ML20137B238
| ML20137B238 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137B235 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9703210226 | |
| Download: ML20137B238 (9) | |
Text
. _ _. - - -
f*%
p UNITED STATES
- r j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
t WASHINGTON. D.C. 20e064001
- ,o SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMEN 0 MENT NO. 203 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DRP-57 l
AND AMENDMENT NO. 144 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-5 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. ET AL.
EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-321 AND 50-366
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated September 18, 1992, as supplemented October 6, 8, 15, 23, and November 13 and 20, 1992, March 5, May 24, June 10, and December 20, 1993, April 6 and July 28, 1995, and September 11, October 1,. December 13, 19, and l
23, 1996, Georgia Power Company, et al. (GPC), proposed amendments for the Hatch facility that would revise Facility Operating License Nos. DRP-57 and NPF-5, currently held by GPC, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and City of Dalton, Georgia (the Owners).
The amendments would allow Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (hereafter called Southern Nuclear), to become the exclusive licensed operator, to possess, manage, use, operate, and maintain the facility. GPC is the current operator of the facility.
l By letter of October 6,1992, GPC revised the initial application for l
amendments of September 18, 1992 (Application), to include changes to the antitrust condition 2.F.8 specified in the operating license for Hatch Unit 2.
On October 15, 1992, GPC further revised the Application to include changes to paragraphs 2.C.(4) and 2.D. of the operating licenses for Hatch Units 1 and 2, respectively, regarding the physical security, guard training and qualification, and safeguards contingency plans. By another letter dated October 8,1992, GPC supplemented the information in the Application by providing draft copies of " Nuclear Operating Agreement between Georgia Power Company and Southern Nuclear Operating Company." GPC further supplemented the Application on October 23, 1992, and July 28, 1995, to update the list of directors and officers for Southern Nuclear, and on November 13, 1992, to discuss the agreements and obligations of the Owners.
The revised and supplemental information in the submittals referenced above do not change the NRC staff's proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration j
that was published in the Federal Reaister (57 FR 47131) on October 14, 1992.
2.0 DISCUSSION GPC and Southern Nuclear are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Southern l
Company. The Southern Company incorporated Southern Nuclear in December 1990,
-after receiving the prerequisite order from the Securities and Exchange j
Commission. The Southern Company's purpose for incorporating Southern Nuclear was to consolidate the Southern Company personnel engaged in nuclear operations into a single integrated organization.
Southern Nuclear is 9703210226 970317 DR ADOCK 0500 1
. currently under contract with GPC to provide offsite technical support for Hatch. These support services include administrative, technical, and nuclear operations support. Under the pro >osed amendment, the present onsite organization responsible for the p1ysical operation of Hatch would be transferred intact to Southern Nuclear. The employees of GPC will become employees of Southern Nuclear. Gains in operating efficiency are anticipated from the consolidation of onsite and offsite personnel engaged in nuclear operations in the Southern Nuclear organization.
The Southern Company is also the parent company of Alabama Power Company, which owns, and formerly operated, the Farley Nuclear Plant. On November 22, 1991, the NRC staff issued license amendments authorizing Southern Nuclear to become the operator of the Farley Nuclear Plant. The amendments for the Farley facility were implemented within 90 days thereafter.
GPC also owns and currently operates the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle), Units 1 and 2.
On September 18, 1992, GPC proposed licensing amendments to authorize Southern Nuclear to become the operator of the Vogtle facility. The NRC staff's review of the proposed amendments for Vogtle has proceeded in parallel with the proposed amendments for the Hatch facility.
i l
The proposed action would involve no change in ownership.
The current Owners would remain on the licenses as licensed Owners and would continue to own the assets of the facility in the same percentages as now.
3.0 EVALUATION The NRC staff's review of GPC's proposed amendments for Hatch included the following areas: management and technical qualifications, financial and antitrust considerations, foreign ownership and control, plant security and restricted data, offsite power availability, emergency planning, quality i
assurance and training, environmental protection, and management character.
The effect of the proposed amendments on each of these areas is evaluated below.
Manaaement and Technical Qualifications The NRC staff has evaluated the GPC's request for Southern Nuclear to become operator of the Hatch facility using criteria in the Standard Review Plan (SRP) Section 13.1.1, " Management and Technical Support Organizations," and Sections 13.1.2 and 13.1.3, " Operating Organization."
GPC will continue to be the owner of Hatch, but Southern Nuclear becomes the exclusive licensed operator and is authorized to possess, manage, use, operate, and maintain the Hatch facility.
GPC identified and described the organizational groups responsible for the management and operation of the Hatch facility with Southern Nuclear as operator. The application included an organizational chart illustrating the organizational relationships between the Hatch facility, the Vogtle facility, the corporate technical and administrative services organizations, and the offsite technical support organizations.
GPC also stated that Southern Nuclear will have three internal i
organizations: Nuclear Operations, Technical Services, and Administrative 1
Services. GPC provided a brief description of each of these organizations, as well as the technical qualifications of Southern Nuclear.
GPC stated that q
i l :
Southern Nuclear currently provides nuclear support services to GPC, including the Hatch facility. GPC also stated that upon the effective date of the i
requested amendments GPC will continue to be the Owner of the Hatch facility, but Southern Nuclear will become the exclusive licensed operator and will be l
authorized to possess, manage, use, operate, and maintain the facility.
l GPC described the organization for the management of, and means for, providing j
economic support to the plant staff during operation of the facility.
The NRC j
staff reviewed these measures using SRP Section 13.1.1, " Management and Technical Support Organization." The operations and technical support i
organization will be under the same organization when Southern Nuclear becomes the operator. On the basis of its review, the staff concludes that as the operator of Hatch, Southern Nuclear will have an acceptable organization and i
adequate resources to provide technical support for the operation of the facility under both normal and off-normal conditions.
1 The application states that the onsite nuclear operation organization will be transferred intact from GPC to Southern Nuclear. Southern Nuclear will then j
employ, or contract as necessary, all of the technically qualified personnel necessary to become responsible for possession, management, operation, use, i
and maintenance of Hatch. Therefore, the technical qualifications of both the 1
onsite and offsite organizations will be equivalent to those that currently 1
exist. GPC also anticipates no change in the Hatch onsite nuclear operation organization except for the change of employer from GPC to Southern Nuclear.
Some titles will be changed where appropriate to reflect the exclusive operating status of Southern Nuclear.
Based on its review of the licensee's submittal, the staff concludes that the proposed onsite organization meets the j
criteria described in SRP Sections 13.1.2 and 13.1.3, " Operating Organization," with regard to independence in reporting responsibility and
]
authority, lines of authority to the plant manager, and assignment of onsite operating crews in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(m), and is, therefore, 4
acceptable.
On the basis of the preceding evaluation, the NRC staff concludes that the pr@osed changes to the operating licenses for the Hatch that provide for Southern Nuclear to possess, manage, use, operate and maintain the Hatch facility, with GPC retaining ownership, meet the relevant criteria in SRP Section 13.1.1, " Management and Technical Support Organizations," and Sections 13.1.2 and 13.1.3, " Operating Organization" and are, therefore, acceptable.
4 Financial Considerations Cost recovery for the operation and eventual decommissioning of Hatch will remain the same as before the license amendments. GPC and the other Owners of the Hatch facility--the Oglethorpe Power Corporation, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia--will continue to have entitlement to all electrical output from Hatch and will remain as licensed Owners. GPC is regulated by the Georgia Public Service Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The other Owners set their own electric rates. Rate regulation and rate-setting authority will continue as before the license amendments.
Southern Nuclear will be neither an Owner of Hatch nor entitled to any electric output from Hatch.
4
]
GPC and Southern Nuclear have established responsibility for plant costs.
Southern Nuclear will be reimbursed for costs of direct operation of Hatch by GPC.
In turn, GPC will be reimbursed by the other Owners for their proportionate shares of these costs pursuant to existing agreements.
Other expenses of Southerr. Nuclear that are not direct charges to Hatch will be 4
i allocated to GPC and others for whom the expenses are incurred.
With Southern Nuclear as the licensed operator, GPC and the other owners will provide all funds necessary for expenses accrued by Southern Nuclear for the safe operation, construction, maintenance, repair, decontamination and 4
decommissioning of the Hatch facility.
Because the owners and the sources of funds will remain unchangsd, cost recovery of operating, maintenance and i
decommissioning costs will, likewise, not change.
The staff finds that there will be no safety consequences from the proposed arrangements for funding of operating, maintenance, and decommissioning costs of Hatch. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that the financial arrangements of the proposed action will not adversely affect protection of public health and safety.
l Antitrust Considerations i
GPC's application includes: (1) a proposed new license condition for Hatch j
Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, that precludes Southern Nuclear from marketing or g
brokering power or energy from Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; and (2) changes to the existing licei.se condition for Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, intended to allay the concerns expressed by the NRC staff in its review of the change in the operator for the Farley plant which was issued November 22, 1992.
By letter dated October 6, 1992, GPC proposed minor changes to the wording of the antitrust license condition, as submitted Septembu 18, 1992, for Hatch Unit 2 i
based on t A. phone discussions with the NRC staff. The new paragraph, as i
revised would read:
(8)
Southern Nuclear shall not market or broker power or energy i
_ from Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2.
Georgia Power i
Company shall continue to be responsible for compliance with the obligations imposed on it in its antitrust license conditions.
Georgia Power Company is responsible and accountable for the actions of Southern Nuclear, to the i
extent that Southern Nuclear's actions may, in any way, contravene the existing antitrust license conditions.
The staff concludes that the new antitrust license condition restricts Southern Nuc1 car's competitive options in the bulk power services market and assures that competition will not be adversely affected tv Southern Nuclear's operation of Hatch Units 1 and 2.
Therefore, the NRC stuff finds the proposed changes to the Hatch Units 1 and 2 licenses acceptable.
Foreian Ownershio and Control inf; ution available to the staff indicates that neither Southem Nuclear Operating Company nor Georgia Power Company will be owned, controlled, or dominated by any alien, foreign corporation, or foreign government.
A
! Plant Security and Restricted Data i
The proposed license amendments would not alter compliance with the physical i
security requirements of 10 CFR Part 73 as set forth in the Hatch Security 1
Plan, Contingency Plan, and Guard Training and Qualification Plan.
Upon becoming the licensed operator, Southern Nuclear would become responsible for implementing all aspects of the present security program for the Hatch j
facility. Control over existing agreements for support from offsite organizations and agencies has been assigned or delegated by GPC to Southern 2
Nuclear. The change to the licenses would merely revise paragraph 2.E. to reflect this transfer of responsibility from GPC to Southern Nuclear. Also, j
in accordance with GPC's letters of October 15, 1992, September 11 and December 13, 1996, paragraphs 2.C.(4) and 2.0. of the licenses for Hatch Units I and 2, respectively, would be revised to reflect the latest revision dates of the Physical Security Plan, the Guard Training and Qualification Plan, and 1
the Contingency Plan. Since licensees are required to meet the latest i-approved revisions of their security plans, this proposed change is for ease of reference and does not affect the NRC staff's previous determination of no 2
j significant hazards considerations (57 FR 47131 dated October 14,1992).
On the basis of its review of GPC's letters of September 18 and October 15, 1992, the NRC staff finds that the site security programs have been adequately addressed. These changes will have no adverse effect on the physical security commitments for the facility with. respect to protection against the threat of radiological sabotage in accordance with 10 CFR 73. The technical security i
commitments withir the Physical Security Plan, Guard Training and j
Qualification Plan, and Contingency Plan for the Hatch facility remain f
fundamentally unchanged from the current license conditions.
Since the
[
proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not decrease the l
effectiveness of these plans in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(p), the staff finds that these changes continue to satisfy the regulatory requirements and j
are, therefore, acceptable.
l Offsite Power i
The proposed amendments involves no change in the ownership or design of the i
offsite power system for the Hatch facility, or in its operation, mainte1ance i
or testing. GPC will continue to fulfill its current responsibilities with respect to compliance with General Design Criterion (GDC) 17, " Electric Power Systems." Agreements between GPC and Southern Nuclear have been executed that specify arrangements for controlling the operation, maintenance, repair, and other activities regarding the transmission lines and the switchyard so that adequate independent sources of offsite power will continue to be provided.
The staff concludes that the proposed license amendments will have no adverse effect upon meeting the requirements of GDC 17 and are, therefore, ac.:eptable with respect to requirements for offsite power.
l Eneraency Plannina Upon approval of the proposed license amendments, Southern Nuclear will become i
responsible and have the authority for all functions necessary to fulfill the emergency planning requirements specified in paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 50.47, j
. l
" Emergency Plans," and Part 50, Appendix E, " Emergency Planning and i
Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities." Service plans l-between GPC and Southern Nuclear have been executed which provide for offsite
)
l emergency planning support, including communications with the public, after l
the license transfers occur. The staff concludes that this approach for l
meeting the emergency planning requirements is acceptable.
l l
Guality Assurance and Trainina Upon implementation of the proposed amendments, Southern Nuclear will become responsible for the Hatch quality assurance programs and the personnel l
training programs. The function and structure of the quality assurance program will not be affected by the amendments; and it will continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants." Substantive changes will not be have to be made for the licansee to meet the operator requalification program requirements of 10 CFR 50.54 and other related regulations, and to meet the requirements for maintaining the Institute of Nuclear Power Operation's accreditation for licensed and non-licensed training.
I The staff concludes that approval of the proposed amendments will not adversely affect the Hatch quality assurance and training programs.
Environmental Protection Plan l
The proposed amendments provide for changes in organizational responsibility l
for some aspects of the Environmental Protection Plan, Appendix B of the Hatch.
facility's operating licenses. Specifically, a footnote is added to clarify that term " licensee" refers to Southern Nuclear, and the Appendix B provision for maintaining transmission line records of herbicide use is changed to reflect that GPC will maintain the records. The current licenses state that the licensee will maintain the records. However, Southern Nuclear will become the licensee when the license transfers become effective. The license change is necessary because GPC will retain ownership of the transmission lines and continue to maintain the herbicide records. These changes are administrative
)
in nature, and do not amend the obligations and responsibilM.y for compliance with the elements of the approved Environmental Protection Plan.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed changes are acceptable.
Manaaement Character On September 11, 1990, Michael D. Kohn, Esquire, on behalf of two former GPC employees, Messrs. Marvin B. Hobby and Allen L. Mosbaugh, filed a " Request for Proceedings and Imposition of Civil Penalties for Improperly Transferring l
Control of Georgia Power Company's Licenses to the SONOPC0 Project and For the l
Unsafe and Improper Operation of Georgia Power Company Licensed Facilities" (Petition). Supplements to the initial filing were filed on September 21 and October 1, 1990. The Petitioners made a number of allegations about the 4
{
management of the GPC nuclear facilities (Hatch and Vogtle) and, in a July 8, 1991, amendment to the petition, asked the NRC to take immediate steps to determine whether GPC management has the requisite character to operate a facility. One of the petitioners (A. Mosbaugh) also litigated some of the 2.206 petition issues as an intervenor in the license amendment proceeding 2
l i
. _ _.. ~.. _ _.
i i
4 o
i !
regarding GPC's application to transfer the authority to operate Vogtle to l
Southern Nuclear. The filings and hearing transcripts of the Vogtle proceeding are available in the NRC public document room.
In CLI-93-15, 38 NRC 1 (July 14, 1993), the Commission vacated ~and remanded an April 23, 1993, Director's Decision (D0-93-8) on the petition, with the direction that the 1
j staff consider the outcome of the Vogtle license amendment proceeding before acting on the petition due to their overlap in issues.
In response to concerns raised by the petitioners /intervenor, the NRC Office i
of Investigations (01) conducted an investigation. Based on its review of j
that investigation, the staff determined that on several occasions from April 9 to August 30, 1990, GPC had violated the requirenients of 10 CFR 50.9 with regard to the completeness and the NRC with respect to Vogtle.gccuracy of material information provided to The staff concluded that the violations j
resulted from repeated failure of various levels of GPC management, individually and collectively, to perform their duties with an adequate regard I
for complete and accurate communication with the NRC.
In a Notice of i
Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties (Notice) issued May 9, j
1994, the staff concluded that the circumstances surrounding the violations i
represented a serious breakdown on the part of GPC to ensure that information j
provided to the C was complete and accurate in all material respects, and represented a very d gnificant regulatory concern.
The staff pointed out in the Notice that it is of fundamental importance in the nuclear industry that, l
when errors are made, such errors-are promptly corrected, lessons are learned, j
and corrections to procedures and training are developed through root cause analyses so that future performance can be improved. GPC performance was inadequate in that, after determining that certain material information provided to the NRC may not have been complete or accurate, GPC directed its efforts toward defending that information without an adequate understanding of its basis. This approach was inconsistent with responding to inquiries with the simple candor necessary for the NRC to discharge its responsibility for protecting public health and safety. The violation was categorized as a Severity Level II problem, and GPC paid a $200,000 civil penalty.
4 l
In recognition of the numerous performance failures of a former Vogtle manager 4
who is currently employed by Southern Nuclear, and whose performance 1
contributed to the problems noted above, GPC and Southern Nuclear made a commitment in a February 1,1995, letter related to the. enforcement action at j
Vogtle discussed above that the individual would not assume a line management t
position at any GPC or Southern Nuclear nuclear plant unless he satisfactorily completed training in management responsibilities and communications and the
)
NRC received at least 60 days prior written notice of the assignment. GPC l
reiterated that conunitment with respect to Hatch in a letter dated December i
23, 1996. The staff has relied on that commitment as part of its approval of l
the operatlng license transfers. The Order authorizing the transfer of the Hatch operating licenses from GPC to Southern Nuclear includes a conoition j
that confirms this commitment for Hatch, t
1 The Ol' report, and the February 9,1994, staff analysis of the report and other information, are publicly available documents (Enclosures 1 and 2 respectively to an NRC letter dated May 11, 1994, to the parties in the ASLB proceeding, NRC Public Document Room Accession Number 9405130002.)
__m e
e In 1990, Messrs. Hobby and Mosbaugh each filed a complaint with the Department of Labor alleging, in part, that their employment terminations by GPC management constituted unlawful discrimination against them for engaging in protected activities (i.e., expressing safety concerns about certain activities primarily related to the Vogtle facility). The Secretary of Labor (Secretary) found that the complainants' terminations resulted from unlawful discrimination by senior management personnel. The NRC reviewed the Secretary's decisions and determined that violations of 10 CFR 50.7, (Employee Protection) had occurred. Two Severity Level I Notices of Violation were issued to the Vogtle licensee as provided for by the NRC's Enforcement Policy.
Although the NRC took no enforcement actions against the specific individuals involved, the NRC did issue letters to several senior management personnel to emphasize that harassment, intimidation and discrimination against licensee employees who engage in protected activities is unacceptable.
GPC corrective actions included emphasizing to employees that they are encouraged to raise safety concerns and that harassment, intimidation and discrimination against employees for raising those concerns is contrary to a strongly supported management policy prohibiting such retaliatory measures.
Licensee corporate management communicated this message in writing, and at i
special meetings with site employees to focus on this concern. The staff reviewed the licensee's corrective actions and concluded that the actions were sufficient.
The staff has concluded that the significant enforcement action by the NRC, in addition to ASLB hearing activities and the DOL Orders, is likely to sensitize 1
licensee management to the seriousness of problems of this nature and ensure a proper environment in which employees can express regulatory concerns without fear of retaliation, harassment, intimidation, or discrimination.
The staff has also concluded that although significant violations were identified against GPC in the sast, corrective actions have been implemented.
There has not been a showing t?at Southern Nuclear or GPC (including the GPC a
employees who would work for Southern Nuclear in conjunction with these license transfers) lacks the requisite character to be a licensee.
In light of the various regulatory actions that have been taken by the NRC on issues raised in the petition, including the Order provision regarding the former Vogtle General Manager, and corrective actions taken by the licensee, no further action, is necessary.
4.0 STATE CONSULTAT!nN
)
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Georgia State official l
was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, 51.32, and 51.35, an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact was published in the Federal Reaister on November 3, 1992 (57 FR 49724).
In this finding, the Commission determined i
that issuance of these amendments and the transfer of operating authority as 1
i
l e
f i j described herein would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
)
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, 1
that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors: K. Jabbour L. Wheeler E. Fox R. Wood B. Manili Date:
March 17, 1997