ML20207D377

Ack Receipt of 990401 & 0504 Ltrs Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-382/99-01 on 990303

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

7 "%g

l ,

,

50 UNITED STATES

[/ '; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

N ,E REGloNiv

I

L

,, j

l [ 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 400

ARUNGToN, TEXAS 76011-8064

I

May 27,1999 l

.

,

EA 99-135

l

'

Charles M. Dugger, Vice President 1

Operations - Waterford 3

Entergy Operations, Inc. I

'

P.O. Box B

Killona, Louisiana 70066

I

'

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

l

(817) 860-8146 or Ms. Gail M. Good at (817) 860-8215. I

Sincerely,

1

i

Arthur T. H ell lil, Director

Division of e tor Safety

Docket No.: 50-382

License No.: NPF-38 l

l

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 I

9906030323 990527 *

PDR ADOCK 05000382

G PDR ,

'

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

-

1

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)

l

Branch Chief (DRP/TSS) 1

G. F. Sanborn, EO

W. L. Brown, RC

i J. Lieberman, OE (MS 7-H5) 1

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

l

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

l

I

!

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

W3F1-99-0052 l

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

$ '\b1D

-

-

r --

.,

-

..

. ..

.g *

NRC Inspection Report 50-382/99-01

Reply to Notice of Violation

W3F1-99-0052

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- W3F1-99-0052

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 l

and SA-98-036.1 dated September 16,1998, which reviewed the Waterford access I

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 W3F1-99-0052

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

t

performed every 12 months to ensure that these requirements are satisfied. These

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 l

has immediate responsibility for the activity being audited. Since additional i

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

l

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 I

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.

l

The technical specialist auditing the access authorization program was l

knowledgeable and did not have immediate responsibility for the program at I

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. :

'

l

s

• *

• . Attachment to

i _4 '

W3F1-99-0052

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

l

. .

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 l

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