ML20151J311
| ML20151J311 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1997 |
| From: | Jaudon J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Mccoy C SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO. |
| References | |
| 50-424-97-03, 50-424-97-3, 50-425-97-03, 50-425-97-3, NUDOCS 9708050131 | |
| Download: ML20151J311 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000424/1997003
Text
_
. _ . . . . _ _
.
_-
_ __
- _ _ _ _
. _
-_
?
.
.=
,.
,.
,.
I
-
1
l
l
'
l
JUIN 31,1997
l
l
Southern Nuclear Operating Company Inc.
!
ATTN:
Mr. C. K. McCoy
I
Vice President
~
)
!
P. O. Box 1295
i
-
'
Birmingham, AL 35201-1295
'
I
SUBJECT:
(NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-424/97 03, 50 425/97-03)
i
,
! -
Dear Mr. McCoy:
,
We have' completed our review eT your response of May 27,.1997, to our Notice
of Violation (Notice) issued on April 4, 1997, concerning activities conducted
at your Vogtle facility. We have examined your response and found that it
!
meets the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201. A more detailed discussion of your
response is contained in Enclosure 2.
1
In your response you stated that you did not agree that a violation of
regulatory requirements occurred and that you complied with all provisions of
the NRC ap) roved Physical Security Plan (PSP). After review of your response
we agree tlat you did not violate Section 6.6A of your PSP in that the Central
l
l
Alarm Station has always been continuously manned. Therefore, we withdraw the
'
violation.
Our view at the time we considered the violation was not that you
had in fact implemented this portion of the PSP, but rather that your security
implementing procedures, intended for use during a contingency response, were
not consistent with the requirements containeo in your PSP.
After reconsidering the facts of this case, we find that your Vogtle Security
Response Plan, Revision 3. Phase 2 violated your Technical Specifications
.
which require that you_ establish and maintain security procedures to implement
your PSP,
This requirement mandates that the procedures incorporate the
provisions of the PSP, as approved by NRC. As such, wq
violation, as stated in Enclosure 1, that addresses yourhave issued a
,
'
non compliance in
this specific area.
The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reason for the violation,
the corrective actions taken and planned to correct the violation and prevent
recurrence, and the date when full compliance will be achieved is adequately
j
addressed on the docket in Inspection Report No. 50 424, 50 425/97-03 dated
'
A)ril 4,1997, and your Reply to a Notice of Violation dated May 27, 1997.
T1erefore, you are not required to respond to this letter unless the
information herein does not accurately reflect your corrective actions or your
'
. position.
In that case, or if you choose to provide additional information,
you should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice.
\\
\\
l
!
\\h.!}hllkklll
. . . -
'
9709050131 970731
...
ADOCK 05000424
0
M
.
.
-
.
_ _ . . . . _ _ . _
.. _._-_ _ - _ _ . _ - . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ - . _ . _ _ _ . .
'
!
-
.
,
2
i
b
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of
this letter, its enclosure, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public
Docunent Room.
Sin
1,
!
'
.
Johns P. J
6 , Director
^
Division of R
tor Safety
Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425
License Nos. NPF 68, NPF 81
Enclosures: 1.
1
2.
Evaluation and Conclusions
'
-
.
!
cc w/encls:
J. D. Woodard
,
!
Executive Vice President
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
P. O. Box 1295
Birmingham, AL 35201-1295
J. B. Beasley
General Manager, Plant Vogtle
!
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
l
P. O. Box 1600
Waynesboro, GA 30830
l
l
J. A. Bailey
Manager Licensing
Southern Nuclear Operating Company Inc.
l
!
P. O. Box 1295
Birmingham, AL 35201-1295
Jim Hurt, Director
t
Consumers' Utility Counsel Division
Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs
2 H. L. King, Jr. Drive
Plaza Level - East: Suite 356
Atlanta, GA 30334 4600
l
Office of Planning and Budget
.
Room 615B
270 Washington Street, SW
3
Atlanta, GA 30334
!
I
(ccw/enclscont'd-Seepage 3)
)
.
f
1, - ,
- , . , _ ,
- _,
- - .
.
.
...
.
.-.
. . - - . - . - - . - . - . - . . - . - . - . - - . - - . - .
.
.- -~ .
'
,
'
..
,
3
(cc w/encls cont'd):
Office of the County Commissioner
Burke County Commission
Waynesboro. GA 30830
i
Harold Reheis, Director
Department of Natural Resources
l
205 Butler Street, SE, Suite 1252
Atlanta, GA 30334
'
^
-Thomas Hill, Manager
Radioactive Materials Program
Department of Natural Resources
4244 International Parkway
l
Suite 114
.
'
Atlanta, GA 30354
l
Attorney General
l
Law Department
.
132 Judicial Building
l
Atlanta, GA 30334
1
,
i
Thomas P. Mozingo
i
!
Manager of Nuclear Operations
Oglethorae Power Corporation
2100 E.
Exchange Place
!
Tucker, GA 30085-1349
l
'
Charles A. Patrizia, Esq.
l
Paul
Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
10th Floor
'
l
1299 Pennsylvania Avenue
'
Washington, D. C.
20004-9500
Steven M. Jackson-
Senior Engineer
Power Supply
l
Municipal Electric Authority
i
of Georgia
l
1470 Riveredge Parkway NW
v.
'
Atlanta, GA 30328-4684
,
l
l
l
,
,
. . , , - , -
- , . -
,-
-
-
,
.-..---m.,
,.
_
.___
_
. . _ . _ _ . _ _
. . _ ..
.
(
-
.
,
l
-
l
j.
_SNC
4
Distribution w/ encl:
P. Skinner, RII
-
W. P. f(liinsorge, RII-
l
M. E. Ernstes, RII
L. Wheeler, NRR
PUBLIC
NRC Senior Resident Inspector
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
8805 River Road
Waynesboro, GA 30830
.
!
'
l
i
nfFfer
pit.nop
R!f Ft 9
pff pr
nr.
,
Npp AN
NOR
\\Y\\
SIGNATURE
b
hk
[
NAME
JOHN
UR
__
EVANS
LIEBERMAN
WHEELER
CUNNI-
/\\7
b
h /97
DATE
07 / k / 97
/ 97
07 /
07/ ru /97
07/
07 /
/ 97
COPY?
YES
( NO
[(ES/
NO
YES
NO
O)
Q
[YES)
NO
.,n
yn
y
v
v
w
v
OFFICIAL RECORD COPYl/ DOCUMENT NAME: EICS:H:\\1970 PEN.ENFWOGCAS.DIR\\LTRTOLIC.R1
l
l
l
.
_ _
-
,.
<
..
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
Docket Nos.:
50 424, 50-425
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant
License Nos. NPF 68 and NPF 81
1
Units 1 and 2
^
i
During a NRC inspection conducted on March 3
7, 1997, a violation of NRC
requirements was identified.
In accordance with the " General Statement of
Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions, "NUREG 1600, the violation
is listed below:
,
Technical Specification 5.4.1 requires that written procedures be ,
established, implemented, and maintained covering the applicable
procedures recommended in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, Appendix A,
,
February 1978. Regulatory Guide 1.33, Appendix A, identifies security
procedures as one of the recommended procedures.
Section 6.6A, of the licensee's Physical Security Plan, Revision 33,
dated September 12, 1996, states that the Central Alarm Station and
Secondary Alarm Station are continuously manned by at least one
authorized person.
.
Contrary to the above, from January 1996 to March 1997, the licensee
i
failed to establish and maintain adequate security procedures to
implement Section 6.6A of the Physical Security Plan. Specifically, the
Vogtle Security Response Plan, Revision 3, Phase 2, defined a deployment
strategy which permitted the Central Alarm Station to be left unmanned
in the event of a contingency.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement III).
.
The NRC has concluded that the information regarding the reasons for the
!
violation, the corrective actions taken and planned to correct the violation
and prevent recurrence, and the date when full compliance will be achieved is
already adequately addressed on the docket in Inspection Report 50 424,
!
50 425/97 03 and your Reply to a Notice of Violation. However, you are
required to submit a written statement or explanation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201
if the description therein does not accurately reflect your corrective actions
or your position.
In that case, or if you choose to respond, clearly mark
your response as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation " and send it to the U. 3.
'
.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D. C.
l
20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, RII, within 30 days of the
date of the letter transmitting this Notice.
If you choose to provide a response, it will be placed in the NRC Public
Document Room (PDR), and to the extent possible, it should not include any
l
personal privacy, pro 3rietary, or safeguards information so that it can be
t
l
placed in the PDR wit 1out redaction.
'
!
j
Enclosure 1
01 'i/\\ Lil/n s j (/ }
fv [( y w
<
,
--
_
-.
-
-.
.
-
--
- - - - - -
- - . - - - . - . - -
. . . -
_
-
-
-
.
1 ..
Evaluation and Conclusions
On April 4,1997, a Notice of Violation (Notice) was issued for a violation
identified during a routine NRC inspection. Southern Nuclear 0)erating
Company, Inc. (SNC) responded to the Notice on May 27, 1997. T1e response
stated that SNC did not agree that a violation of regulatory requirements
occurred and that SNC complied with all provisions of the NRC a) proved
Physical Security Plan (PSP). The NRC's evaluation regarding t1e licensee's
response is as follows.
Summary of Licensee's Response to the Violation
~
The licensee stated that the intent of the change to the deployment strategy
was to enhance the response action to protect vulnerable targets and was
intended to assure response to the design basis threat. As no actual need for
the implementation of the specific Central Alarm Station (CAS) deployment
strategy has occurred, the requirements of PSP Section 6.6 have always been
met.
In order to assure a prompt response to a violent external threat,
security personnel should be free to assume any position deemed necessary to
effectively respond to the actual threat. NRC representatives witnessed the
CAS deployment strategy method during an Operational Safeguards Response
Evaluation (0SRE), in February 1996 and documented that "the strategy may not
be in strict compliance with the Security Plan....This should be explored by
.
the licensee." No tracking mechanism for closure, such as an Unresolved Item
(URI) or Inspector Followup Item (IFI), was issued by the NRC. Subse
the OSRE, a 10 CFR 50.90 request was submitted requesting the change.quent to
The
licensee stated that if the NRC had identified a non compliance earlier, the
j
licensee would not have retained the subject deployment strategy pending
.
Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) review of the amendment request. The NRC
l
should reconsider the interpretations of compliance to contingency
prerequisites during the required response to actual threats. The licensee's
view is that the violation fails to appropriately factor in the broader goal
of increasing the level of assurance for overall security effectiveness. The
licensee also believes that the violation discourages and penalizes licensees
for being proactive in their efforts to contemplate new approaches and logic
!
for difficult contingency scenarios. When the violation was identified,
,
'
immediate compensatory actions were taken and are continuing to be
implemented. The licensee intends to explore with the NRR staff other relief
to the NRC's interpretation of Section 6.6A of the PSP.t
NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Response
The enhancements described by the licensee are not relevant to the violation.
They impact the basis for deciding on a change to the PSP to permit this
strategy but do not effect the requirement that PSP procedures must be
consistent with and implement the provisions of the PSP. The NRC agrees that
PSP Section 6.6A was not violated, even with the implementing procedure at
variance with the PSP. Therefore, as stated in the letter transmitting this
enclosure, the PSP violation has been withdrawn, and a Technical Specification
violation has been issued to address NRC's original concern. The NRC staff
'
'
Enclosure 2
i
. , _
, - _
_
_
.
..
_ _
_
..
.
-. -
- - . . . . . . - -
..
.
- - . - . . _ - .
-
.,
.
.
l,
2
l
disagrees that the violation implies that the licensee is not free to defend
-
the facility against any violent external threat. The regulations.
10 CFR 73.55(a), specifically state, that "In accordance with 50.54(x) and
50.54(y) of part 50, the licensee may suspend any safeguards measures pursuant
to 73.55 in an emergency when this action is immediately needed to protect the
public health and safety and no action consistent with license conditions and
technical specifications that can provide adequate or equivalent protection is
immediately apparent." The issue in the violation involves a strategy
intended to be implemented, and as such, must either comply with the
provisions of the PSP as approved by the NRC, or the PSP must be changed.
'
The NRC staff agrees that the Plan / procedure discrepancy was identified dJring
the February 1996 OSRE, and, although a violation was not identified at the
<
l
time, the licensee was informed that a 10 CFR 50.90 change request was
necessary if the licensee chose to continue with the strategy. The NRC did
not inform the licensee in writing that the strategy should be discontinued
)ending the change request submission and decision. The staff believed that
)y informing the licensee that a 10 CFR 50.90 request was required that the
licensee understood that the current strategy could not be continued without
NRC approval as required by 10 CFR 50.54(p)(1). At that time, the licensee
wa.e < ? questing NRC approval of a deployment strategy which had already been
m_de effective by a procedural revision. This approach indicates that the
iicensee determined that the change did not decrease the PSP's effectiveness
,
i
and could be implemented under 10 CFR 50.54(p).
However, we view the
submittal under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.90 to indicate the licensee's
determination that a license amendment was required.
l
The NRC staff conchdes that the licensee's corrective action to the specific
issue is satisfuctory.
l
l
e.
.
.
.
rm .
.
_.
. _ . - _ - - _ . _ _
_ . _ . _ . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ . - . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ .
_
. _ _ _ _ _ __ . - _ .
[
-
.. .
p
,
I
!
l
4
-
!
l-
Distribution w/ encl:
P. Skinner. RII
,
~~W.P.ideinsorge,RII
M. E. Ernstes RII
L. Wheeler,~NRR
PUBLIC
NRC Senior Resident Inspector
.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
"
8805 River Road
i
Waynesboro, GA 30830
l
.
I
l
.
DffFi!
pff.pr
pr.
,
NDD AN
NDD
\\Y\\
.
nFFirF
pff OPD
SIGNATURE
h
s
NAME
JOHN 4
UR
EVANS
LIEBERMAN
WHEELER
C NI
,
07hh397
/\\?
07/ tb
- 07/ h/97
01 /
/ 97
DATE
/ 97
07 /
/97
COPY?
YES ' k NO
['ES/
N0
(ES
N0
h)
/y2
[YES)
NO
.n
.,n
v
v
v
u
v
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY // DOCUMENT NAME: ElCS:H:\\1970 PEN.ENFWOGCAS.DIR\\LTRTOLIC.R1
.
I
l
A
!
._.
__