ML20065K790
| ML20065K790 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Crystal River |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1980 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082180535 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-82-261 NUDOCS 8210080125 | |
| Download: ML20065K790 (7) | |
Text
--
n
..=...-_.n.....o..u.,
l l
i
- v1 U"
- CRYSTAL RIVER Evaluation Period: 5/1/79 - 4/30/80 I.
General
,Y I
% gi Steps have been taken to correct specific weaknesses in the areas of' f."'
emergency planning, plant operations, training, and radiation protection as identified in the noncompliances and escalated enforcement actions i
n.' t s, Licensee corrective actions have been reviewed and referenced below.
! [FM onsite inspection performed where neccessary. An enforcement conference 4.'.
was held with senior licensee management to discuss specific problems and i.g 1
, WI9 corrective actions. Programmic improvements were made in a major M 9i reorganization of the licensee's staff includitas replacement of the plant Manager, and reassignment of training responsibilities to a corpora
[
y.c Vice President.
gj{.}
TM5y bg.g II.
Specific (i n MS A.
Contention I;VDI
[.p)
"The Crystal River 3 facility displayed evidence of weaknesses in four MM functional areas. These areas were emergency planning, plant operations, training, and radiation protection."
.g;y Qw The basis NRC actions, and license corrective actions for this contentica NN ihh.${
are discussed in contentions B-G below.
.i f
'k B.
Contention WJE
'9'!
"The licensee had problems meeting the requirements of its emergency plan These problems had been resolved by the implementation of the new emergea plan."
1.
Basis References The NRC reviewed the Crystal River Unit 3 NRC letter of 6/24/80 Emergency Plans as a reroit of new accep-tance criteria for evaluating licensee, state and local emergency plans jointly
- p..'
- 4..
developed by NRC and the Federal Emergency i
I' '
- Management Agency, NUREG-0654. The review of the site emergency plan indicated that additim._el information and commitments were equired before th NRC could conclude that the onsite program met the evaluation criteria stated in NUREG-0654. The review determined that several elements were not adequately addressed in the plan.
~
Florida Power Corporation was requested to review their site emergency plan
[.
against criteria of NUREG-0654 and provide FRC a revis,ed plan.
i
< 8210000125 820712 PDR FDIA
_UDELLB2-261 PDR
.- =- -
= _..
2 l
l 2.
NRC Action
,' 7 The NRC is scheduled to conduct an Emer-NRC letter of 5/13/81 i
'. 'd.'.y gency Preparedness Appraisal in August, NRCTemporaryInstructi(
1981, at the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 2515/55 Power Plant. The Appraisal team will be 10CFR Part 50.47(b) composed for four members, with the team NUREG-0654
_b y '3 leader being a senior NRC Office of NRC letter of 11/13/80 Inspection and Enforcement individual.
NRC letter of 10/31/80
', 7, y' The appraisal will be performed during a 2-week period at the licensee's nuclear
[y.f.;
power reactor site and is to involve review of records, discussions with plant
- q. y
- V^. f. s personnel, observation of work practices and conduct of independent measurements (6,;j by team members.
\\
$$!h5 jg?$ -
This appraisal will determine whether there is reasonable assurance that p& q,74 appropriate assessment and protective measures.can and will be taken in the i
g event"of a radiological emergency.
g l
M id e r?
p No inspections were conducted during this evaluation period. However, i
(tl4.M,j(R,3 subsequent inspections wil1_ monitor
~
licensee's progress in implementation
- ss;M of corrective ac?. ions as a result of 2
the above Emergency Preparedness Appraisal. These and related topics were discussed with senior licensee mangement at a meeting on October 30,
.1980.
3.
Licensee Corrective Action References The licensee forwarded a Draft Emergency
!icensee letters of Plan-(dated 12/17/80) to the NRC in 2/36/80, 12/31/80 and December, 1980. The licensee also 2/U/81 forwarded Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures in response to NRC requests in October, 1980, and February, 1981.
C.
Contention "The plant operations area was characterized by numerous items of nonco; pliance and instances where operators failed to adhere to plant procedur-conducted activities without procedures, or changed procedures without c
[
ducting the required reviews."
-n-
,r
3 1.
Basis References IE Rpt. 50-302/79-1 There were several instances of personnel 79-26, 79-29, 79-35
-, M failing to follow procedures, conducting 3
activities without procedures, or changing 79-39, 79-41, 80-3,
. ' ;;>q -:;
procedures without the required reviews.
80-13 Examples included the failure to complete LER 79-72, 81, 83, G l
- t surveillance data sheets; failure to l,
n....j
. - 's;V Wi follow surveillance procedures resulting in an error in control rod dro'p time
,,.,;Q'N measurements; failure to correctly j.
e
',y;,pg perform heat balance computations; 1
radioactive releases from the turbine
,;. ce; F, ; Sf tc:j building; technical specification violations for not correctly reducing pf,lff:,{;d]
- m. z reactor power levels; surveillances IS:dijy/M not conducted as required; and temporary T.,W ::Q8 procedures not properly reviewed.
Vy,2;.:-.ie:
'1
' iv ':
~ ih 2.
NRC A: tion w.w
+
d h ff.VfE These and related topics were discussed IE Rpt. 50-302/79-12
[h;'M with senior licensee management, at
,m
";0:$.fg?
yfi1 meetings on April 22, 1980, and October 30, r.g.j;2dj
~
1980, In addition, enfor. cement conference
'eg pll$
was held on March 23, Is79. Areas discussed e
I,,
involved enforcement history, licensee f'
,.. s reported events, safety performance, significant operational events, radiation l
protection, environmental controls, security, operational quality assurance, and procedural and administrative controls.
Specific concerns in the area of management control systems and the implementation of those systems were high-lighted during the l
I meeting. The need for adequate procedural and administrative controls, generic application of corrective actions imple-mented in deficient' areas, and timeliness in implementing corrective actions were stressed.
l.
l' Two Immediate Action letters addressing the operations area we e issued in August i
1979, and March 1980. Another management meeting was held in December, 1979 to l
discuss the licensee's action resulting from the March meeting and further j
[
planned corrective action.
e eenne e
l 4
r-
'~
3.
Licensee Corrective Action The licensee has taken specific correc-IE Rpt. 50-302/79-44 tive actions in response to the identi-79-47, 80-15 f
fied items of noncompliance and events described in che referenced LER's.
As a result of these concerns, major changes in the licensee's organization and plant
~ ~J' management have occurred.
D.
Contention i
" Training program weaknesses contributed to personnel errors and items ot noncompliance."
4 l~~ i 1.
Basis References
' ~,:
'N There were several areas identified in IE Rpt. 50-302/79-23, the licensee's training program which 79-50 contributed to personnel errors and items f
of noncompliance.
These areas included
.3 gT; fy reductions in training program requirc-ments for operators, and failure of
?
? JgQ
,g;;; j operators to meet training requirements.
The licensee also failed to, implement a
. +
m training program effective 6ess evaluation
,,6 J '~
q.
requirement, and some annual retraining L~
requirements were not. met.
2.
NRC Action A management meeting was held in December, 1979, at the licensee's request, to review
- corrective actions in the area of training as well as other areas. These and related topics were also discussed with senior licensee management at a meeting on, October 30, 1980.
l 3.
Licensee Corrective Action
{
The licensee has taken specific correc-IE Rpt. 50-302/80-30, tive actions in response to the items of 81-08 noncompliance. Additionally, the respon-sible manager for training was chauged froc the Plant Manager to the Vice President for Nuclear Operations.
l
('
5
<i :lq;
(,
E.
Contention
. < z.,
Q
" Required training activities were not completed on several occasions."
. 33:;
$l,[]
1.
Basis References a%a'k M-There were several instances identified IE Rpt. 50-302/79-23
,. l where the licensee did not implement his
- 1. V approved training program. These included y@
failure to involve in lectures those 3.*Oy'j operators scoring low on requalification y
exams and not generating evaluations of i. ;g training effactiveness.
., y
' * 'rg&
I:N 2.
NRC Action
.., $.,sw.." s.,
.. dii A management meeting was held in December, J' Q ))[f,
1979, at the licensee's request, to review
- p.,
corrective actions in the area of training
'f h
as well as other areas. These and related topics were also discussed _.at a meetire
%g with senior licensee management, held on October 30, 1980.-
e h;). [f 3.
Licensee Corrective Action h
The licensee has taken speEific correc-IE Rpt. 50-302/80-30, ke*j tive act. ions in response to the item of 81-02 noncompliance. Additionally, the respon-sible manager for training was changed from the plant manager to the Vice President of Nuclear Operation.
F.
Contention
~
"The radiation protection area was characterized by numerous items of i
noncompliance, weaknesses in the exposure and contamination control programs, and inadequate control over liquid and solid radioactive wastG 1.
Basis References Examples of weaknesses in the exposure IE Rpt. 50-302/879-15c and contamination control programs 79-54 include lack of procedures addressing the marking of radioactive containers, failure to maintain required barriers, failure to properly label contaminated materials, and failure to control
(
temporary lead shielding.
V
_a
--_.._-...a-1 6
~
IE Rpt. 50-302/79-15, 7
Examples of inadequate control over 79-35, 80-15 liquid and solid radioactive waste include improper radioactive material shipment, release of contaminated materials to unrestricted areas at concentrations higher than allowable, inadequate radioactive release procedures, and improper handling of contaminated coveralls.
2.
NRC Action IE Rpt. 50-302/79-15, l
'ollowing each inspection, the NRC 79-35, 79-54, 80-15 issued notices of violation. These and related topics were discussed with senior licensee management in a meeting on October 30, 1980.
3.
Licensee Corrective Action IE Rpt. 50-302/80-15, The licensee has taken the specific 81-08 q
correctiv'e actions necessary to prevent further occurrences of non-f;j
'"Eg.,
compliances in the areas addressed.
~
Q
-(}y G.
Contention
-"During the evaluation period, the licensee initiated organizational an staffing changes to provide a higher level of management attention and greater resource allocation to deal with identified problem areas."
References 1.
Basis The licensee has made several organiza-tional changes to correct problem areas identified by both the NRC and itself.
These changes included replacement of the plant manager, and splitting of the nuclear engineering and procurement staffs and reassigning them to the site.
Training was removed from the responsi-l bility of the plant manager and reassigned to the Vice President of f
Nuclear Operations.
I r
mg hp d4
-.---,.,w-e
+ - - -,,,., -..
.-.---,me--
,-,-,--,,,,,-e
.,m_._
-,.w p
__4
- eww,
7 2.
NRC Action Subsequent regional inspections under 50-302/81-1 (PAS) the routine inspection program as well 50-302/80-15 special inspections such as the Health Physics Appraisal and Performance Appraisal Team inspection have indicated improvement caused by this reorganiza-tion. It should be noted that not all positions in the revised structure have been filled and therefore the full benefits of the reorganization have not been attained. These and related topics
~
were discussed with senior licensee I
management at meetings on April 22, 1980, and October 30, 1980.
3.
Licensee Corrective Action The licensee has reorganized and is filling vacant positions.
^-
h
,.r O
6 l
de I
.