201 C. K. McCoy Vice President-Nuclear Georgia Power Company P. 0. 1295 Birmingham,AL 35201,
......,.e
i I/
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Docket No. 50-424 Georgia Power Company License No, NPF-68 l_
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant EA 91-141 Unit !
During an NRC investigation conducted between February 1,1990, and March 19, 4
In accordance with the 1991, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR 4
Part 2. Appendix C (1988), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil p(enalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Ene amended Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below:
l 3.4.1.4.2(1988 edition) required that two
)
Technical Specification (TS) l A.
residual heat removal (RHR) trains shall be OPERABLE and at least train shall be in operation. Reactor Makeup Water Storage Tank (RMWST) i discharge valves (1208-U4-175,1208-U4-176,1208-U4-177, and 1208-U4-183 shall be closed and secured in position whenever the plant is in Mode 5 ACTION c. of TS 3.4.1.4.2 required with reactor coolant loops not filled.
that with the RMWST valves not closed and secured in position, imediately 4
close and secure them in position.
with Unit 1 in Mode 5, Contrary to the above, on October 12 and 13,1988, loops not filled, RMWST valves 1208-U4-176 and 1208-U4-177 were opened in l
order to add chemicals to the Reactor Coolant system.
i j
50.73(a)(2)(11)(B) requires licensees to submit a Licensee Event Report B.
(LER) within 30 days after the discovery of any event or condition that resulted in the nuclear power plant being in a condition outside the l
i design basis of the plant.
17, 1989, the Plant Review Contrary to the above, on or about November Board (PRB) determined that the opening of the RMWST valves specified in TS 3.4.1.4.2 was not reportable and, therefore, an LER was not submitted within 30 days, even though opening the valves on October 12, and 13,1988 j
had placed the plant in a condition outside the design basis. Opening the valves constituted a condition outside the plant design basis because at l
the time the valves were opened an analysis for a boron dilution accident 4
through the valves did not exist.
Technical Specification 6.7.1 requires written procedures shall be estab-
[
C.
lished, implemented, and maintained covering the activities.ecomended by Appendix A of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.33, Revision 2. February 1978, Section 2 of Appendix A of RG 1.33, recommends procedures for general 1
plant operation.
1
)
i L
O1OI1IO p.
lr i
t Notice of Violation 4 The following procedures, in part implement TS 6.7.1.
i I
1.
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Operations Procedure Number i
12006-C, Unit Cooldown to Cold Shutdown, in use on October 12 and 13, i
1988, stated in Section D4.2.14 that valves 1-1208-U4-175,1-1200 U4-176, 1-1208-U4-177, 1-1208-U4-181, 1-1208-U4-183, and others be closed, locked and tagged in Mode 5, loops not filled.
i 2.
VEGP Procedure 10000-C Conduct of Operations, Section 2.10.2 in use j-October 12 and 13,1988, stated that the Unit Superintendent (US) is
~
responsible to ensure plant operations are conducted in accordance with Technical Specifications and approved procedures.
j Contrary to the above:
i 1.
On October 12 and 13,1988, licensee personnel failed to implement the requirements of procedure number 12006-C in that, valves 11208-U4-176 and -177 and 181, which were required to be closed, locked and tagged, were opened in Mode 5, loops not filled.
4 2.
On October 12 and 13,1968, the US did not ensure that plant operations were conducted in accordance with Technical Specifications i
j in that valves 1-1208-U4-176 and -177 were opened in Mode 5 loops not i
filled, with the express knowledge of the US.
i L
D.
10 CFR 50, Appendix 8 Criterion V, requires, in part, that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings of a type appropriate to the circumstances and 4
shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings. VEGP Procedure No. 13007-1, VCT Gas Control and RCS Chemical Addition, Section 4.7, Procedure No. 35110-C, Chemistry Control of the l
Reactor Coolant System, Section 4.7 provide the instructions on chemical l
i additions to the Reactor Coolant System.
Contrary to the above, on October it, and 13,1988, VEGP Procedure Nos.13007-1 and 35110-C were inadequate in that these procedures did not l
contain provisions for adding chemicals to the reactor coolant system in Mode 5, loops not filled. Specifically, the procedures specify such conditions as having a reactor coolant pump running which is not possible 4
l in Mode 5, loops not filled.
This is a Severity Level III problem (Supplement I).
l CivilPenalty-$100,000(assessedequallyamongthefourviolations),
t Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Georgia Power Company is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director. Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission, within 30 days of the date 4
of this Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice).
E
o t
/ Notice of Violation This reply should be clearly marked as a " Rep (ly to a Notice of Viola should include for each alleged violation:
- 1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, and if denied, the reasons why, (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid furtNr If an violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will.be achieved.
adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a demand for information may be issued as to why the license should J
not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such o'ther action as may be proper should not be taken. Consideration may be given to extending t response time for good cause shown.
Act. 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmatio Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, the Licensee may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draft, money order, or electronic transfer payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part, by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nu i
Regulatory Comission.
Should the specified, an order imposing the civil penalty will be issued.
j Licensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the 4
civil penalty, in whole or in part, such answer should be clearly marked as an i
(1) deny the violations listed in
" Answer to a Notice of Violation
- and say:this Notice in whole o show error in this Notice, or (4) show other reasons why the penalty should not i
In addition to protesting the civil penalty in whole or in part, l
be imposed.
such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.
l In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors addressed in Any Section V.B of 10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C (1988), should be addressed.
l written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, wt may l
incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g., cit page and paragra ph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of the Licensee 4
is directed to tse other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure i
i for imposing a civil penalty.
Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which subsequently has been deter mined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty, unless comprom remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to j
Section 234c of tse Act 42 U.S.C. 2282(c).
The response noted above (Reply to Notice of Violation letter with payme civil penalty, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to:
Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission ATTN:
Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional i
P i
) ' Notice of Violation Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission, Region !!, a copy to the NRC Resident inspector at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant.
Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this9ft/dayofDecember1991 i
1 i
i i
d a
(JNITED STATES g%h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Governmental and Public Affairs s
- g*eee*)
Region 11 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, GA 30323 No.:
II-92-01 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contacts-Ken Clark (Thursday, January 2, 1992)
Telephone:
404-331-4503 NRC STAFF PROPOSES $100,000 CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST GEORGIA POWER COMPANY FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF NRC REQUIREMENTS j
AT'VOGTLE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $100,000
)
civil penalty against Georgia Power Company for alleged violation of NRC requirements at the Vogtle nuclear power plant, located near Waynesboro, Georgia, about 30 miles southeast of Augusta.
NRC officials said the action was taken based upon information from an investigation by the agency's Office of Investigations which was completed on March 19, 1991.
The NRC received information in January, 1990, that the plant had been intentionally placed in a condition prohibited by its technical specifications when valves to a Unit i reactor water storage tank were opened to facilitate cleaning of the reactor coolant system.
The event occurred in October of 1988.
The NRC said that, after careful deliberation, it had concluded that a willful violation of regulatory requirements could not be substantiated.
However, the agency notified Georgia Power that it had determined that several plant operators and operations management personnel had placed the plant in an unanalyzed j
condition by placing the valves in an open condition during the reactor cooling system cleaning when the technical specifications require that they be closed.
The NRC said the base civil penalty for the violation was $50,000 but that it was increased to $100,000 in this case because the violation was identified by the NRC instead of the plant staff and because no long-term corrective action was taken to prevent
}
recurrence.
After exteneive review and analysis, the NRC staff authorized the technical specifications to be changed to allow the valves to be opened for the system cleaning operation.
The company has 30 days from receipt of the Notice of Violation to I
either pay the civil penalty or to protest it, in whole or in part.
Y g9
i
/[OM
/.
i Georgia Power i
finedinincident i
at nuclear plant
]
By Peter Mantius i
sim wm m i
The Nuclear Regulatory Jl Commission on Thursday Sned
.h M WN m pg Georgia Power Co; $100,000 in connection with the alleged vio-i lation of federal safety rules at i
the Vogtle nuclear plant j
But C.K. McCoy, manager of l
the Vogtle plant, said the Sne 4
4 does not resect the " safety sig-
..... Friday. Jenny 3,1992 G3 nincance" of the event, which happened in October 1988. The utility has 30 days to appeal the t.,
Sne.
Mr. McCoy said the incident
' involved "an interpretation of l
regulations made by operatbrs."
Workers had opened certain wa-i ter storage tank valves during
'---.-.s the cleaning of the plant's reac-S.
tor coolant system.'At'the time, l
that action violated technical
/
speci8 cations for the plant, but the speci8 cations have since 1
i
~ been changed..
"The action did not pose a
' safety problem, but they [Geor-
. gia Power] did not know that at the time," said Ken Clark, an
' NRC spokesman.
Reason Spr Hne j
The NRC said it imposed the i
$100,000 penalty rather than the j
minimum civil penalty of
$50,000 becauae the violation wasidenti8ed by the NRC rather than plant staff and because no long-term corrective action was taken to prevent recurrence, 1he NRC learned of the inci-dentin January 1990 fan Allen Mosbaugh, a former senior of9-
' s, cial at Vogtle who has brought a whistleblower lawsuit against s
the company.
j Mr.'Mosbaugh had claimed i
that the action was a willful vio-lation of. regulatory require-ments, but the NRC said its in-i vestigation did not substantiate that charge.
Mr. Mosbaugh's attorney, Michael D. Kohn, said the open-
'ing of the valves was a signincant safety violation.
-