IR 05000335/1981006

Requests That Info Re Identity of Employees & Positions in IE Investigation Rept 50-335/81-06 Be Withheld Per 10CFR2.790.Info Should Be Deleted as Shown in Encl marked-up Rept

ML17212A813
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	09/08/1981
From:	Robert E. Uhrig FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML17212A811	List: IR 05000335/1981006 ML17212A812 ML17212A813
References
L-81-393, NUDOCS 8109290513
Download: ML17212A813 (27)

Text

~P.O.BOX 529100 MIAMI, FL 33152 I i>>ir rP+g (Q I;P I<I~~FLORIDA POWER&LIGHT COMPANY September 8, 1981 L-81-393 Mr.James P.O'Reilly, Director, Region II Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Mr.O'Reilly:

Re: St.Lucie Unit 1 Docket No.50-335 IE Ins ection Re ort 81-06 In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 (a)(7), Florida Power&Light Company requests that the information regarding the identity of certain FPL employees and their positions in the company be withheld from public disclosure in'Investigation Report 80-335/81-6.

We request that this information be deleted as shown in the attached"marked up" copy of the report.Although the false statement referenced in the report resulted simply from an oversight by a site employee, the release of this information might be prejudicial to the future professional careers of the individuals involvedin the investigation.

It is our judgement that these deletions are justified because of the finding in the report that the"investigation failed to identify any information which would indicate that the false statement was made knowingly or willfully." The report also found that"the false statement does not appear to be material from the standpoint of the health and safety of the public".If the position titles and employees'ames in investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes are released, it would result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.Therefore, this information should be exempt from disclosure in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790.Very truly yours, Robert E.Uhrig Vice President Advanced Systems 8 Technology REU/PLP/ah cc: Harold F.Reis, Esquire 8i092905i3 8i0923 PDR ADQCK 05000335 6'DR PEOPLE...SERVING PEOPLE I I ('f~'4""9" jl

~P,S IIEgI Wp 0-)~C i~)~0 C s t o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION II 101 MARIETTA ST., N.'IN., SUITE 3100 , ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 AUG 5'2 198)INVESTIGATION REPORT NO.50-335/81-06 SUBJECT: Florida Power and Light Company St.Lucie Unit 1 St.Lucie, Florida 33101 Possible Material False Statement DATES, OF INVESTIGATION:

January 28-February 5, 1981 INVESTIGATOR

.Y.se, Regional Investigator, Region II.Enforcement and Investigation Staff oP-/-8/Date OTHER PARTICIPATING PERSONNEL:

E.C.Gilbert, Investigator Office of Inspection and Enforcement REVIEWED BY: C.E.A Enforc m erson, Director nt and Investigation Staff, Region II Date

.~e 1 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I.SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION A.INTRODUCTION B.SCOPE C.FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Section II.DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION A.PERSONS CONTACTED B.BACKGROUND C.INVESTIGATIVE EFFORT

'h SECTION I'U51MARY OF INYESTIGATION FLORIDA POMER AND LIGHT ST.LUCIE JANUARY 28-FEBRUARY 5, 1981

A.INTRODUCTION In mid-January 1981 the NRC Resident Inspector.

at Florida Power and Light's (FPKL)St.Lucie Unit 1 plant observed a December 23, 1980 letter from the FPSL:)to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Division of Licensing, with regard to post TMI requirements.

>stated, in part and under oath, that NUREG 0737 had been implemented for Senior Reactor Operators and Reactor Operators.

Item I.A.1.3,"Shift Manning" of NUREG 0?37 sets forth that there should be a break of at least 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> (which can include shift turnover time)between all work periods.The Resident Inspector was aware that no administrative procedure had been implemented'for the 12-hours in between shifts as of approximately mid-January 1981.The Resident Inspector subsequently brought this to the attention of NRC Region II super-visory personnel.

B.SCOPE OF, INVESTIGATION An investigation was initiated on January 28, 1981, under the authority provided by Section 161;c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to ascertain whether or not a material false statement had been made.The scope of the investigation included the following:

1.Interviews of responsible licensee management and line personnel.

2.'Interview of the NRC Resident Inspector, St.Lucie Unit l.3.Review of the following licensee documents:-Nuclear Hatch Engineer log-Night Order book-Administrative Procedure 0010119, Revisions 0, 1 and 2-Facility Review Group meeting minutes for December 23, 1980 and January 13, 1981-Overtime report for exempt employees for one employee as well as daily time tickets f'r that employee and two others C.FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I The investigation disclosed that the response to NUREG 0737 sub-mitted under oath by an f,of Florida Power and Light contained a false statement with regard to Item I.A.1.3 of NUREG 0?37 in that the procedure implemented at St.Lucie on December 23, 1980 did not include all of the restrictions included in NUREG 0737 and the response did not take exception to the restric-tion omitted.However, the information obtained during the investi-gation also indicated that except where exceptions were documented by FP8L in their response, the procedure included all of the other restrictions identified in Item I.A.1.3 and that the single restriction omitted was a result of an oversight by a site employee.The investigation failed to identify any information which would indicate that the false statement was made knowingly or willfully.

With regard to materiality, the investigation disclosed information which indicated that the licensee was attempting to comply with the requirements of Item I.A.1.3 and while failure to doc~ment the few instances where exceptions to the restrictions were granted by site management constitutes a deviation from comnitments, the'false statement does not appear to be material from the standpoint of the health and safety of the public.In view of the above, it is concluded that the statement did not constitute a material false statement.

However, it is further concluded that the licensee needs to develop a more formal system for assuring the accuracy of information submitted to NRC.

SECTION II DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION FLORIDA POllER AND LIGHT ST.LUCIE JANUARY 28-FEBRUARY 5, 1981

A.PERSONS CONTACTED Florida Power and Li ht Cor orate Office St.Lucie.Site Steel, Hector and Davis U.S.Nuclear Re ulator Commission S.A.Elrod, Re,sident Inspector, St.Lucie 1 B.BACKGROUND The U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Offi'ce of Inspection and Enforcement (IE), issued Circular 80-02 entitled"Nuclear Power Plant Staff Work Hours" on February I, 1980, which recommended, among other things, that for scheduling purposes, personnel perform-ing safety related functions should have at least a 12-hour break between shifts.No written response to IEC 80-02 was required from the licensee.The NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Division of Licensing, issued.a letter dated July 31, 1980, (hereinafter referred to as the Eishenhut letter)to all power reactor licensees addressing tlie subject of interim criteria for shift staffing.Although it contained criteria similar to IEC 80-02, this letter did not list or make any reference to the 12-hour break between shifts as previously

recommended in IEC 80-02.On page 3 of that letter, four overtime restrictions were listed as follows: "l.An individual shall not be permitted to work more than 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> straight (not including shift turnover time).2.An individual shall not be permitted to work more than 24=hours in any 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> period.3.An individual shall not work more than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in any 7 day period.4.An individual shall not cwork more than 14 consecutive days without having two consecutive days off." This letter further stated that administrative procedures (required by license conditions)

shall also set forth a policy concerning overtime work for Senior Reactor Operators, Reactor Operators and Shift Technical Advisors, and that development and implementation of the administrative procedures at operating plants would be reviewed by IE beginning 90 Days after the date of the letter.Subsequently, another letter from NRR dated October 31, 1980, set forth post-Three Mile Island (TMI)requirements in a document entitled"Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements" (NUREG 0737).Section I.A.1.3 of NUREG 0737 entitled"Shift Manning Requirements" set forth the following in regard to overtime restric-tions:~/"l.An individual should not be permitted to work more than 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> straight (not including shift turnov'er time).2.There should be a break*of at least 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> s (which can include shift turnover time)between all work periods.3.An individual'hould not work more than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in any 7-day period.4.An individual should not be required to work more than 14~consecutive days without having 2 consecutive days off.However, recognizing that circumstances may arise requiring deviation from the above restrictions, such deviation shall be authorized by the plant manager or his deputy, or higher levels of management in accordance with published procedures and with appropriate documentation of the cause." NUREG 0737 further specified in, the transmittal letter that pursuant to 10 CFR Par't 50,54(f)operating reactor licensees were required to furnish, within 45 days of the letter (October 31, 1980), confirmation A

that the implementation dates indicated in Enclosure 1 of NUREG 0737 would be met.The requirement for limiting overtime was supposed to be implemented by November 1, 1980.Part 50.54(f)states: "The licensee will at any time before expiration of the license, upon request of the Commission, submit.written statements, signed under oath, to enable the Commission to determine whether or not the license should be modified, suspended or revoked." In mid-January 1981, the NRC's Resident Inspector at Florida Power and Light's St..Lucie Unit 1 nuclear power plant reviewed a letter to NRR (Division of Licensing, Attention Mr.D.G.Eishenut)from FP&L's l The letter, dated December 23, 1980, (FPSL identification:

L-80-418)was in response to NUREG 0737 and stated that the October'1, 1980 letter which transmitted NUREG 0737 had been reviewed.The attachment to the FP8L letter indicated that with regard to shift manning, the overtime restrictions as described in the July 31 Eisenhut letter and NUREG 0737 had been implemented for Senior Reactor Operators and Reactor Operators.

The letter and attachment from ,.were subscribed and sworn to before a Dade County Notary Public on the 23rd of December, 1980 as being true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief.The resident inspector was aware that'the'2-hours-in:betwe'en shifts had.not been formally implemented sn'he St Lucie administra-tive procedures.

This was brought to the attention of the Resident Inspector's supervisor.

It was later determined by Region II management that an investigation would be conducted to determine if a material false statement had been made by Florida Power and.Light.The investigation was initiated on January 28, l981, under the authority provided by Section 161.c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.INVESTIGATIVE EFFORT'nterview of On February 2, 1981, the!, was interviewed by the investigator at the.Florida-Power and Light office in Miami, Florida.Also present were the~and an attorney from the firm of Steel, Hector and Davis in Miami, Florida.They were advised of the purpose, authority and scope of the NRC's.investigation.

~"~q~I In essence, the)related that he issued the December 23, 1980 letter believing that the overtime restric-tions as described in the July 13, 1980 Eisenhut letter and NUREG 0737 had been implemented.

However, on February 2, 1981, he learned that a procedure revision for the 12-hour in between work periods had not been approved until January 15, 1981.Apparently, the i had been aware of the procedural requirements, but was on vacation when the St.Lucie Facility Review Group (FRG)having.responsibility for reviewing and approving plant procedures met on December 23, 1980.Hence, the 12-hours between shifts was inadvertently omitted from the administrative procedure.

He pointed out that during the time period from December 20, 1980 to and including January 15, 1981, of 351 licensed shift positions manned only 3 instances occurred in which the 12-hour in between shifts rule was not adhered to.He explained that when he signed the letter to the NRC dated.December 23, 1980, he had not seen the administrative proce-dure covering shift manning requirements as it was developed by and maintained at the St.Lucie plant and he did not normally see copies of-such procedures.

During the interview the investigator was also i'nformed that FPSL had determined that a similar situation had occurred at Turkey Point Units 3 and 4;that is, the response to NUREG.0737 for Turkey Point indicated that Item I.A.1.3 had been implemented when, in fact, it had not.The~'agreed to provide further details regarding Turkey Point should they be desired.2.Interview of NRC Resident Ins ector On February 3, 1981, the NRC Resident Inspector, St.Lucie Unit 1, was interviewed'nd provided details of his knowledge of this situation.

In essence, he stated the plant administrative procedure did not comply with the requirements specified in NUREG 0737 regarding the 12-hour break between shifts.During the months of November, December and January he brought this to the attention of several St.Lucie supervisory-personnel.

In mid-January 1981, when he observed the December 23, 1980, letter from the licensee to the NRC advising that Item I.A.1.3 of NUREG 0737 had been implemented for SROs and ROs, he knew this to be untrue and brought it to the attention of NRC Region II management.

I

Subsequent to the interview, the inspector provided copies of St.Lucie Adminisbative Procedure 0010119, Revisions 0, 1 and 2.Additionally, he provided copies of the Facility Review Group meeting minutes for December 23, 1980 and January 13, 1981.Interview of On February 3, 1981,), St.Lucie Unit 1, was interviewed and provided details concerning his knowledge regarding this matter.In essence, he was pursuing implementation of the procedure change for all plant staff personnel performing safety related functions.

However, in mid-December 1980, FPSL corporate personnel gave oral notice that their position in response to Item I.A.1.3 of NUREG 0737 would be to address only SROs and ROs and they would take exception to applying the restrictions to non-licensed personnel.

The plant staff was instructed to prepare a procedure which was consistent with that position.He had no further involvement in the procedure change.Regarding the 12-houi between shifts, he.said'that although only recently formalized by the operations group at St.Lucie 1, they had adhered as closely as possible to that rule.He could not recall the method he used to provide the 12-hour between shifts policy to the shift supervisors.

He thought it may have'been done orally or written in the night orders.During the December 23, 1980, to January 12, 1980, time frame, he recalled being called several times by operations personnel about granting exceptions to one of the overtime restrictions set forth in NUREG 0737.At that time, he was designated to perform the function of Plant Manager Designee as defined in Chapter 13 of the FSAR.He could not recall documenting these exceptions on any forms and was not aware of any file.Interview of On February 3, 1981, the;St.Lucie 1, was interviewed.

In essence, he became aware of the 12-hour between shifts requirement when it was brought to his attention by the NRC Resident Inspector.

After confirming this bv reviewing NUREG 0737, he instructed a ,'o ensure the 12-hour between shifts for SROs and ROs was placed in the procedure change draft.He then went on vacation on December 20, 1980, and returned on January 5, 1981.He subsequently learned from the.that the 12-hour requirement had been inadvertantly omitted from the proposed procedure revision, and the FRG had approved the"

administrative procedure revision without the 12-hour requirement.

He later revievied the FP8L time card records and found 2 operators and one plant supervisor who had worked 8-hours on, had only 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> off and returned to work for another 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> during the D'ecember 20, 1980 to January 16, 1981 time frame.The names, times and dates were provided to the investigators.

On February 4, 1981, the', St.Lucie 1,<<as reinterviewed by the investigators.

and provided the following information.

The interface between FPRL corporate and St.Lucie site personnel concerning the 12-hour in between shifts, was with the Power Resources (corporate)

staff and St.Lucie's technical staff.He had coordinated with a regarding the drafting of the letter which was ultimately sent to the NRC.Shift manning, among numerous other things, was mentioned, but he could not definitely recall any discussions regarding the 12-hours in between shifts.He recalled a meeting with the~on December 15, 1980 and numerous telephone calls and also remembered observing a rough draft of the letter.To ensure that St.Lucie was complying with the letter as stated regarding the implementation of NUREG 0737, he instructed a,~to make the change in the procedur e.He assumed it would be done and therefore the letter to be sent to the NRC would be accurate.Interview of.On February 4, 1981, the (former))at St.Lucie 1 during the period 1976 through 1980 was interviewed by.the investigators.

In essence, he stated he was aware of the 12-hour in between shift limitations after being informed of it sometime'in the first half of December 1980 by the.5 In accordance with the instructions, he prepared a procedure change request with the 12-hour limitation included in it.However, prior to presentation to the FRG, another change regarding shift technical advisors was directed by corporate personnel; therefore, he prepared another procedure change request.The 12-hour between shifts was inadvertently left off of this new procedure change request, which was submitted to the FRG and finally approved on December 23, 1980.Hence, the December 23, 1980 Administrative Procedure, approved by the FRG and signed by the Plant Manager, did not have the 12-hour in between shift limitations included.

Meetin With Plant Mana er and Other Plant Personnel On February 4, 1981, the investigator was advised that when-ever a procedure change is necessary Quality Control (QC)keeps track of it.That is, a tracking document (" Pink Slip")is generated and forwa'rded to the responsible department head who is required to respond by providing a date and what action will be initiated.

In regard to the 12-hours between shifts, the"Pink Slip" was not issued because the QC p~rson who reviewed NUREG 0737'did not realize that there was a difference between the Eishenhut letter of July 31, 1980, and NUREG 0737 and did not realize a procedure change was required.Therefore, they expl'ained, it was an oversight by QC that resulted in th'omission of the 12-hour between shift requirement.

Record Reviews On February 4 and 5, 1981, the St.Lucie Nuclear Watch Engineer's Log was examined by the investigator for the period from 7:30 a.m.on December 22, 1980 through 3:30 p.m.on February 4, 1981.The log is a chronological listing of personnel present during each eight hour shift to include hours of overtime, sick leave and vacation time incurred by each individual during each shift.The purpose of this review was to deter-mine whether or not any entries were made regarding exceptions from overtime restrictions for the three individuals who worked 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> on, 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> off and 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> on.No information pertinent to this investigation was identified.

The St.Lucie Night Order Book was reviewed on February 4, 1981, by the investigator.

The night order book is utilized as an informal method of issuing management instructions which have short-term applicability, but require dissemination.

Such instructions encompass special operations, housekeeping, data taking, publ.ications and their distribution, plotting process parameters, personnel matters and other similar items.Inquiries by the investigator disclosed the contents are periodically purged or extraneous informa'tion.

The purpose of the review was to determine if the had made any entries in the book regarding implementation of the 12-hour between shifts.An analysis of the existing information, dated between September 12, 1980, and February 2, 1981 revealed no data*pertinent to this investigation.

The three revisions of St.Lucie Administrative Procedure 0010119,"Overtime Limitations for Licensed Operators" were also reviewed by the investigator.

This review disclosed that Revision 0, approved by the Plant Manager on October 31, 1980, formally implemented the restrictions contained in the July 31 Eisenhut letter (which did not include the 12-hour between shifts restriction).

Revision 1 which was reviewed by the FRG on December 23, 1980 and January 13, 1981, and approved by the Plant Manager on January 15, 1981, picked up the 12-hour between shift restriction, but was not specific as to who could approve exceptions to the restriction or the documenta-tion required.Revision 2 approved by the Plant Manager on February 4, 1981, provided the necessary amplification of approval and documentation requirements.

A review of the minutes for the FRG meetings conducted on-December 23, 1980 and January=13, 1981, disclosed that the change considered by the FRG on December 23 involved.the dele-tion of the Shift Technical Advisor from the positions covered by the restrictions.

The change to add t'e 12-hour between shift requirement was not considered by the FRG until the January 13 meeting.Re uest for Overtime Exce tion.Documentation I On February 4, 1981, the Technical Staff Supervisor was requested by the investigator to interface with the Plant Manager, and attempt to locate and present any documentation of the granting of the exceptions to the overtime restrictions for the three individuals.

On February 5, 1981, the Plant Manager was contacted by the investigator and he advised that no documentation had been found at that time.Interview of On February 5, 1981, the 1 was interviewed at the Florida Power and Light Company Corporate office in-Miami, Florida.During the interview, he stated that on November 17, 1980, NUREG 0737 was delivered to his department, Power Resources-Nuclear (PRN).In that there was a response due, PRN set about to prepare the response with input from.all responsible parties.The issue of complying with the shift manning restrictions was addressed right from the start;however, the emphasis was placed on who should be covered by the restrictions.

FP&L eventually took exception in the response to extending coverage to non-licensed personnel.

There was then a review and comment cycle which ultimately

.resulted in a semi-final draft that was discussed on December 15, 1980, in a meeting at St.Lucie between the ,, St.Lucie 1,.an individual from Licensing and Environmental Planning and himself.The final draft of the December 23, 1980 letter (L-80-418)

was prepared by himself (noted by the initials.'I), and transmitted to the~for.final signature.

STATE OF FLORIDA))ss.COUNTY OF DADE)E.A.Adomat , being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is Executive Vice President of Florida Power 8 Light Company, the Licensee herein;That he has executed the foregoing document;that the statements made in this document are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, and that he is authorized to execute the document on behalf of said Licensee.Information regarding the identity of certain FPL employees and their sti si v t't-3-a uni gg the enclosed material is/aM(exempt from public disclosure in accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC"Rules of Practice", Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations.

Pursuant to section(s)

10 CFR 2.790 a 7 this information is exempt from disclosure because it will constitute an unwarranted invasion of ersonal rivac if the osition titles and em lo ees'ames in investi ator records com iled for law enforcement ur oses are released.E.A.Adomat Subscribed and sworn to before me this'day of , 19~.: NOTARY-'PUBLIC, i and for the County'of-Dade, State of Florida.s,<Roads a<<~fgo lgotarv Pubgc.o~bcr 30,=1983~Mv~%1A~4 BOAdlAQ AgCllCQ My commission expires:-dw e~~w>>'

J'L)('C P