IR 05000361/1997024

Discusses Enforcement Conference Conducted on 980120 Re Routine Insp Repts 50-361/97-24 & 50-362/97-24 on 971117- 1205 & Forwards Notice of Violation

ML20203D458
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	02/18/1998
From:	Merschoff E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Ray H SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20203D462	List: IR 07100117/2012005 ML20203D458
References
50-361-97-24, 50-362-97-24, EA-97-585, NUDOCS 9802260065
Download: ML20203D458 (6)

Text

..

.

[MC Wy Unlit D El ATis

.T g A NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION fit alON IV

%, .

. f 611 fiv AN PL AZ A ufilVI,5Ulif 400

% e. . , * ,j Aft L IN010N, Ti X AS 70011 8064 February 18, 1998 i l

EA 97 585 Harold D. Ray, Executive Vice President Southern California Edison Company San Onofro Nuclear Generating Station P.O. Box 128 San Clemente, California 92674 0128 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOt.ATION (NRC Inspection Report No. 50 361/97 24; 50 362/97 24)

[

Dear Mr. Ray:

,

This refers to the predecisional enforcement conference conducted in the NRC's Region IV office in Arlington, Texas on January 20,1998, and to the supplementalinformation Southern California Edison Company (Edison) provided in its letter dated February 3,1998. The conference was held to discuss the results of a routine inspection conducted on November 17 .

through December 5,1997, at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The findings from the inspection were discussed with your staff during a telephonic exit briefing on December 18, 1997, and documented in the subject inspection report dated December 24,1997.

Based on the information developed during the incpection and the information that Edison provided during the conference and in its February 3 letter, the NRC has determined that violations of NRC requirements occurred. These violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of

,

Violation (Notice) and the circumstances surrounding them are described in detailin the subject inspection report. The most significant violation involves a failure to protect safeguards information. Specifically, a Safeguards Contingency Plan was lost and has not been recovered.

During the conference, Edison's position was that there is sufficient justification to believe the i

i loss of the Safeguards Contingency Plan was an inadvertent act, and not a deliberate attempt by an unauthorized person to gather information about the Edison security contingency plans.

Edison noted that although the plan contains much information about how the security organization would respond to various events, the plan does not contain every key detail.

j Edison also stated that its program for the control of safeguards information substantially exceeds regulatory requirements and that the loss of the plan was an anomaly As a result, Edison concluded that the violation should be classified at Severity Level IV because it was an t

isniated personnel error, aggressive corrective action was taken, the loss was not indicative of a programmatic breakdown or a loss of safety function, and it was not willful.

I No' withstanding Edison's position, the circumstances involving the location, duration (until idemification), and the importance of the information are significant. The plan was lost from a building located outside the protected area, up to one month had passed before Edison discovered that the plan was missing, the plan has not yet been recovered, and the plan contains significant safeguards information. These factors create the potential for security to be 90022

? *60065 * * f 90 &0

l 18  ;\\\l\\\;\\\fff)$ .

- -- _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _

.,

.

2-compromised; and a violation of this type is considered significant. Therefore, this violation has been categorized at Severity Level lll in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Ac6ons"(Enforcement Policy), NUREG 1600.

In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a civil penalty with a base value of $55,000 is considered for a Severity Level lll violation. Because your facility has not been the subject of escalated enforcement action within the last 2 years, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. Edison's corrective actions included immediately initiating a significant inyc&tigation, taking aggressive measures to find the plan, immediately implementing securny compenuatory measures, notifying the NRC, enhancing requirements for controlling safeguards information, soliciting the assistance of the entire site population, revising the plan, and relocating some key security contingency equipment. The NRC has concluded that Edison's corrective actions were sufficiently prompt and comprehensive, and that Edison is l

deserving of corrective action credit.

Therefore, to encourage prompt and comprehensive correction of violations, and in recognition of the absence of previous escalated enforcement action, I have been authorized not to propose a civil penalty in this case. However, significant violations in the future could result in a civil penalty.

The attached Notice contains three additional violations involving failures to: (1) secure -

contingency weapons in two instances, (2) report to the NRC the discovery of weapons that were out of the control or physical custody of security personnel, and (3) provide emergency power supply to a small portion of the intrusion detection system. In accordance with the enforcement policy, each of these four violations has been classified at Soverity Level IV.

During the conference, Edison stated that these remaining violations were either not violations or, for those issues which Edison agreed were violations, satisfied the enforcement policy criteria for non cited violations (NCV). Edison's arguments are addressed below.

Regarding the failure to secure contingency weapons, Edison agreed that a severity level IV violation occurred but that it met the enforcement policy criteria for NCV. However, the NRC has determined that the corrective' actions for the first instance of this violation (July 30,1997) cculd reasonably be expected to have prevented the second instance (November 7,1997).

Therefore, this does not meet the criteria for treatment as an NCV.

Regarding the failure to report the loss of the security computers, Edison's position was that its compensatory measures takeil were adequate, and therefore the failure of the security comput0r did not have to be reported consistent with Edison's reporting procedurei While the NRC still has questions about the adequacy of the compensatory measures,Section IV.D of the

_

Enforcement Policy states that a licensee will not normally be cited for a failure to report a condition or event unless the licensee was actually aware of the condition or event that it failed to report. As such, no violation is being cited for this issue.

I Regarding the failure to report the discovery of the unlocked and unattended contingency weapons, Edison argued that insufficient guidance exists for what constitutes the " loss" of a

_ _

_ __ __- . _ _ _ . _ __ . ___ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

,

3-weapon. The NRC's position is that the weapons were out of the control and physical custody of security personnel inside the protected area on July 30,1997, and thersfore, in accordance with Edison's reporting procedure, required a 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> report.

Regarding the failure to provide emergency power supply to one portion of the intrusion detection system, Edison's position was that this violation satisfied the enforcement policy

'

criteria for and should be characterized as an NCV. The NRC's position is that, although Edison's long term corrective action (a permanent engineered fix) was appropriate, the immediate corrective actions were inadequate in that no interim measures were taken to immediately return to compliance (i.e., to provide backup power supply or uninterruptible power, or implement compensatory measures) until the permanent engineered fix could be implemented. As a result, the violation continued to exist for several weeks after discovery.

Therefore, this violation does not meet the enforcement policy criteria for an NCV.

Regarding the imprcper implementation of compensatory measures during times when the security computers were not functioning, Edison's position was that no regulatory violation occurred because compensatory measures were properly implorr.ented. However, during the inspection, the NRC inspector requested that security personnel demonstrate satisfactory performance of three different patrol routes for a simulated computer outage, Edison secunty personnel did not properly complete two of the threa patrol routes within the allotted time.

During the conference, Edison did not adequately show that these failures were isolated and the NRC requested further information regarding the control of the security procedures and guidance that ensure compensatory measures are adequately implemented in its February 3, 1998, letter, Edison provided further information regarding the adaquacy of its procedures and the adequacy of the compensatory measures taken duiing the computer outages. However, the NRC does not have sufficient information to determinc whether a violation occurred, and this issue will be tracked as an Unresolved item pending further review.

Edison's February 3 letter also provided comments to the inspection report. The comments reasserted Edison's perspective on the issues discussed during the predecisional enforcement conference. We acknowledge Edison's position, and we provided the NRC's position in the inspection report and, where appropriate, we are responding to Edison's positions in this enforcement action. We have determined that there were no factual errors in the inspection report; therefore, a revision to the report will not be issued.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

.

--: s- e - -- - , - - ,

.

,

-4-

In accordance with 10 CPR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response will be placed + 'he NPC Public Document Room.

Sincerely, if OV

[y Ellis W. Merschoff Regional Administrator Docket Nos.: 50-361; 50-362 License Nos.: NPF 10; NPF 15 Enclosure: Notice of Violation t

Chairman, Board of Supervisors

'

County of San Diego 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335 San Diego, California 92101 Alan R. Watts, Esq.

Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart 701 S. Parker St. Suite 7000 Orange, California 92868-4720 Sherwin Harris, Resource Project Manager Public Utilities Department City of Riverside 3900 Main Street Riverside, California 92522 R. W. Krieger, Vice President Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station P.O. Box 128 San Clemente, California 92674 0128 Stephen A. Woods, Senior Health Physicist Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management Nuclear Emergency Response Program California Department of Health Services P.O. Box 942732, M/S 390 Sacramento, Ca!'fornia 94334 7320

, _

.

5-Mr. Gary D. Cotton, Sr. Vice President Energy Supply San Diego Gas & Electric Company P. O. Box 1831 San Diego, California 92112-4150 Mr. Steve Hsu Radiological Health Branch State Department of Health Services l P.O. Box 942732 l Sacramento, California 94234 Mayor City of San Clemente 100 Avenida Presidio San Clemente, California 92672 Mr. Truman Burns \Mr. Robert Kinosian California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness, Rm. 4102 San Francisco, California 94102

._j

.

.

bec w/ Enclosure:

PDR lE 14 LPDR NUDOCS--

SECY EC's: Rl, Rll, Rill CA PA (0 2G4)

EDO (017G21) OlG (T 5D28)

DEDO (017G21) OE (0 7HS)

OE:EAFile (0 7H5) 01 (0 3E4)

i OGC (015B18) OGC (015B18)

l NRR (012G18) NRR/ADP (012G18)

NRR PROJECT MANAGER OC/DAF (T 9E10)

OC/LFDCB (T 9E10) AEOD (T-4D18)

RA Reading File GSanborn EAFile RIV Files MIS Coordinator E MAIL DISTRIBUTION:

OEMAll JDyer (JED2)

EMerschoff(Eh A)

TPGwynn (TPG)

WBrown (WLB)

GSanborn (GFS) GMVasquez (GMV)

BHenderson (BWH) BEarnest (ABE)

CHackney (CAH)-- DKunihiro (DMK1)

Art Howell(ATH) DChamberlain (DDC)

KPerkins (KEP) Dacker . 3A)

DKirsch (DFK) KBrockman (KEB)

BMurray (BXM)

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\EA\ DRAFT \EA97585.DFT To receive copy of document, indicate in box: "C" = Copy without enclosurea "E" a Copy with enclosures N" = No copy ES MM E9(,4ra , f DRS:PSB mh C:PSB DRP h/

MVasquez GhtInTidrnk' 8 Earnest 'f69 BMurray D TPGwynn 6 01/tV98 01M'98 2/ /98 -

2//h98 RC ; DRA RRosano Qiff AHoMF WLBroW " JDyer 3//7 f EMerschoff 2/5/98 2/Q/98 2/1 /98 2///V98 2//f/98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

_ - _ __

4