ML20207D377
| ML20207D377 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1999 |
| From: | Howell A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Dugger C ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. |
| References | |
| 50-382-99-01, 50-382-99-1, EA-99-135, NUDOCS 9906030323 | |
| Download: ML20207D377 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000382/1999001
Text
q
l
7
"%g
50
UNITED STATES
,
,
[/
';
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
N
,E
REGloNiv
IL
l
[
611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 400
I
,, j
ARUNGToN, TEXAS 76011-8064
May 27,1999
.
,
EA 99-135
l
'
Charles M. Dugger, Vice President
1
Operations - Waterford 3
Entergy Operations, Inc.
'
P.O. Box B
Killona, Louisiana 70066
'
SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-382/99-01 AND DENIAL OF VIOLATION
j
Dear Mr. Dugger:
I-
Thank you for your letters of April 1 and May 4,1999, in response to our March 3,1999, letter
'
and Notice of Violation. The issues presented in your denial of the violation will require further
review by the NRC. Upon completion, the NRC will provide you with the results of our review.
t
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. A. Bruce Earnest at
(817) 860-8146 or Ms. Gail M. Good at (817) 860-8215.
Sincerely,
i
Arthur T. H
ell lil, Director
Division of e tor Safety
Docket No.:
50-382
License No.: NPF-38
cc:
Executive Vice President and
Chief Operating Officer
Entergy Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box 31995
)
Jackson, Mississippi 39286-1995
Vice President, Operations Support
Entergy Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box 31995
Jackson, Mississippi 39286-1995
9906030323 990527
ADOCK 05000382
G
,
'
R
,
.-
-
..,
Entergy Operations, Inc.
-2--
)
L..
Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway -
L
P.O. Box 651 :
~ Jackson, Mississippi 39205 '.
General Manager, Plant Operations
Waterford 3 SES
Entergy Operations,Inc.
P.O.; Box B
Killona, Louisiana 70066
,
Manager- Licensing Manager
-)
Waterford 3 SES :
- Entergy Operations, Inc.-
P.O. Box B
Killona, Louisiana 70066
>
' Chairman
Louisiana Public Service Commission
One American Place, Suite 1630 -
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825-1697
Director, Nuclear Safety &
Regulatory Affairs
' Waterford 3 SES .
Entergy Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box B
Killona, Louisiana 70066
. Witiiam H. Spell, Administrator
Louisiana Radiation Protection Division
P.O. Box 82135
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2135'
Parish President
St. Charles Parish '
F.O. Box 302
]
Hahnville, Louisiana 70057
Winston & Strawn
.1400 L Street, N.W.
' Washington, D.C. 20005-3502
l
l
'
-
k
\\
' ,-
l
'
{
-
Entergy Operations, Inc.
-3-
.
DISTRIBUTION w/coov of licensee's letter dated April 1.1999:
)
Duggwd,>
j
Regional Administrator
j
WAT-3 Resident inspector
DRP Director
DRS-PSB
DRS Director
l
Branch Chief (DRP/D)
Project Engineer (DRP/D)
Branch Chief (DRP/TSS)
1
G. F. Sanborn, EO
W. L. Brown, RC
i
J. Lieberman, OE (MS 7-H5)
l
OE:EA Files (MS 7-H5)
l
MIS File
l
RIV File
DRS Action item File (99-G-0045)(Goines)
l
i
1
h k) -
i
I
DOCUMENT NAME: R:\\_WAT\\WT901 LT.ABE.WPD
To receive copy of document, Indicate in box: *C* = copy without enclosures *E' = copy with enclosures *N' = No copy
I
RIV:PSB
/d
C:DRS\\PSB
EOI:44
E D:DRL/
_
ABEarnedh(,
GMGooMMW
GFSanborn
ATHo#4 I til
~
05Af99 "
054#99
'
7 52%99
05/%95
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
(
p::
q
'
.
- ..
Entergy Operations, Inc.
-3-
DISTRIBUTION w/coov of licensee's letter dated April 1.1999:
DMB (IE04)
Regional Administrator
WAT-3 Resident inspector
DRP Director
DRS-PSB
{
DRS Director
Branch Chief (DRP/D)
Project Engineer (DRP/D)
Branch Chief (DRP/TSS)
G. F. Sanbom, EO
~
W. L. Brown, RC
' J. Lieberman, OE (MS 7-H5)
OE:EA Files (MS 7-H5) -
)
MIS File
RIV File
ll
DRS Action Item File (99-G-0045)(Goines)
i
j
l
l
1
1
!
DOCUMENT NAME: R:LWAEWT901LT.ABE.WPD
To receive copy of document, Indicate in box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy
I
RIV:PSB
J
C:DRS\\PSB
EO/#
E
D:DR!L/
_
ABEamegGM-
GMGoo6W
GFfanborn
ATHo#4l 111
05M99 "
054.W99
'
1 58 99
05/ 694
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
~
,.
.
5 .*
y
Ente gy perations, inc.
'
}
Killona. LA 70066
Tel 504 739 6242
i
l
Early C. Ewing. ll1
l
ue Safety & Regulatory Affairs
A4.05
PR
,
, - .
April 1,1999
i:
r
-
- - -
'
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
I APR
5 1999
.,
,
ATTN: Document Control Desk
t..
,
Washington, D.C. 20555
[,E m p
l
_
Subject:
Waterford 3 SES
Docket No. 50-382
'
License No. NPF-38
NRC Inspection Report 50-382/99-01
Reply to Notice of Violation
-
Gentlemen:
,
in accordance with 10CFR2.201, Entergy Operations Inc (EOl) hereby submits in
Attachment 1 the response to the violation identified in Enclosure 1 of the subject
inspection Report.
Entergy has performed a review of the inspection report and related NRC regulations,
regulatory guides and commitments. Entergy has concluded that the assignment of
responsibilities for individuals performing audits and the selection of individuals which
participate as audit team members is in compliance with 10CFR26.80(b) and
Regulatory Guide 5.66. Therefore, Entergy is denying this violation.
Entergy realizes that organizational changes require Entergy to assure that
regulations goveming audits and the effectiveness of audits be maintained.
J
$
'\\b D
1
-
r --
-
- .,
-
..
..
.
.g
NRC Inspection Report 50-382/99-01
Reply to Notice of Violation
l
Page 2 '
April 1,1999
,
If there are questions conceming this response, please contact myself at
(504) 739-6242 or Arthur E. Wemett at (504) 739-6692.
Very truly yours,
_
E.C. Ewing
Director,
Nuclear Safety & Regulatory Affairs
ECE/AEW/ssf
Attachment
-
ec:
E.W. Merschoff(NRC Region IV)\\
C.P. Patel (NRC-NRR)
Director, Office Of Enforcement (NRC)
J. Smith
N.S. Reynolds
NRC Resident inspectors Office
!
,
l
,
.
~ ' .
Attachment to
.
r-
Page 1 of 4
ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. Pg.SPONSE TO THE VIOLATION IDENTIFIED IN
ENCLOSURE 1 OF NSPECTION REPORT 50-382/99-01
VIOLATION NO. 9901-01
During an NRC inspection conducted on January 25-29 and February 8-12,1999,
one violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the " General
Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600,
the violation is listed below:
10CFR26.80(b) states that audits must be conducted by " individuals qualified in the
subject (s) being audited, and independent of both fitness-for-duty program
management and personnel directly responsible for implementation of the fitness-for-
du;y program."
Paragraph 2.3.1 of the licensee's physical security plan commits to all the
requirements of Regulatory Guide 5.66, " Access Authorization Program for Nuclear
Power Plants." Paragraph 13.1 of Regulatory Guide 5.66 requires that an
-
independent evaluation of the access authorization program will be conducted at
least once every 24 months.
Contrary to the above, the inspector determined that Waterford Audits SA-98-025.1
and SA-98-036.1 dated September 16,1998, which reviewed the Waterford access
authorization and fitness-for-duty programs, were conducted by individuals who were
not independent of the program management being audited.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 111) (382/9901-01).
l
RESPONSE
i
Entergy denies the violation as stated.
Waterford 3's Licensing Basis - General Physical Security Plan Audit Requirements
Waterford's Physical Security Plan commits to the requirements of 10CFR73N6(g),
100FR73.55(g),10CFR73.56(g) and Regulatory Guide 5.66.
10CFR73.46(g)(6) requires that the security program be reviewed at least every 12
months by individuals independent of both security management and personnel who
have direct responsibility for implementation of the security program.
10CFR73.55(g)(4) requires that the security program be reviewed at least every 12
months by individuals independent of both security program management and
personnel who have direct responsibility for implementation of the security program.
"
'
...
.
'.
Attachment to
'
.,
-
9
Page 2 of 4
10CFR73.56(g)(1) requires audits of the access authorization program at least every
24 months to ensure that the requirements of 10CFR73.56 are satisfied. In addition
10CFR73.56(g)(2) requires that audits of contractor and vendor programs be
performed every 12 months to ensure that these requirements are satisfied. These
t
regulations define the frequency and auditor qualifications of security program audits.
1
Waterford 3's Licensing Basis - Access Authorization Program Audit Requirements
10CFR25 provides the applicable regulations for implementation and maintenance of
an Access Authorization Program for licensee personnel.10CFR25 does not
specifically address auditing requirements of the program 10CFR73.56(g)(1) and
10CFR73.56(g)(2) require that each licensee conduct audits of the access
authorization program, but does not explicitly identify auditor independence.
10CFR73.56(a)(2) and 10CFR73.56(a)(3) require that each licensee incorporate their
Access Authorization Program into their Physical Security Plan. Therefore, the
Waterford 3 Access Authorization Program auditing requirements are identified in the
Waterford 3 Physical Security Plan. The requirement to conduct audits of the Access
Authorization Program is through the commitment to perform audits in accordance
with Regulatory Guide 5.66.
Regulatory Guide 5.66 provides discussion on the access authorization programs at
nuclear power plants. The guide provides an acceptable approach in meeting the
requirements of 10CFR73.56 for an access authorization program. It further states
i
that the Nuclear Management Resources Council (NUMARC) guidelines for Nuclear
Power Plant Access Authorization Programs (NUMARC 89-01, August 1989) meet
the intent and substance of the rule except in some areas in which the rule explicitly
differs from the guidelines. NUMARC 89-01 states that an independent evaluation of
the unescorted access authorization program and its conformance to the NUMARC
guidelines must be made within 12 months of the effective date of implementation of
the access authorization program and at least once every 24 months thereafter.
Regulatory Guide 5.66 and NUMARC 89-01 Guidelines do not specifically define
independence during auditing. Waterford 3 (W3) is committed to comply with
Regulatory Guide 1.33 Rev. 2, February 1978, which endorses ANSI N18.7-1976 for
auditing requirements through the Waterford 3 Quality Assurance Program Manual.
These Quality Assurance Program Manual requirements are implemented to perform
i
program audits unless additional requirements are specified in other commitments or
regulations. ANSI N18.7-1976 defines the requirements in general as to
independence during the performance of audits. ANSI N18.7-1976 states that
members performing the audits may be members of the audited organization;
however, they shall not audit activities for which they have immediate responsibility.
While performing the audit, they shall not report to a management representative who
i
has immediate responsibility for the activity being audited. Since additional
requirements are not specified in the commitments or regulations for security or
access authorization, the guidance of ANSI N18.7-1976 is appropriate.
'.
'
"
Attachm:mt to
.
,
-
3
VV3F1-99-0052
Page 3 of 4
Waterford 3's Licensing Basis - Fitness-For-Duty Program Audit Requirements
Entergy performs audits of the Fitness-For-Duty Program in accordance with the
J
requirements defined in 10CFR26.80.10CFR26.80(a) requires that the program be
audited nominally every 12 months and that those portions of the program
implemented by vendors or contractors be audited nominally every 12 months. In
addition,10CFR26.80(b) specifically addresses independence as it applies to the
fitness-for-duty program. 10CFR26.80(b) states the audit must be conducted by
individuals qualified in the subject (s) being audited, and independent of both fitness-
for-duty program management and personnel directly responsible for implementation
of the fitness-for-duty program audits.
Discussion
in the interest of improving the efficiency and the economics of audit inspections,
Entergy concurrently performed the Access Authorization Program and the Fitness-
For-Duty Program audits at Waterford 3 utilizing a single certified lead auditor. The
lead auditor assigned the responsibilities of the individuals, technical specialists and
'
team members, to areas in which their expertise would best enhance the audit. The
technical specialists and team members are temporarily assigned to the audit team
and report directly to the lead auditor. This is in accordance with the Waterford 3
Quality Assurance Program Manual under Chapter 18, Section 5.5, " Audit
Personnel," and is specified by ANSI N18.7-1976. The technical specialists and
team members on the audit team were from various Entergy sites and had no direct
authority or responsibility to the implementation of either program at Waterford 3 that
j
the audit team evaluated.
i
I
To perform the concurrent audits two separate teams were established and assigned
to a specific area of responsibility. The Access Authorization Program audit team
was comprised of two individuals: a Quality Specialist IV from River Bend Station
(RBS) as a team member and a Supervisor of Investigations & Fitness-For-Duty from
RBS as a technical specialist. The Fitness-For-Duty Program audit team was
comprised of three individuals: a Quality Specialist IV from Waterford 3 (W3) as the
lead auditor, a Quality Specialist IV from Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS) as a
team member and a Physician / Medical Review Officer from Arkansas Nuclear One
(ANO) as a technical specialist.
The technical specialist auditing the access authorization program was
I
knowledgeable and did not have immediate responsibility for the program at
Waterford 3. As a member of the audit team, the technical specialist reported to the
lead auditor and not to an individual at the audited site or at the corporate office.
This meets the requirement of Waterford 3's license basis. Therefore, the audit of
the Access Authorization Program met the requirements of ANSI N18.7-1976.
s. :
'
s
l _4 '
Attachment to
- .
i
Page 4 of 4
The technical specialist auditing the fitness-for-duty program was qualified in the
subject (s), independent of the fitness-for-duty management associated with the
Waterford 3 program and held no authority over the direct implementation of the
l
Waterford 3 program; therefore, met the requirements of 10CFR26.80(b). The
)
Physician / Medical Review Officer from ANO was not in the direct reporting chain of
the management or personnel responsible for implementation of the Waterford 3
Fitness-For-Duty Program.
CONCLUSION
Entergy has reviewed Waterford 3's Licensing Basis relative to the regulatory
.
.
requirements associated with performing audits of the Waterford 3's Fitness-For-Duty
and Access Authorization Programs. Based on this review, Entergy has concluded
that the Licensing Basis requirements for auditor independence for the above
programs are program specific. The requirement for independence of program
,
management is not required by the regulations for access authorization program
audits. The requirement to conduct audits of the Fitnesa-For-Duty Program is not
committed through the Waterford 3 Physical Security Plan. Therefore, the
j
,
requirements, as specified in 10CFR26, are not applicable to audits of the Access
Authorization Program.
Based on the above, Entergy concludes that our actions were consistent and within
the requirements set forth by 10CFR26.80 for the Fitness-For-Duty Program and
those set forth by 10CFR73 and ANSI N18.7-1976 for the Access Authorization
Program. Proper auditor independence was maintained in both of the concurrently
performed audits and no violation occurred since the technical specialists met the
individual requirements for the specific program that each were utilized in auditing.
i
l