ML20235E144

Forwards Proprietary Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $200,000 Based on Failure to Follow Security Procedures & Maintain Positive Access Control.Notice Withheld (Ref 10CFR2.790(d))

ML20235E144
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	09/04/1987
From:	Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	James O'Reilly GEORGIA POWER CO.
References
EA-87-100, NUDOCS 8709250496
Download: ML20235E144 (6)

Text

-___ _ - -

SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION SEP 041987 WhhD9 INIORMAmy gy,9g Docket No. 50-424 License No. NPF-68 EA 87-100 Georgia Power Company ATTN: Mr. James P. O'Reilly Senior Vice President-Nuclear Operations g Post Office Box 4545 .s Atlanta, GA 30302 gg Gentlemen:

~ x M

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-424/87-26, 50-424/87-43, AND pg g

50-424/87-50) ,.

sn This refers to the inspections conducted on March 9-13, March 23-27, April 22-24, April 29-May 3, May 12-15, June 22-24, July 20-24, July 28-29, and August 5-6, 1987, at your corporate offices in Atlanta, Georgia, and at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP). The inspections included a review of numerous security violations discovered and reported by your staff, as well as other violations identified by the NRC. The initial and supplemental reports documenting these inspections were sent to you by letters dated April 18, 1987, June 1, 1987, August 4, 1987, and August 13, 1987. As a result of these inspections, signi-ficant failures to comply with NRC security requirements were identified.

Enforcement Conferences to discuss thece matters were held on June 17, July 1, and August 20, 1987.

The violations described in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) are considered significant because r a-tively they represent a programmatic breakdown in the VEGP Physical Secur.

Program. The violations indicate a lack of plant management attention to the security program; inadequate day-to-day supervision by security managers; failure of the VEGP security staff to have knowledge of and comply with established security procedures; security equipment and hardware deficiencies; failure of the security staff to properly evaluate, record and report safeguards events; inadequate physical security barriers; and repetitive occurrences of inattentiveness by on-duty security officers. These violations clearly demonstrate the urgent need for corporate and plant management attention to the VEGP Physical Security Program to ensure that adequate security of the plant is maintained. These violations take on added significance because they began occurring shortly efter the low power license was issued on January 16, 1987, and continued throughout the power ascension mode of the plant and into normal plant operation. The violations resulted from a continu-ing failure to comply with regulatory requirements and commitments of Georgia Power Company's (GPC) Commission-approved Physical Security Plan fostered by an initial lack of effective management.

kp[2Nh ob24 A A W G PDR .

mrtuumvo INFORMATION UPON 5tPAful'f!ON THIS l0 j . c r. m o w sor.t n . <

54

SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION SEP 041987 Georgia Power Company More aggressive management on the part of GPC has been noted since the  !

inspections conducted in March 1987, the exit interview conducted try the Deputy Regional Administrator on March 27, 1987, and the management meeting i conducted by the Regional Administrator on April 2,1987, during which we )

expressed our high level of concern regarding this problem. This increased I initiative by management resulted in programmatic enhancements and organiza- I tional changes which should result in improved performance. To emphasize our concern with the identified deficiencies and the need for continued and lasting improvement in the management of the VEGP security program, I have l been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, 1 and the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the l amount of Two H0ndred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) for the violations described l in Section I of the enclosed Notice. The violations in the enclosed Notice  ;

have been categorized in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987)

(EnforcementPolicy). j Violations I.A.1 through I.A.5 in the enclosed Notice involving failure to implement adequate compensatory measures have been categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem. Violations I.B.1 through I.B.7 in the enclosed Notice involving failure to follow security procedural requirements have also been categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem. The base value of a civil penalty for a Severity Level III problem is $50,000 The base civil penalty amount fo'r each of these two Severity Level III problems has been increased by 50 percent because of the  ;

number and extent of these security violations.

Violations I.C.1 through I.C.3 in the enclosed Notice involving failure to maintain positive access control have also been categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem. The escalation and mitigation factors in the Enforcement Policy were considered, and no adjustment has been deemed appro-priate. Violation I.C.1 is of particular concern because of management's apparent lack of knowledge of security requirements and the poor example set for employees when senior management does not follow security procedures.

The violations described in Section II of the enclosed Notice have been categor' zed in th aggregate as a Severity Level III problem. The majority of these violations were identi'ied by your staff which may reflect your

, improving sensitivity to sateguards matters at the facility. In addition,

! upon identificati0ii, effective corrective action was taFen which was unusually prompt and extensive, including an incentive program for guards to identify barrier problems. Therefore, a civil penalty is not being proposed for the violations associated with this problem.

The violation (50-424/87-50-04) identified in paragraph 7 of Inspection Report No. 50-424/87-50 involved four unprotected openings in excess of the vital area barrier criteria of 96 square inches that resulted from the improper spacing of reinforcement bars at a measured distance of six and one eighth inches. This problem was discovered by your staff and reported in accordance l

with 10 CFR 73.71(c). Because this problem (1) was self-identified and reported, (2) was promptly corrected, and (3) involved a minimal measured ENCLOSUFJC CoNTAINS SAFECUARDS INFORMATION e -= =

SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION l n . n occo m o m o.

I

' .. SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION SEP 041987 Georgia' Pawer Company variance, and presented a degree of.difticulty in distinguishing the specific area of concern among adjacent openings in which the reinfottement bars were properly positioned, we find this violation to meet the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2, Appendix C, Section V.A~ana a Notice of Violation will not be issued.

Certain additional potential violations associated with these inspections are currently under review by the NRC. You will be advised of the results of that effort in future correspondence.

As noted above, we are aware that changes are being made to your security program. Your letters of March 30,.1987 and April 6,1987;' subsequent GPC staff. presentations regarding implementation of physical security program.

improvements, as discussed at Enforcement Conferences; and our recent followup inspections all indicate that a marked improvement is underway in your overall physical security program. The formation of a task force to identify. and j resolve security equipment problems, the recruitment of highly qualified l security supervisors and personnel, enhancement of the security training program, and motivational programs and incentives which contributed to the-discovery of physical security barrier breaches cited in Inspection Report No. 50-424/87-50, and listed in Section II of the uclosed Notice, are all positive indicators of an improving program. It is expected that improvement will continue as more management emphasis and attention is. applied to the program sLch as that pointed out in your letter of April 6,1987, which detailed specific actions designed to promptly improve the performance of the physical security program.

Notwithstanding these efforts, because of the number of significant viola-tions in different security areas, the proposed civil penalty in this case is larger than previous penalties for safeguards violations. You should nots l that the large number of violations in this case could have resulted in a l significantly larger civil penalty. H6 wever, due to the recent progress made by Georgia Power Company management to remedy the identified problems and the scheduled improvements outlined for the NRC at the Enforcement Conferences on June 17, 1987 and August 20, 1987, the $200,000 penalty proposed here was considered to provide a sufficient incentive to ensure that these actions will be effectively carried out.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. Consequently, your response should document the actions described at the Enforcement Conferences on June 17, 1987 and August 20, 1987, as well as other actions taken or planned to improve the effectiveness of your program. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections,-the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure-compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(d) and 10 CFR 73.21, safeguards activities and security measures are exempt from public disclosure; therefore, the enclosures.

to this letter, with the exception of the report cover page which presents a nonexempt summary, will not be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

' ENCLOSURE CONTAIWS

. SAFEGUAnpS IUr0RMATION SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION UPON SEPAAATION THIS PAGE IS DEc0NTROLLEO,

p ,

L' '

< SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION SEP.041987;

^

' Georgia Power Company .The responses directed by this. letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of' Management and budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, P.L. No..96-511.

Sincerely, 1

l J. Nelson Grace Regional Admi.nistrator

Enclosure:

Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (SafeguardsInformation) cc w/ encl:

P. D. Rice, Vice President, Project Engineering C. W. Hayes., Vogtle' Quality Assurance Manager G. Bockhold, Jr., General Manager, Nuclear Operations cc N o encls:

-L. Gucwa, Manager, Nuclear Safety and Licensing J. A. Bailey, Project Licensing Manager D. Kirkland, III, Counsel, Office of the Consumer's Utility Council D. Feig, Georgians Against Nuclear Energy M. B. Margulies, Esq., Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Dr. O. H: Paris, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and. Licensing Board Panel G. A. Linenberger, Jr., Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel RMCLostntf. CONTAIN8

• ^""'""""'"

SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION ue< :: reum"ms PAGE IS DECONTROLLED.'

t __

~

.\

S ...

.- [. SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION 1'

SEP 041987 -

• l Georgia Powe< Company 5-bec w/encls:

NRR/0RIS/SB

>bec w/ Inspection Summar Document Control-Desk (y:RIDSIE04),016

.NRC Resident Inspector State of Georgia

.q i

l

{

i I

1 i

l i

ENCLOSURE CONTAINS ~

SAFECUAPES INFORMATION l- t+on ennuTIox TnIs bAFEGUARDS INFORMATION nas Is DECONTROLLED.

1

SAFEGUARDS. INFORMATION: LSEP 041987 Georgia Power Company ,

. l Distribution w/o enclosures .j PDR s SECY '

CA ACRS  :

JTaylor OEDR0 JNGrace, RII* q JLieberman, OE 1 RRosano, OE*  ;

SSohinki, OGC FIngram, PA '

Enforcement' Coordinators '

RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV

EJordan, AE00 3 l BH6yes. 01 1 l SConnelly, DIA JPartlow, NRR OE File 4

'ED0 Rdg File i DCS 1

• With Safeguards enclosures 1

J

,1 I

i OE RII OGC OE:D DEDR0  :

RRosano JNGrace JGoldberg JLieberman JTaylor -i 8/- /87 8/ /87 8/ /87 8/ /87 8/ /87  ;

' f//6 RI R1 [

9/ /g RII JP'tohr LReyes GRJe ins _ - rnst 9/ )>(/87 9/Ll87 09/g.187 9/i /87 rnctosone cowTarns l p succuAnos raroRMATION i SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION EiE !7l#o') ",,',"28 ,  !

o - - _ - - - .. _