ML20134E819
Text
- _-_ - _____-___ - -_- - - -- - - - - - - -
(
C
$ltbl.Neuw ul July 28, 1992 y-e >
NOTE TO:
P. Baranowsky, TPAB/AEOD FROM:
D. Matthews, PDII-2/NRR SUEL7. ECT:
VOGTLE'S RESPONSE TO ENFORCEMENT ACTION 91-141 An Order on June 12, 1992 under Enforcement Action 91-141, imposed a civil monetary penalty upon Georgia Power Company (licensee) due to the opening of chemical injection valves at Vogtle in violation of the Technical Specifications.
One of the violations cited in the Order involved reporting:
B. 50. 73 (a) (2) (ii) (B) requires licensees to submit a Licensee Event Report (LER) within 30 days after the discovery of any event or conditicn that resulted in the nuclear power plant keing in a condition outside the design basis of the plant.
Contrary to the above, on or about November 17, 1989, the Plant Review Board (PRB) determined the opening of the RMWST valves specified in TS 3.4.1.4.2 was not reportable and, consequently, an LER was not submitted within 30 days, even though opening the valves on October 12 and 13, 1988, had placed the plant in a condition outside of the design basis.
Opening the valves constituted a condition outside the plant design basis because at the time the valves were opened an analysis for a boron dilution accident through the valves did not exist.
The licensee's initial reply to the Notice of Violation on January 30, 1992, stated in relevant part:
Furthermore, the Notice of Violation states that the event of October 1988 was outside the design basis of the plant because in October 1988 an analysis for an uncontrolled dilution event via this flowpath did not exist.
This implies that any unanalyzed condition is necessarily outside the design basis of the plant.
However, 10 CF9 50.73 (a) (2) (ii) treats conditions outside the design basis of the plant and unanalyzed conditions that significantly compromise plant safety as two separate and distinct criteria for reportability.
If any unanalyzed condition necessarily places the plant outside its design basis, then there is no need for two different criteria.
This would be I
contrary to existing NRC guidance, specifically NUREG-1022, " Licensee Event Reporting System."
The NUREG, in its guidance concerning paragraph 50.73(a) (2) (ii),
,/,
9611040128 960827 PDR FOIA KOHN95-211 PDR
l 5
s.
2 focuses on-the effects of a given condition-on the
[
principal safety barriers (e.g., tha fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system pressure boundary, and the containment) and the safety significance of the condition.
The NRC has concluded that the October 1988 avant was of no safety significance, and VEGP has demonstrated a wide margin to criticality for the chemical addition evolution.
Therefore, the principal sefety barriers were never challenged, and as was concluded by the PRB in 1989, this event was not reportable as alleged in the violation.
In the order, the NRC made, in part, the following summary points about reportability under 50.73 (a) (2) (ii) (B) :
- 1. The NRC Staff's position regarding the reportability of this event is supported by the discussion on pages 6 and 7 of this Appendix that, by the definition of 10 CFR 50.2, opening the RMWST valves in Mode 5, loops not filled, placed the plant in a cond,ition outside the design basis.
- 2. As the NRC Staff cited the licensee for failing to report the plant being in a condition outside the plant design basis, discussion of the applicability of
- 50. 73 (a) (2) (ii) (A) and its relationship to 50.73 (a) (2) (ii) (B) are not relevant.
Further, a discussion of whether plant safety was significantly compromised, in the context of supporting a reportability determination, would only be necessary if a citation had been made under 50.73(a) (2) (ii) (A).
In its last letter of July 9, 1992, the licensee paid the civil monetary penalty, but offered comments, including the following:
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 industry and the NRC on developing consistent interpretations of reporting requirements.
I am concerned with the licensee's statement that our position is at odds with ongoing discussions between industry and the NRC,
4 3
i presumably in connection with draft NUREG-1022.
Please call me at 504-1490 or Darl Hood at 504-3049 to discuss what reply, if any, the NRC should make to the licensee's last comment.
I
/<42f': d. I w
a David Matthews 00:
G. Lainas S. Varga J. Lieberman 4
1 I
4 4
2 l
1
/
I___________l"_*'~~~_~_"_" T_~_""______
_/_.3__
?
tenc Ponu alle U.S. NUCLEAn nEGULATonY Commission WOCE NUMosR (S4BI INVOICE MAKE CH&CES PAYASLE To THE U.S. IduCLEAR ResuLAfoRY CoMMeteloN. REMENCE THE er6 8euMcER ON REMf7TANCE. ANo orv01CE DATE
~
u.s. NuCosAn neoutAronY Commission Division oF ACCouMTN00 AND RNANCs ornCs or TNs CoNmourn July 14, 1]92 wAsNiNoroN. oC muss uCENu NuMeeRcn -.
=
REmeNC: NuMun r,-.
CONTACT:
Georgia Power Company 40 Inverness Center Pkwy P.O. Box 1295
. Binningham, Alabama 35201 l NUMcEA AREA CODE an ogsCRsrTioM AMOUNT s Received full payment for EA 91-141, dated June 12, 1992,
$100,000 Docket # 50-424.
f k
j /
l'7
/
\\
~~
AMOUNT DUE
's-r- *
$100,000 TEZMs. Interest wM occrue from the irwc,sco date et the annuet rete of
%. Payment is due immedietsiv. However, interest will be weived if payment is recorved within 3) deye from the irwance date. Peneity and admrustretsve Charges will be esseemed on e delinguent invoice. Additional terms and con.
ditione are attedied. if W i
e f
tNffNo
'55 nrita Georgia J0302
' "IJa!"
GeorgiaPower A hast. R f. No-20626533 833500 en,,, o,,,
c- ""**
07-02-92 212824 "E7' P=
- ONEHUNDREDTH00 SAND ****
\\
- AND 00/100 DOLLARS ****
Amount
$100,000.00
- v..
TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY ColellSSION
//
WASHINGTON DC J0555
/A/-
c=~* *
= '*<w 'a mwo - - -
r
.c A - Ob,_. -
First Union National Bank, Chapel Hill, MC.
4 % w' 450020 A
isw dignetwo
/
r ! L 28 21.8
r i
- G f
I j
l i
L
j' July 17,1992 l
Ril-90-A-0124 - Safeguards Ril Request: Ril 90-15 j
01 CASE:
01 2 90-003 DATE DESCRIPTION 4/25/90 Red Phone call @0632 CDT, EN 18328 (unsecured & unattended i
safeguards cabinet @ VEGP)
L 4/30-5/1/90 Security inspection at Vogtle IR 90-11 in response to EN 18328 5/10/90 IR 90-11 issued, with potential escalated enforcement, VIO 90-11-01 (EA 90-090) -
5/22/90 Enforcement conference for IR 90 90E021 (EA90-090)
L 5/25/90 LER 50-425/90-035 issued - addressed unsecured safeguards info reported in EN 18328 & other safeguards events.
l 5/30/90 Enforcement Conference Summary issued (EA 90-090),
IR 90-11.
6/27/90 Notice of Violation (SLill, VIO 90-11-01) (EA 90-090), and Proposed,
l-imposition of Civil Penalty - 650,000 issued for inspection Report 424,425/90-11. Inspection dates April 30 - May 1,1990 at the Vogtle l
' Plant.
7/17/90 List dated July 16, 1990, containing inventory list of unsecured safeguard materials found during an audit at SONOPCO-Birmingham by l-Amy Streetman, faxed to Herb Beacher at the Vogtle site. (no report to NRC at that time) 7/23/90 Telephone conference call NRC/Ril and GPC/Vogtle Re: discovery of 14 documents believed to contain safeguards information in the SCS Birmingham office.
7/23/90 EN 18949 (7/17/90 finding)
I 7/24/90 Note to Uryc from Robinson,01, re:inventorylist of unsecured safeguard materials found during audit at SONOPCO-Birmingham, dated July 16, 1990, by Amy Streetman, was given to 01 during an interview of an alleger.
LIMITED DISTRIBUTION - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE j
MMAS DRAFT - PRE-DECISIONAL INFORMATION 1
90A0m ALG 0
7/26/90 Msmo to Allsgstion Fils: Received allsgntion Istter during 01 intervisw of i
an Allegar. Allsgar providcd inventory shasts of unsecured safeguards materials dated 7/17/90. Alleger stated that 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> report was not made.
.7/27/90 Licensee response to Notice of Violation and Civil Penalty issued with check.
' 7/30/90 + ALLEGATION on Uncontrolled Documents in SONOPCO, SCS, Birmingham, et.al. received by Robinson, OI.
l 8/1/90 Allegation Review Panel meet for July 30,1990 allegation.
8/9/90 ARP -DRP/DRSS/SS, on 7/30/90 allegation of uncontrolled safeguards information.
Conclusion:
calllicensee and request supplemental response 2
to call (due in 2 weeks).
f 8/9/90 Telcon to GPC from Rll to discuss response to Violation dated 7/27/90.
i
.8/22/90 LER 2-90-03S-01 issued -for 4/25/90 event of unsecured safeguards i
information.
l l
9/12/90 Acknowledgement letter for $50k CP i
10/11/90 Red phone call 1040 EDT Re: Safeguards materials found unsecured. (EN 19583) 10/16-17/90 Ril Reactive Safeguards inspection at Vogtle by Security Section, IR 90-27, 10/23/90 Ebneter briefing - Tillman follow-up inspection 10/16/90.
Conclusion:
not enough information to pursue with 01, hold pending receipt of any additional information.
10/29/90 1R 90-27 issued with potential escalated enforcement violation VIO 90-27-01.
10/31/90 A supplementary report will be provided by GPC to the NRC summarizing the completion of this review and.necessary corrective actions taken.
11/12/90 LER 2-90-03S-02 issued 11/13/90 Enforcement Conference in Rll, Re: safeguard materials.
11/20/90 Letter GPC to NRC Re: Safeguards document review, based on the Enforcement Conference in Rll on November 13,1990.
N WIAS LIMITED DISTRIBUTION - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 90AOW.ALG DRAFT - PRE DECISIONAL INFORMATION 2
~.- -.-- _ _. -.-... - -.. - _. - - - -
11/23/90 Enforctm:nt Confersnes Summary issued, IR 90-27.
4 12/12/90 Memo from Tillman to Jenkins Re: Conclusions of Allegation Ril-90-A-l, 0124 followup.
]
f 12/26/90 Ril Request for investigation sent from RA to 01 (Request Ril-90-15) 1/9/91 Memo from 01 stating initiation of investigation 01 CASE 2-91-003.
i i
1/18/91 MEMO: Ol to Commission Re: Investigation 2-91-003 Notification.
1 1
2/5/91 Notice of Violation (SLill, VIO 90-27-01) (EA 90-199), and Proposed 4 -
imposition of Civil Penalty - $50,000 issued.
1 2/15/91 Detailed scope and schedule will be provided to NRC by GPC.
j' 2/28/91 GPC response to CP with check. (IR 90-27) VIO 90-27-01.
l 8/16/91 Ol memo disposition of SONOPCO/GPC allegations 2/20/92 01 issues Case Report 2-91-003. No findings identified.
3/17/92 Memo from Liberman, OE, to Ebneter, stating based on a review of the j
01 report that no further enforcement action will be taken.
3/31/92 Memo from D. McGuire to Jenkins, ElCS, stating that no additional action is required based on review of the 01 Case report.
4/2/92 Memo from Ebneter to Vorse requesting the release of the investigation synopsis to GPC for 01 Case 2-91-003.
4/2/92 Memo from Vorse to Ebneter stating 01 approves the release of the Synopsis from 01 Case 2-91-003.
4/29/92 NRC sends to GPC the Synopsis of 01 Case 2-91-003.
- *' O..
- j,/g 46 4 5 e*#1 by
[f h MA-W o
d
~'
f 5 4/.oie9,
g, Ce
+ [f s
1 i
mwas LIMITED DISTRIBUTION - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE j
90AOU4.ALG DRAFT - PRE-DECISIONAL INFORMATION 3
l
.i a
--wa