ML20134E814
Text
. _..
/ g C8eug'o, UNITE 3 STATES NUCLEAR REtULATORY COMMIS$10N
[
EEnlON 11 g
g y
101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
%, ~ ~ j*
a i 6. at MEMORANDUM FOR:
Alan R. Herdt, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects THRU:
Ah Bruce S. Mallett, Deputy Director Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards i
4.E Douglas M. Collins, Chief Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards 1
l FROM:
David R. McGuire, Chief Safeguards Section Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards GUBJECT:
INPUT TO SECTION 2.206 PETITION SAFEGUARDS ISSUES Enclosed is a chronology of the safeguards issues identified in the Section 2.206 Petition filed on behalf of Hobby /Mosbaugh, i
former employees of Georgia Power Company.
If we can be.of further assistance, please advise.
David R. McGuire 4
4
Enclosure:
Input to 2.206 Petition cc w/ encl:
P. Skinner, R.P.3-B S. Vias, R.P.3-B
}
(
W 9611040123 960827 PDR FOIA KOHN95-211 PDR
i i.*
!^
ENCLOSURE j
i Alleaed Repeated Concealment of Safeauards j
Problem from the NRC l
Petitioners allege that Georgia Power company personnel, including a Vice President and General Manager, and a Southern company Services Manager knowingly and repeatedly hid safeguards 1
problems from the NRC and. willfully refused to comply with mandatory reporting requirements.
It was further allaged that the GPC Vice President made false statements to the NRC during an l
Enforcement Conference about the status of safeguards materials in Birmingham, Alabama.
On May 22, 1990, an Enforcement Conference was held in the Region II office to review the circumstances of a licensee identified i
and reported discovery of an unsecured safeguards container at l
the Vogtle Plant on April 25, 1990, and the licensee's corrective l
actions for the continuing occurrence of events relating to j
failure to adequately protect safeguards information.
GPC Senior l
Management personnel presented several corrective actions that i
had either been implemented or were planned for implementation to j
preclude recurrence of the violations.
Subsequently, as a result t
of inspection findings relating to the unsecured safeguards container discovered in April 1990, a Severity Level III i
violation and' civil penalty in the amount of $50,000 was imposed,
on the licensee.
In response to the violation and imposed civil penalty, GPC committed to the corrective actions presented during i
the Enforcement Conference with a completion date of October 1, 1990, for all corrective actions.
1 i
I During the course of implementing the corrective actions committed to, additional events relating to discovery of 4
j.
safeguards materials that were inadequately protected were identified and reported to the NRC telephonically and 1
i subsequently documented in licensee event reports and revisions i
thereto'.
During a reactive safeguards inspection at Plant Vogtle l
on October 16-17, 1990, initiated in response to a licensee identified and reported event relating to the discovery of unprotected safeguards materials in the security training office, i.
members of the site security management function were interviewed i
relative to the petitioners allegations concerning the safeguards i
program.
The inquiry confirmed the discovery of the safeguards l
events referenced by the patitioners and determined that some delay in timely reporting of the events had occurred, which was attributed to variation in procedural practices for reporting l
safeguards events between the licensee's corporate office and
-Vogtle Plant Staffs, and philosophical differences in the view of I
reportability requirements.
The inquiry failed to substantiate
]
the allegation that a GPC Vice President provided false or j
misleading information to the NRC at the Enforcement Conference 1
on May 22, 1990.
4
(
l' i
Enclosure 2
Based on inspection findings, an Enforcement Conference was held 4
in the Region II office on November 13, 1990, to review and established the root cause of the licensea's continuing problems j
in the safeguards information program and ascertain the adequacy i
of the' licensee actions for resolution.
During the conference i'
GPC essentially addressed each of the specific instances of failure to properly control safeguards information referred to by the petitioners, and acknowledged the occurrence of delays in reporting of safeguards events to the NRC.
The delays were l
attributed to internal conflicts relative to what constituted j
safeguards information and the degree of significance warranting j
1-hour telephone reporting versus logging in the safeguards event j
log.
The GPC officials committed to additional corrective actions to be implemented to resolve the problems in the l
Safeguards Information Program company wide.
On February 5, 1991, a severity level III violation and civil penalty'in the amount of $50,000 was imposed on the licensee.
1 The violation included five (5) examples of failure to adequately l
protect or control safeguards information.
The confirmed occurrences of failure to protect or contr. Jafeguards information and report the occurrences it: a timely manner referred to by the petitioners, all of which ware identified ~and i
subsequently reported by GPC, were not included in the violation i
and imposed civil penalty because the events were identified by l.
the licensee's corrective actions prior to the date committed to for completion.
l The NRC Office of Investigation (OI) conducted an investigation to determine if the management of Georgia Power company had j
withheld pertinent information from the NRC staff during the Enforcement Conference on May 22, 1990, and if GPC management actively impeded reporting requirements pertaining to safeguards j
events.
The investigation focused on the knowledge, handling,
{
and reporting of safeguards events or issues, some of which were 1
j alleged to include:
(1) the issue of an unsecured Southern Company Services safeguards container in November 1989, (2) the issue of 14 uncontrolled safeguards documents at corporate headquarters (3) the allegation of inadequate safeguards controls at Bechtel Offices, a vendor (4) the allegation of 150 boxes of 1
uncontrolled safeguards documents at different locations, and (5) the allegation of 2 boxes of improperly controlled safeguards documents.
The OI investigation did not substantiate that pertinent information was withheld from the NRC at the time of the Enforcement Conference on May 22, 1990.
The investigation further concluded that although the reporting of safeguards events to the NRC was slow in some instances, GPC management did not actively impede the reporting process.
Based on inspection and investigative findings it was concluded that the events relating to the failure to adequately protect and control safeguards materials.and the delay in appropriate and
i 1
f' Enclosure 3
5 tiacly reporting present6d by the petitioners did occur.
However, the violations of regulatory requirements were not cited because they were identifled and subsequently reported by Georgia Power Company during implamentation of corrective actions for a violation and civil penalty imposed in June 1990, for a similar event.
A second violaticin and civil penalty was issued to GPC in February 1991, for recurrence of violations in the Licensee's
]
Safeguards Information Program following completion of corrective actions for the violation and civil penalty imposed in June 1990.
It was further concluded on the basis of information obtained
?
during the investigstion that GPC management did not withhold pertinent information from the NRC at the time of the Enforcement Conference on May 22, 1990, or actively impede reporting.
4 4
i i
k i
4 i
3 i
t l
i i
2 i
i l
i
Y
{
)
i Ebneter Briefina June 9.
1992 I
EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR ISSUES OI CASE 2-90-020 ALLEGATIONS RII-90-A-0092 & RII-091-A-0109
+
Currently reviewing documents provided by Grand Jury Subpoena STATUS:
~30 % complete ESTIMATED COMPLETION:
End of July 92
)
Looking at the process and strategy of obtaining testimony of
+
GPC officials.
Testimony preparation and execution of questioning
+
STATUS:
under review l
ESTIMATED COMPLETION:
End of September 92 (pending completion of document review)
+
Grand Jury decision False Statements on:
i 4/9/90, GPC response on Confirmation of Action 4/9/90, NRC/GPC Management meeting 4/19/90, LER 1-90-006 6/29/90, LER 1-90-006 revision 1 8/30/90, GPC letter to NRC on correction on COA response of 4/9/90
,1 4
4
[
I
/
RII/ VIAS /EBNETER.692 June 9, 1992 k
~
ygoa3 l
j
/.
s I
l JUL 0 91992 4
Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425 License Nos. NPF-68, NPF-81 i
EA 92-041 1
l Georgia Power Company ATTN:
Mr. W. G. Hairston,'III Senior Vice President 1
Nuclear Operations i
P. O. Box 1295 l-Birmingham, AL 35201 Gentlemen:
I e
SUBJECT:
NRC Inspection Report No. 50-424/92-02 AND 50-425/92-02 i
Thank you for your response of June 23, 1992 to our Notice of l.
Violation, issued on May'28, 1992, concerning activities conduct-ed at your Vogtle facility.
We have evaluated your response and l
found that it meets the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201.
We will l
examine the implementation of your corrective actions during l
future inspections.
i
. e appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
W Sincerely, 0Q 1'
Jon R. Johnson, Acting Director Division of Reactor Projects l
t cc:
R. P. Mcdonald Executive Vice President i
l P. O. Box 1295
'l l
Birmingham, AL 35201 l
C. A. McCoy
)
Vice-President-Nuclear P. O. Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201 1
l W. B. Shipman f
j General Manager, Nuclear Operations f'/.f P. O. Box 1600 V
Waynesboro, GA 30830
}
'/
i 1
cc:
Continued see page 2 6
yme.
- JUL 0 91992 Georgia Power Company 2
cc:
Continued J. A.-Bailey Manager-Licensing Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201 Nancy G. Cowles, Counsel office of the Consumer'c Utility Council 84 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 201 Atlanta, GA 30303-2318 Officeaof Planning and Budget Room 615B 270 Washington Street, SW i
Atlanta, GA 30334 Office of the County Commissioner i
Burke County Commission Waynesboro, GA 30830 l
Harold Reheis, Director Department of Natural Resources 205 Butler Street, SE, Suite 1252 Atlanta, GA 30334 Thomas Hill, Manager Radioactive Materials Program Department of Natural Resources 4244 International Parkway Suite 114 Atlanta, GA 30354 Attorney General Law Department 132 Judicial Building Atlanta, GA 30334 Dan H. Smith Vice President Power Supply Operations Oglethorpe Power Corporation 2100 E. Exchange Place Tucker, GA 30085-1349 Charles A. Patrizia, Esq.
~
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker 12th Floor 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D. C.
20036-
JUL 091992 Georgia Power Company 3
. i I
bec S. Sparks, RII' D. Hood, NRR l
P. Skinner, RII
]
A..Herdt, RII Document Control Desk NRC Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
P. O. Box 572 Waynesboro, GA 30830 i
a f
e 4
4 e
RII R/. '
/S nler SS; s
07/p 92 07/
/92 i
f I
l
er ce te a way Post Cmco Bon 1295
/
o 20 877 7122 k
h M R13 AllGd@ia%e c.x..cor Vce Prescen! Nuclear Vogte ProitC1 the SOsthem etctrC 5ystem ELV-03856 000472 5
gt.09 Docket No. 50-424 Director, Office of Enforcement 8
O U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4,o a
ATTN: Document Control Desk
.0 Washington, D. C.
20555 gC)ee Gentlemen:
V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT RESPONSE TO ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY ENFORCEMENT ACTION 91-141 In response to the Order dated June 12, 1992, enclosed is a check in the amount of $100,000.
Given that this enforcement action addresses events of almost four years ago, Georgia Power Company (GPC) believes that the time has come to put the matter behind us. Georgia Power Company has implemented a series of corrective actions (as detailed in our January 30, 1992, Response to a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty) that we believe are sufficient to prevent future violations of this type. Notwithstanding that GPC is paying the civil penalty, we believe the following remarks are in order.
First, we are concerned that the investigation which ultimately resulted in this enforcement action was unnecessarily protracted, causing an inordinate drain on the resources of both the NRC and GPC. The matter was originally referred to the Office of Investigations based on an allegation of willful misconduct by individuals. Almost two years elapsed before the matter of willfulness was dropped and a Notice of Violation was issued.
In addition, the matter was not documented in an inspection report until April 1992, after the Notice of Violation was issued. An investigation focused on vague allegations of misconduct, handled in this manner, creates significant and undue strain on a licensee's employees, organization, and operations.
Second, notwithstanding the position taken in the enforcement action by the NRC staff, we continue to believe that the Technical Specification violation was a direct result of ambiguous guidance on the part of the NRC.
In general, we do not believe that an enforcement action should be the vehicle for promulgating generic, clarifying guidance.
t
'A LV
(
k,,
i Georgia Power A Director, Office of Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ELV-03856 Page 2 Third, we continue to be concerned with the position taken in this enforcement action regarding reporting of the event. Even assuming a violation of the Technical Specifications occurred, events outside the plant licensing basis, such as this case, are not always outside the design basis of the plant. The position taken by the NRC staff in-this enforcement action is at odds with widespread practice and with ongoing discussions between the irdustry and the NRC on developing consistent interpretations of reporting requirements.
Considering that the event at issue occurred several years ago, that it lacked safety significance with respect to the actual operation of the plant at the time, that there has been a tremendous demand placed on company resources by the subsequent analysis and debate of this event, and that plant policy has been changed to preclude recurrence of events of this type, GPC chooses not to pursue an appeal of this enforcement action. We hope that the NRC will review these matters internally and provide the necessary clarification to all licensees.
Sincerely, C. K. McCoy CKM/NJS Enclosure xc: Georoia Power Comoany Mr. W. 8. Shipman Mr. M. Sheibani NORMS U. S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission Dr. Ivan Selin, Chairman Mr. S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator Mr. D. S. Hood, Licensing Project Manager, NRR Mr. B. R. Bonser, Senior Resident Inspector, Vogtle
_ _ _ _ _