IR 05000302/1981015
| ML20041F944 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1982 |
| From: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Hancock J FLORIDA POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203170573 | |
| Download: ML20041F944 (4) | |
Text
.
,
..
N
.
.
e\\\\od
-
MAR 0 91982
m e
%
\\/
llQ' D ^J
i Florida Power Corporation y
ATTH: Mr. J. A. Hancock
-
_ dP 17 7gOh --
[k"9*h*DP Assistant Vice President O/T
"
Huclear Operations D
b P. O. Box 14042, Mail Stop C-4
%
St. Petersburg, FL 33733 E'y h
Gentlemen:
Subject: Report No. 50-302/81-15 This refers to your letter dated October 21, 1981, which responded to the Notice of Violation sent to you with our letter of September 24, 1981.
We have reviewed the corrective actions described in your response to Items A.I. A.4, and 8 of the Notice of Violation and have no further questions regarding those items at this time. We will review implementa-tion of your corrective actions during future inspections.
Although you described corrective actions regarding Item B, you denied that a violation of 10 CFR 50.59 occurred. We have evaluated the information you presented in support of your denial and, for the reasons identified in the enclosure herewith, have concluded that a violation did occur.
With regard to your denial of Items A.2 and A.3 we have concluded, as identified in the enclosure, that violations of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V did occur. Therefore, please submit to this office within thirty days from the date of this letter the information required by 10 CFR 2.201 as identified in the Notice of Violation dated September 24, IXI.
i In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice,"
Part 2. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
l The responses directed by this letter are not subject to the clearance l
procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Z6cl omch 82031N0573820309
.
"
"
'
"N"+["
PDR ADOCK 05000302 G
PDR I. I>..
.
..
...
..
.
..
.
,.
......q.-
.
...
.........
................
..
.-...
..
..
...
..
.
NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
,-
,
-
Florida Power Corporation-2-MAR 0 9 fgg Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact us.
Sincerely, f
James P. O'Reilly Regional Administrator
,
Enclosure:
Evaluation of Licensee Dentals cc w/ encl:
T. C. Lutkehaus, fluclear Plant Manager bcc w/ encl:
NRC Resident Inspector Document Management Branch State of Florida-f/l
_ # @p p
.
-
!
'~
' / t'y !P?
(v s
-
.
Y J
A omcipl RII,: EIS
,,RII: EIS RIIjg,,
,RII:
l
.
""* k.C ECo n.e r.:. cmc. C EAl der.s.on.h,.,yLB rownl ee,,R,Cle.(i s,,,
,,,,
,
,
,
,,,
,, _,
.....}............
l cank'3/f./82 3/ 7.../82 3/ }../82 3/c /82
.
.
.....
...
.
..,.
,,.
.
...
..
..
..
,! anc ronu ais oo-soi sncu "
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
_
_
c
'
'
MAR 0 91982 ENCLOSURE EVALUATION OF LICENSEE DENIALS Items A.2 and A.3 The licensee denied these violations on the basis that the modifications described in the Notice were not classified as safety-related and there-fore 10 CFR 50, Appendix B did not apply.
It is not clear from the wording of the response whether the licensee was asserting:
(1) the modifications were erroneously classified by the plant staff as non-safety-related and consequently mishandled; or (2) the modifications were properly classified as non-safety-related, in which case Appendix B would not apply.
With regard to the former, a failure to recognize an activity or a component, system, or structure as safety-related may be the cause of a violation, but it does not thereby relieve the licensee from the obligation to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
Regarding the latter, the ABSTRACT of NUREG-0737 states that NUREG-0660 was developed to provide a comprehensive and integrated plan to improve safety at power reactors and that NUREG-0737 represented those specific items from NUREG-0660 which the Commission had approved for implementa-tion. The specific equipment involved in these violations are main steam line radiation monitors which the licensee installed in response to NUREG-0578, paragraph 2.1.8 (Item II.F.1 of NUREG-0737).
These radiation monitors represent the only installed instrumentation available for monitoring and assessing releases of radioactive material to the environment by way of the main steam safety valves. Their purpose is to
" mitigate the consequences of an accident" which is one of the criteria identified in the Introduction of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
Further, with respect to these monitors, Item II.F.1, Attachment 1 of NUREG-0737 states that changes to technical specifications will be required.
Finally, Crystal River Emergency Procedure EP-104 instructs the reactor operator to take actions based on the reading of these instruments.
In view of the function of the equipment, the procedural requirements regarding use of the instruments and the intent of the NRC to impose technical specifications regarding the equipment, any assertion that the equipment is not safety-related is without merit.
Item B Although the licensee described corrective actions regarding Item B, he denied that a violation of 10 CFR 50.59 occurred on the basis that a safety evaluation was performed which found that an unreviewed safety question did not exist. However, the response acknowledged that:
(1)
the evaluation did not address hydraulic and seismic considerations consistent with the safety significance of the affected system; and (2)
the safety evaluation consisted of obtaining verbal (ora!) advice from the licensee's agent for design and design verification which was not documented at the tim <-
gg 0 9 W-2 10 CFR 50.59 requires that a licensee perform a safety evaluation to determine whether or not a proposed modification constitutes an unreviewed safety question.
The records of the safety evaluation must provide the bases for determining that the proposed modification does not create any of the conditions listed in 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2)(1)-(iii). An evaluation which considers only one design consideration (flow rate) and neglects other equally important design aspects (e.g., seismic protection) does not meet the intent of 10 CFR 50.59.
Further, a determination that an unreviewed safety question does not exist which is based on evaluations conducted after a modification has been accomplished, does not provide a basis for denial of violation of 10 CFR 50.59.
Therefore, the violation is appropriate and our records will reflect this.
i Finally, we do not accept, under any circumstances, the licensee's position that oral advice from a contractor employee constitutes acceptable bases for a safety evaluation, even when formally documented as telephone notes.
Notes of the telephone conversation referred to would have repre-sented the results of evaluation, but not the bases for the evaluation.
,
The licensee is obliged under 10 CFR 50.59 to maintain sufficient records
!
of engineering calculations, analyses, or whatever, to demonstrate on review that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
1 g
!
l l
I