ML20151J311

Discusses Insp Repts 50-424/97-03 & 50-425/97-03 on 970303-07 & Forwards Nov.Nrc Concluded That Info Re Reason for Violation,Corrective Actions Taken & Planned to Correct & Date When Full Compliance Will Be Achieved,Acceptable

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

I

l l

l

'

l JUIN 31,1997

l

l

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: NOTICE OF VIOLATION

(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 I

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

l

we agree tlat you did not violate Section 6.6A of your PSP in that the Central

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

your require that you_ establish and maintain security procedures to implement

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 in

non compliance

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

position. Inherein does not accurately reflect your corrective actions or your '

that case, or if you choose to provide additional information,

you should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice.

l

\ \

!

'

9709050131 970731

PDR ADOCK 05000424 \h.!}hllkklll

... . . . -

0 PDR

. . - .

M

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

'

-  !

.

,

SNC 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 l

Enclosures: 1. Notice of Violation 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

l Southern Nuclear Operating Company Inc.

!

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  !

3

270 Washington Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30334

!

I

(ccw/enclscont'd-Seepage 3)

. )

f

1, - , - , . , _ , - _, .

. ... . .-. . . - - . - . - - . - . - . - . . - . - . - . - - . - - . - . . .- -~ .

'

,

'

.. ,

SNC 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  ;

1

Distribution w/ encl:

P. Skinner, RII l

-

1

l W. P. f(liinsorge, RII- I

M. E. Ernstes, RII

L. Wheeler, NRR

PUBLIC

NRC Senior Resident Inspector

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission

8805 River Road

Waynesboro, GA 30830 .

'

!

I

l

1

!

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-

DATE 07 / k / 97 / 97 07 / /\7 07/ ru b/97 07/ h /97 07 / / 97

COPY? YES ( NO [(ES/ NO YES NO O) .,n Q yn [YES) NO

w v y v v

OFFICIAL RECORD COPYl/ DOCUMENT NAME: EICS:H:\1970 PEN.ENFWOGCAS.DIR\LTRTOLIC.R1

l

l

l

_ _

-

,.

<

..

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

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

l

requirements was identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of

Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions, "NUREG 1600, the violation

l

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 l

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). I

.

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 l

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 l

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 l

(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 The to i

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 l

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 l

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

l

e.

.

.

. rm .

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

-

[ .. .

p ,

I  !

l SNC 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

.

nFFirF pff OPD DffFi! pff.pr pr. , NDD AN NDD \Y\ .

SIGNATURE

h s #

NAME JOHN 4 UR , EVANS LIEBERMAN WHEELER C NI

DATE 07hh397 / 97 07 / /\? 07/ t b /97 *07/ h/97 01 / / 97

COPY? YES ' k NO ['ES/ N0 (ES N0 h) .n /y2 .,n [YES) NO

u v

v v v

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY // DOCUMENT NAME: ElCS:H:\1970 PEN.ENFWOGCAS.DIR\LTRTOLIC.R1

.

I

l

A

!

._. __