ML20136E360
| ML20136E360 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 08/23/1996 |
| From: | Roger Hannah NRC |
| To: | Ebneter S, Landis K NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17229A261 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-96-485 NUDOCS 9703130187 | |
| Download: ML20136E360 (3) | |
Text
.
(
v f,
From: Roger Hannah @(? 7 To: WND1.WNP9.WMB, WND1.WNP9.JTG, SDE, LAR1, KDL d Date: 8/23/96 3:32pm
Subject:
St. Lucie Special Inspection Team News Conference The following is a report from Ken Clark at St. Lucie: .
Region il DRS Branch Chief Ken Barr held a news conference on Friday Agust 23rd at the St. Lucie plant follwoing the eixt meeting of the specialinspection team he headed.
There were 11 total reporters and photographers from area media outlets: Amy Chalub and Lynn Turner, Channel 5, West Palm Beach; Juan Brown and Jack Minch, Ft. Pierce Tribune; Gregory Moyer, WPEC-TV, West Palm Beach; Yvette Hammett, Stuart News; am'Reder, Palm Beach Post; Lee Zurtin, WQLS-FM; Carlos Barnes, WSUN-TV; Robin Fields, Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel; and Mike Leslie, WPBF-TV.
Barr conducted about a 40-minute news conference and did a good job explaining the NRC review of safety systems and that the components affected by the apparent vandalism have been replaced and checked out. He explained that the findings have not been finalized and a report will be out by the middle of September.
Some questions were:
Q: Was plant system adequacy ever in question?
A: No.
Q: Is NRC concerned about the possibility of other sabotage events?
A: We have done a review and believe security is adequate.
Q: Will NRC simply report what was wrong or make suggestions for improvement?
A: The report will present the findings of the inspection team and the agency will later decide whether changes need to be made or whether enforcement action will be taken.
Q: How serious was this sabotage event?
A: The NRC refers tu the event as malicious tampering and at no time was the plant made unsafe by this event. J Q: How many people had access to this area? .
A: Access to that area is controlled but a large number of people do have access. However, that access is consistent with the plant's current security plan. '
Q: Since the NRC isn't cops, do you need the FBl?
A: FP&L is conducting the investigation and they would need to address that issue.
Q: How many tampering events have there been at nuclear plants?
~
A: (Ken provided them with the bar chart for about 20 years sent to us by Sue Gagner- HQ OPA)
Reporters were reminded that Regional Administrator Stew Ebneter will be at St. Lucie on Thursday, August 29th, for a previously scheduled meeting and will discuss any developments.
Reporters were asked if they thought the news conference was beneficial and they said yes, especially the reassurances that the NRC had checked systems and ensured public health and safety.
CC: KMC2 9703130187 970306 C PDR FOIA BINDER 96-485 PDR
4 A Items of Interest Region II For Week Ending: August 16, 1996 1.. . Florida Power and Licht Company - St. Lucie
! On August 14,~1996, at 2:45 p.m., St. Lucie Unit I and 2 declared a Notification of Unusual Event (NOUE), due to a sec0rity alert based on potential sabotage. The facility was placed in a state of security alert when it was' determined that tampering had occurred on both of the units hot shutdoun panels. The tampering involved the iatroduction of glue into three hot shutdown panel' key lock switches (two on Unit 2 and one on Unit 1). The licensee exited the NOVE at 5:30 p.m. on August 14, 1996, following replacement of the affected switches and a complete walkdown of all key lock switches on both units. The NRC, the State of Florida,. and local officials were notified of the event. The licensee increased security measures due the event. The FBI responded to the site. In response to the event, the NRC's resident inspectors completed
- j. independent walkdowns of major safety sy. stem flowpaths for both units.
A special team of Region II and HQ inspectors were dispatched to the site to conduct a special inspection of the licensee's actions and investigation. There has been extensive news media coverage of this event.
. 2. Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS)
On August 13, 1996, Region II in conjunction with the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards confirmed actions to be taken by the Nuclear Fuel Services fuel fabrication facility in Erwin, TN relative to determination of root cause of recent criticality alarm system failures, system repair, and performance testing. The licensee's' contractor
. repaired the system and the system was successfully performance tested under NRC observation on August 15, 1996. On August 16, 1996 the licensee certified that the corrective actions had been completed and Region II informed the licensee that it considered the corrective actions-adequate for resumption of normal receipt and storage of special nuclear material.
- 3. Apolied Radiant Eneray Company (AREC0) ,
On August 15, 1996, Westinghouse Hanford Corporation completed loading
-the first 16 cesium-137 WESF sources (613 kilocuries) in the shipping cask. ' The cask will be loaded on the truck and is scheduled for departure on August 22. The remaining nine sources will be removed after the Labor Day Holiday with an anticipated shipment date of-September 12, 1996. Region II has an inspector observing the WESF capsule removal activities at ARECO.
- , - .+-g.-
""<,, UNITED STATES
- i. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMI,SSIO._N_. -
., ! OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II
'%g ' 101 Marietta St., Suite 2900, Atlanta, GA 30323 Tel. 404-331-5503 or 7878 Number. ll-96-68 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Coniact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Friday, August 16,1996)
Telephone:(404) 331-5503/7878 NRC DISPATCHES SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM TO ST. LUCIE TO REVIEW CIRCUMSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH TAMPERING EVENT The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has dispatched a specialinspection team to the St. Lucie nuclear power plant. operated by Fionoa Power & Light Company near Ft. Pierce, Florida, to review circumstances associated with an event the company identified and reported 1 on August 14 involving injection of a glue-like substance into the locks of three key-operated !
switches located in a restricted area of the plant.
NRC officials said the company took immediate steps to secure the plant and prevent similar acts. The company also replaced the locks, located on a device called a remote shutdown panel, the same day.
The NRC inspectors are scheduled to arrive at St. Lucie on Monday, August 19 to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the company's response to lhe event. The team will be made up of NRC managers and inspectors from the agency's headquarters in Wasnington, D.C. and its Region 11 office in Atlanta. The team leader is Kenneth P. Barr, a branch chief in the Atlanta office's Division of Reactor Safety.
. A final, unclassified report on the team's findings is scheduled to be completed by before the end of September.
August 14, 1996 CRELIMINkRY NOTIFICATION OF EVENT OR UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE PNO-II-96-057
. s preliminary notification constitutes EARLY notice of events of POSSIBLE ,
e .cty or public interest significance. The information'is as initially rcc31ved without verification or evaluation, and is basically all that is known by Region II staff (Atlanta, Georgia) on this date. ,
Facility Licensee Emercancy Classification Florida Power & Light Co. X Notification of Unusual Event Saint Lucie 1 2 Alert Jcncen Beach, Florida . Site Area Emergency
- Dockets: 50-335,50-389 General Emergency Not Applicable Subj ect:- TAMPERING WITH KEY LOCK SWITCHES On August 14, 1996, the. licensee reported tampering on three hot shutdown prnal key lock switches (two on unit 2, one on unit 1). The tampering
. involved introduction of foreign material (glue) into the key switches diesbling their use. The licensee, declared a Notice of Unusual Event (NOUE) due to placing the facility in a state of security alert and has increased security measures. A corporate security investigator and the FBI are onsite. An investigation has been initiated.
- Corrective actions involve the checking of all other key lock switches 9d key locked valves. No other tampering has been. identified as a result the licensee's actions. The affected switches did not operationally act the plant. Both units remain at 100 percent power. Replacement of erfected switches is in progress.
The Resident Inspectors are following the licensee's corrective actions.
Two Regional. Security inspectors have been dispatched.
Tho licensee is' issuing a press release. Press interest is anticipated.
s The state of Florida and local officials have been notified. .
UGntact: K. LANDIS (404)331-5509 e
August 15, 1996
- RELIMINARY NOTIFICATION OF EVENT OR UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE PNO-II-96-057A
, 3 preliminary notification constitutes EARLY notice of events of POSSIBLE t tety or public interest significance. The-information is as initially rcceived without verification or evaluation, and is basically all that is
- known by Region II staff (Atlanta, Georgia) on this date.
Facility Licensee Emergency Classification Flcrida Power & Light Co. Notification of Unusual Event Saint Lucie 1 2 Alert Jcnsen Beach, Florida Site Area Emergency Dockets: 50-335,50-389 General Emergency X Not Applicable
Subject:
TAMPERING WITH KEY LOCK SWITCHES-UPDAT'E ,
Tho licensee exited the unusual' event at 5:30 p.m., on August 14, after tho replacement of the affected switches and the completion of walkdowns of cil key lock switches on both units. Through the evening.of August 14, the licensee conducted an audit of all accessible locked valve locks on both units. No additional examples of tampering were identified in oither key lock switches or valve locks. The licensee has offered a 10 thousand dollar reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the responsible individual. Enhanced security' measures rcmain in effect.
re has been extensive news media coverage of these activities i luding claims of earlier unexplained events at the site.
i Tha licensee is currently performing walkdowns of all p) ant areas, both !
in2ide and outside of the protected area. These area walkdowns are aimed l ot identifying the presence of unauthorized material (e.g. unauthorized i jumpers) or obvious deficiencies in plant equipment (e.g. missing parts !
in pipe supports or valves). The licensee anticipates completing these ]
activities by the morning of August 16, after which detailed system 4 wnlkdowns and selected surveillance testing will be performed.
The Resident Inspectors have completed independent verification walkdowns i of major safety system flowpaths for both units. The Resident Inspectors will be performing'more detailed walkdowns and are closely following the licsnsee's activities as they are occurring. Safeguards Inspectors from R;gion II are also on-site and are evaluating the licensee's ;
investigation plan and activities. 1 Th2 state of Florida has been notified. l
Contact:
K. LANDIS (404)331-5509 1
4 I
,y s ueure i s LL> [hy
e
,' August 14,1996 . '24 PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION OF EVENT OR UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE
, ' PNO-il-96-057 -
This preliminary notification, constitutes EARLY notice of events of POSSIBLE
. safety or public interest significance. The information is as initially received without verification or evaluation, and is basically all that is known by Region 11 staff in Atlanta, Georgia on this date. -
Facility Licennes Emergency Clammification Florida Power & Light Co. X Notification of Unusual Event Saint Lucie 12 ~ ' Alert Jensen Beach, Florida Site Area Emergency Dockets: 50-335.50-389 General Emergency Not Aapticaole
Subject:
TAMPERING WITH KEY LOCK SWITCHES On August 14,1996, the licensee reported tampering on three hot shutdown panel key lock switches (two on unit 2, one on unit 1). The tampering involved introduction of foreign material (glue) into the key switches disabling their use. The licensee declared a Notice of Unusual Event (NOUE) due to plactng the facility in a state of security alert and has increased security measures. A corporate security investigator and the FBI are onsite. An investigation has been initiated.
Corrective actions involve the checking of all other key lock switches and key locked valves. No other tampering has been identified as a result of the licensee's actions. The affected switches did not operationally impact the plant. Both units remain at 100 percent power. Replacement of affected switches is in progress.
The Resident inspectors are following the licensee's corrective actions. .
~
Two Regional Security inspectors have been dispatched.
The licensee is issuing a press release. Press interest is anticicated.
The state of Florida and local officials have been notified.
Contact:
K. LANDIS .
(404)331-5509
June 21, 1996 Florida Power and Light Company ATTN: .Mr. T. F. Plunkett President - Nuclear Division .
P.' O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420' l
SUBJECT:
MEETING
SUMMARY
- PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STATUS -'
ST. LUCIE 1 AND 2 - DOCKET NOS. 50-335 AND 50-389
Dear Mr. Plunkett:
j This refers to the meeting on June 12, 1996, at your St. Lucie Nuclear Power '
Plant. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the status of your progress on your performance improvement program. It is our opinion, that this meeting was very beneficial.
-Enclosed is a List of Attendees and Florida Power and Light Company Handout. !
The discussions included the following topics: Operator Report, Operations,
~
- Maintenance, Engineering, Services, and Quality Assurance. l In accordance with Section 2.790 of NRC's " Rules of Practice, "Part 2, 1 Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosures l will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. l Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us.
Sincerely, Orig signed by, Kerry D. Lardis Kerry D. Landis, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 3 ;
Division of Reactor Projects Docket Nos. 50-335, 50-389 License Nos. DPR-67, NPF-16
Enclosures:
- 1. List of Attendees .
- 2. St. Lucie Handout
^
cc w/encls: J. A. Stall, Site Vice President
. St. Lucie Nuclear Plant P. O. Box 128 Ft. Pierce, FL 34954-0128 -
cc w/encls.see page 2 -
OFFICIAL COPY DD \O 97cS6a '22 [9-
-l b +
s j
- 4 <; .c s .
p ;
j
. . l
~
FP&L ,
E- 2 l 1
. .- cc w/encls:7 ~ Continued -
i H. N. Paduano, ManagerJ. .
i 4
- Licensing and Special Programs, FP&L '
j P..O. Box-14000 !
Juno Beach,:FL133408-0420
] '!
. 1
- 2. -
J..'Scarola,! Plant Gener'al Manager' j 4-
- St'. .Lucie Nuclear Plant .. 1 P.'~0.' Box.128 f '
Ft. Pierce, FL; 34954-0128.
s L E. J. Weinkam, P1 ant Licensing Manager !
_ St. . Lucie Nuclear Plant i
2 P. O. Box 128 . .
P Ft. Pierce,.FL 3495420218 ,
i .
J, R.' Newman, Esq. l
- : Morgan,-Lewis & Bockius
'1800 M Street, NW' .
4 0 . Washington, 0.1C. 20036 ,
1 John T; Butler, Esq.
l l
2
' Steel, Hector and' Davis 1
- 4000 Southeast Financial Center
. Miami, FL 33131-2398 ,
!' Bill ' Pas'setti ~
Office of Radiation Control h - Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
. 1317 Winewood Boulevard
- i. -Tallahassee,' FL 32399-0700
' Jack Shreve, Public Counsel Office of the Public Counsel c/o The Florida Legislature -
111. West.. Madison Avenue, Room 812
.- Tallahassee, FL 32399-1400 L
.' Joe Myers, Director
~
l~ -
- Division.of Emergency Preparedness .
. Department of Community. Affairs-2740 Centerview Drive Tall ahassee, ' FL .. 32399-2100.
Thomas R.'L. Kindred,: County Administrator D . St.'Lucie County.
J2300 Virginia Avenue o .
Ft. Pierce, FL 34982 .
- . Charles.B."Brinkman i Washington Nuclear Operations-ABB Combustion-Engineering, Inc.
12300 Twinbrook. Parkway, Suite 3300 Rockville, MD H20852.~
q.
, & y _ - - . r
t FP&L: 3 4
-. Distribution w/encls: ,
J. Norris, NRR B. Crowley, RII-
- G. Hallstrom', RII PUBLIC-NRC Resident Inspector
. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. *
'7585 South. Highway A1A'
- Jensen Beach, FL 34957-2010 t
1 t
nrrier .n slGNATURE NAME i / Lee DATE\ 09 th / 98 06/ 190 08 / /se 06I / 98 06/ /96 os/ / se -
COPY? " [YES) NO- YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO OFFICIAL \&g20RD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: G:\nLSUM7.96 e
4 6
0 9 6
1 i
l LIST OF ATTENDEES ,
Florida Power and Licht Comoany . J W. Bohlke, Vice President, Engineering and Licensing ' " '
C. Burton, Services Manager !
W. Bladow, Site Quality Manager -
l D. Denver, Site' Engineering Manager H. Johnson, Operations Manager J. Marchese, Maintenance Manager T. Plunkett, President Nuclear Division J. Scarola, Plant General Manager A. Stall, Site Vice President .
Additional members of Florida Power and Light Staff :
Nuclear Reaulatory Commission i A. Gibson, Director, Division of Reactor Safety ;
F. Hebdon, Director, Directorate II-3, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
K. Landis, Chief, Branch 3, Division of Reactor Projects M. Miller, Senior Resident Inspector, St. Lucie L. Wiens, Project Manager, Project Directorate II-2, NRR Members of the News Media I
. Enclosure 1
j St. Lucie Plant ,
l Status Meeting i
14 u ele D.
! c i e >0 ~
4
$ c+
_ i l ___ s :
4 $
h tle S*
i l June 12,1996
l
- St. Lucie Status Meeting Agenda 4 June 12,1996
{ 9:30 AM l Training Building, Room 123A -
- musummmmmmmumummun a usi l Opening Remarks B. Bohlke i
1 j Operating Report .
J. Scarola l l i
a 4
- Operations H. Johnson 4
i
! Maintenance J. Marchese ,
i 1 i !
! Engineering D. Denver i
Services
- C. Burton Quality Assurance W. Bladow
? l
, i Closing Remarks ,
A. Stall l
. l
- l
- i i 1 1 1
e Opening Remarks Bill Bohlke '
4 EEEll St. Lucie Plant Plan to Improve Operational Performance
! August 29,1995 meeting with Region II l '
}
i
- Areas for improvement I
! - Acceptance oflong standing, repetitive problems by l, plant management l
j - Equipment performance is not satisfactory
- ; - Personnel performance has not been adequate
.i i
- Procedures have been approved with technical 1
i deficiencies
- Management is not provided with sufficient information to assess / trend plant events i
l j -
2 w
Opening Remarks Bill Bohlke l _
EEEll l -
i St. Lucie Plant Plan to Improve Operational Performance l February 8,1996 meeting with Region H 4
)
- Areas for improvement:
j Self Assessments
}
! - PersonnelPerformance i
! - Procedure Content i
4 l - Implement Maintenance Rule i
a 3
e 0
! 3 ,
Opening Remarks 4
Bill Bohlke i
EEHI l
- . St. Lucie Improvement Plan Meetings Aug. 29,1995 Presentation of plan to Region II l Nov.1, 1995 Public meeting at St. Lucie l Dec. 8, 1995 Initial monthly status meeting with
- indicator book i Jan.24, 1996 January status meeting -
~
l Feb.8, 1996 Update meeting at Region II Feb.16, 1996 February status meeting l l
Mar.15,1996 March status meeting j Mar. 29,1996 Update meeting at Region II l Apr.18,1996 April status meeting Jun.12, 1996 Public meeting at St. Lucie FPL has fully transitioned to identifying issues and reporting l,
progress via monthly status meetings l
4 Closure of both old and new improvement plan items since i November have been contained in monthly indicator book
- FPL intends to use monthly meetings and indicator books as l .part ofits management approach at the St. Lucie' Plant i 4 i
I i
f 1
i i .
J l ,
3
- - 55I1
)
i 1
l l
ST. LL CIE PLANT l OPERATING REPORT i
l l
i i
l l
i
{
S 4
5
O St. Lucie Plant Status ,.
- EEEll Unit One Refueling outage - started 4/29/96 Secondary
- Turbine generator reassembly in progress i
Primary 4
- - New fuelloaded in reactor vessel
. - Steam generator tube maintenance controls
- schedule l
Projected on line date- 7/19/96 l
i l Unit Two I
Removed from service on 6/6/96
- Secondary side valve maintenance l - Auxiliary Feedwater system modification s
6
l -
Overall Plant Performance -
1 i
EEll
. l l EQUIPMENTPERFORMANCE l
- Operator Work Arounds reduced by implementing l l equipmentupgrades l e Challenges:
i
- Unit 1 Steam Generators e
- Maintenance Rule identifies 4 systems as
! requinng corrective actions i
l - Departures from steady state operations i l i
l Eiglipment Chuses Cherations to Maneuver Plant 2
! I 20
- o 15' 4
" 10 m
? _ ___ M _ _ . . . M ._ .. R _
5 101R 2QTR 3Q1R 4QTR 10TR 2QlR
- E E i -
M i
i 1
J 7
Overall Plant Performance EEEE l
o HUMAN PERFORMANCEis below our expectations:
- Data analysis shows errors continue 1
Personnel Errors from Condition Reports i
80 I E. . . .
1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 95 96 Date l Actions:
l e Management is very visible monitoring field
! at:tivities j e Management holding people accountable for errors
, and recognizing good performance Challenges:
l e Emphasize supervisor reinforcement in field .
- Develop index to better trend personnel errors-i 8
t l
i I
i, i i'
Overall Plant Performance !
l 1
EEll .
l
. 1
!
- PROCEDURE OUALITY -
I i !
l e Adherence standard results in high volume of procedure changes
) e Prioritized upgrades in progress in Operations and Maintenance 4
1 N 8EEQi4MMEFEE2ETIEENEDREND4.Y i 4o aso .
l a=
5 zo
/V \ A /
/
5 150 *- A* m A/ \/ \/ \/
I 100 NVV V \/ V
~
5
- V
- so 0
M Mr.Ms/ M Sept Nw .kn Mr Ms/ M Sgt Rv .kn Mr hby M Sept ftw M m m Dee I
l ,
9 .
l l
I Overall Plant Performance l l .
EEll l- SELF ASSESSMENT 1 l
! e Adopted Nuclear Division standard Condition j Report (CR) on 4/1/96 .
j e Timely, direct feedback to originator j e Result: l i - Increase of CRs -
- Working level employee participation l - Lowerthreshold, example:
- . Outdoor cabinet seals degraded -
1 l W l lWL i m.e =- = == re = = %
l De l
- Augmented inspectors provided by QA l
- Operations oversight group in place Challenges e Analysis / trending of condition reports I
l 10 L - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ -.
i ;
8 ll Availability jl -
i EEll l t b '
Unit 1 i
100 bistryAmap 92 93 94 95 96 YTD Date i
l Unit 2 i
- 100 hksnyAmap 92 93 94 95 96 YTD j Date
! l ll 4 ,
l; 1
l 11 e
--- ,w ,-w, -- ,c , , , , - - , < , -
l i
i j l i
Automatic Reactor Trips 5 i I
ll ,
Ell i
iI 4
il i
- I i
1 i
I J
! Automa6c Reactor Trips 4
4 8
I. E. 6 .
l M 4.
I' o 2 f!
O E ,
, E
, 92 m a e m i
- l l!
ll s
i I .
)
i l
I .
I, I
j 12 .
4 1 . ,
J 4
i i
i I
e e
t 1
1 l
I.
i i
OPERATIONS I
i 4
n
.i i
r I
h I
i i
i f
4 i
- i l
i i
4 l
i i
1 4
i l
4 i
i N
i ,
a* e
! 13 4
1 .
l, 4
Operations Performance -
1 NEll i-j1 -
1 .
i e Standards not consistent with top i performing plants i1 i e Insufficient Reinforcement of l Management Standards and~
l Expectations i
l l
- l-l i
i i
i 14 1
.i
i Human Performance i
- -! summmmmmmmmmmmmmmu musu ll Actions Taken
j l
- Increased expectations immediately:
ll j:
e Frequent face to face meetings with Operations supervisors -
o Follow-up on instances where standards are not met
- e Revised Conduct of Operations procedure to clarify i standards j # Communicate expectations via management in weekly j meetings when requalification resumes
- Insist that Training reinforce line management standards i Challenges l
- Continuous reinforcement of standards and expectations j by Shift Supervision l
- Improve configuration control processes l
- Habitual self checking i
j 1
15 i
!, Early Detection
)' of Off Normal Conditions il
{: Bell
\- .
[ Actions resulting from Radiation Monitor niisalignment
$. (NOV 96-04) ll
- Operations review of Plant conditions:
l e Equipment is now declared out of service during
,i surveillance activities (as required)
) e Log entries outside acceptance range require
- explanations and control room notification 3>
ll e Personnel performance expectations have been
!I raised
- t
- i. e' Positioning of plant equipment by other departments:
i e Limited to Health Physics / Chemistry i'
e Other departments already have controls 4
l e Requires prior control room notification l:
l.
i a
' 16
l l Procedure Quality ;
I l NEEll i L l Accomnlishments
!
- General Operating procedures upgraded:
l ll e Heatup, cooldown, power operations, etc. l I
j j e Validated on the simulator prior to use l e New procedures successfully implemented l
- ' during shutdown I Challenges
- ~
- Annunciator response procedures
- OffNormal Operating procedures upgrade
?
e 9
17 ,
j- ,
UNITED BTATEE
- l # ****t,) ,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 EI13 101 MAAlfTT.
j y
. - - .N. _W..Su .rrE2Rm pg _ z sa 4
Docket Nos. 50-335. 50-389 License Nos.'DPR-67. NPF-16 i Florida Power & Light Company i ATTN: Mr. J. N. Goldberg ,
i President - Neclear Division j P. O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0410 L -
j . i j Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF. LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (SALP) j (NRC INSPECTION EPORT N0. 50-335/93-26 AND 50-389/93-26) 1 The NRC Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) has been I completed for your St. Lucie facility. The facility was evaluated for the l period of Nay 3,1992, through January 1,1994. The results of the evaluation i are documented in the enclosed SALP report. ~ This SALP report will be i
discussed with you at a public meeting to be held at the St. Lucia facility on February 17,1994, at 10:00 a.,s. ,
- t
!- This SALP was conducted under the revised SALP process that was implemented by
- the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on July 19, 1993. The revised process
! assesses four functional areas: Plant Operations, Maintenance, Engineering,
- and Plant Support.
i The assessment indicates that St. Lucie continued its history of exceptioRa1 ;
l performance, attaining superior ratings in all SALP functional areas for the '
second consecutive SALP period. This continued high level 'of perforsence
! resulted from a dedication to excellence and teamwork by those associated with j- the facility. It was fostered by proactive senior management setting high
- standards of safety performance and also providing the resources necessary to j
. attain those stanearift. In addition, your snif-assessment Aad quality ;
. verification activities were effective in assuring that the high standards ;
i were attained.
i
- We command you and your staff for continuing a truly superior level of nuclear safety performance. ,
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice " a copy of !
l this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. '
4
^
ENCLOSURE 5
i Florida Power & Light Company 2 .
FB '- 2 1994
- +
No reply to this letter is required; however should 1 you have any questions or >
. comments, I would be pleased to discuss them with you. ~
Sincerely, Stewart D. Ebneter !
Regional Administrator Esclosure:
SALP Report -
cc w/ enc 1:
D. A. Sager .
Vice President St. Lucie Nuclear Plant P. O. Box 128 .
Ft. Pierce, FL 34954-0128 .
H. N. Paduano, Manager
, Licensing and Special Projects i Florida Power and Light Company i P. O. Box 14000 .
j Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 C. L. Surton
- Plant General Manager -
St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 4
P. O. Box 128 i
Ft. Pierce, FL 34954-0128 i
- Harold F. Reis Esq.
Newman & Holtzinger i 1615 L Street, NW Washington, D. C. 20036
].
! John T. Butler Esq.
i Steel, Hector and Davis 400 Southeast Financial Center l ,
Miami, FL 33131-2398
- Bill Passetti i
Office of Radiation Control 2
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services .
4 1317 Winewood 8oulevard j- Tallahassee, FL 3239,9-0700 cc w/enci cont'd: (See page 3) i w ,- - -
_ __ m_. - _ ________.___--A-.- -_ __ _a_
Florida Power & Light Company 3 FE-2En ec w/enci cont'd: '
Jack Shreve Public Counsel Office of the Public Counsel c/o The Florida Legislature 111 West Madison Avenue Room 812 -
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1400 Joe Myers, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness Department of Comununity Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
- Thomas R. L. Kindred County Administrator St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Ft. Pierce, FL 34982 Charles 8. Brinkman Washington Nuclear Operations A88 Combustion Engineering Inc. --
12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 3300 Rockville, MD 20852 INPO 700 Galleria Parkway Atlanta, GA 30339-5957 f
4 J
s e e r
h 9
q.
~
i 1
)
i l
i j SALP REPORT - ST LUCIE HUCLEAR PLANT 50-335/93-26 AM 50-389/93-26
. I. nam nenUND 1
j 1
The SALP Board convened on January 20, 1994, to assess the nuclear safety performance of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 for the period May 3, i 1992, t;....gh January 1, 1994. The Board was conducted per K i Management Directive 8.6, " Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance. " Board members were J. Philip Stohr (Board Chairporeen i Director, Division of Radiation safety and safeguards, K Regten II),
j (RII); Ellis W. Marschoff, Director, Division of Reactor Projects, MC R11; Johns P. Jandon, Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Safety, MC a
4 RII and Herbert N. Berkow, Director, Project Directorate II-2,15: i Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. This assessment was reviamed and approved by Stewart D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator, NRC RII.
l l II. PLAN 1' OPERATIONS This functional area addresses the control and execution of activities i
i directly related to operating the plant. It includes activities such as 1 plant startup, power operation, plant shutdown, and response to i
transtants.. It also includes initial and requalification training l programs for licensed operators. ;
Overall performance in the Operations area has remained superior during i
! this assessment period. Management oversight and involvement.have been i
very effective in assuring safe facility operation. Management expectations are clear and have been effectively conveyed to the
! operating staff. Conservative operational safety decisions were made to l i
shut down a unit to repair degrading equipment before it failed or i
became unable to adequately perform its function. Examples include a i
reactor coolant pump lubrication oil leak, a pressurizer safety. valve i leak, and increasing reactor coolant pump vibration. Also, a unit i
shutdown was extended to facilitate the repair of leaking valves in the !
reactor coolant gas vent system. A unit startup was delayed to evaluate j
system operability when a safety-related electrical conduit was i
discovered to be not attached to a seismic support. 1 Operator performance during this period has been excellent. Operators
' are well trained and qualified, alert to plant conditions, and well i
supported by management, engineering, maintenance, and plant support organizations. Operator response to transierits, abnormal conditions, i
' and equipment malfunctions was excellent. Of the seven manual and two automatic reactor trips, none were caused by operator error. Timely and proper response by operators prevented or minimized transients during
, various malfunctions, including: the failure of a main turbine to trip automatically following a reactor trip, failure of cooling water to a
' main generator hydrogen cooler, and dropped reactor control element assemblies during plant operation. Additionally, operators were alert l-
' in detecting emerging equipment degradation and initiating timely MD Mg ,
I d -
i 2
repairs, including: an emergency diesel generator fuel oil storage tank j
leak. a reactor coolant pump oil system leax, and a reactor coolant -
j system , leak.
1 Operators typically displayed exceptional attention to detail and j control of plant configuration. They perforined numerous reactor startups and shutdowns with no significant errors. However, there were i
three instances of operator inattention, occurring early in ths. period, j which underscore operators the need inappropriately for constant rumsved vigilance. diesel an emergency . Specifically,fteis genew 1
! service for maintenance when an opposite train source of reacter coolant system emergency beration was already out of service, as operater error while cooling a quench task resulted in a ruptured geanch tantraptura l l
- disk, and an operator error during a unit cooldoun resulted ta'a safety
- injection tank discharging into the reactor coolant system.
s
! Control of outages was excellent, including operator perforemaco during l 1
reouced reactor coolant system inventory conditions, operator knowledge l j of refueling procedures, and detailed underwater inspections of reactor j components and fuel using an underwater submarine video camera and ,
i radiation detector. Plant conditions. and system alignments .for ,;
i conducting maintenance and installing modifications were well controlled j
, during scheduled refueling outages and several unscheduled maintenance 1 outages. i l
Quality assurance was superior. Audits were complete, clear. and 1 contained significant findings. Corrective actions for events and l l findings were effective and response to industry events was appropriate.
Company Nuclear Review Board reviews and the Nuclear Safety Speakout Program for employee concerns were also effective.
The Operations area is rated Category 1.
l III. Naintenance i This functional area addresses activities associated with diagnostic, I predictive, preventive, and corrective maintenance of plant structures, systems, and comoonents and with the overall physical condition of the i plant. It also encompasses all surveillance testing and other tests associated with equipment and system operability.
Overall performance in this area continued to be superior during this
[ -. assessment period. Several organizational changes, implemmated during
- this evaluation period, maintained the overall effectiveness of the Maintenance Department. Full implementation of the " component engineers" concept in maintenance shops enhanced accountability and
! "ounership" of specific components. Transfer of planners from a i separate organization to the maintenance shop crews gave the cognizant
. line managers full control of all necessary functions. This resulted in better availability of parts and better contingency plans. Also,
- management developed and implemented a number of organizational and programmatic changes which were effective in improving control over i
8
i l'
i 3'
[ contract maintenance activities since the last SALP period.
l The Preventive Maintenance Program focused on severki specific maintenance problems and produced good results. Specifically, the. Leak
! Reduction Program significantly reduced the number of leaks throughout the plant; the Check Valve Inspection Program resulted in a computerized i
data base, datatied inspection procedures, and plant modifications in i
i response to trends discovered by the Program; the Small Diameter Valve Improvement Program resulted in identification.and replacement of i
problem valves with standardized, qualified valves; and the Rotating Equipment Reliability Program addressed improvements in original motor alignment, pump bearing installation, and mechanical seal and bearing j , lubrication.
St. Lucie's aggressive Predictive Maintenance Program, 'which includes monitoring and trending of numerous major pieces of plant equipment using vibration analysis, oil analysis, and thermography as tools, detected several incipient, potential problems. Tnis permitted orderly
{ shutdown of the plant for repairs and averted equipment failures. Three i
examples included a degraced thrust bearing in the 18 main feed pump , a
{
j cracked shaft in the 2A1 reactor main coolant pump, and a dislodged strainer in the 2B component cooling water pump. The Failure Analysis
- Group, which monitors multiple equipment failures and tracks the issues to resolution, provided an ~ effective feedback loop to Maintenance l Department supervisors.
i The Maintenance organization was staffed with qualified, competent, and well-trained individuals. System Supervisors had significant technical expertise and took the lead in addressing maintenance problems with 4
- design changes, as demonstrated in the successful effort to resolve a
' long-standing problem of dropping control rods. Aggressive, in-depth probing into the root cause of multiple capacitor failures in inverters led to the discovery of a mounting problem which the licensee then j corrected, working jointly with the vendor. The Electrical Department developed an innovative methodology for rewinding large Class IE motors i ,
by local. vendors, thereby shortening repair time and minimizing
{ equipment unavailability, l i
i Maintenance exhibited generally excellent coordination with the ,
!. Operations and Engineering organizations. This was evident during a forced outage caused by the unlatched rod event on Unit 1, as well as the search for, and subsequent repair of, a pin-hole leak in the
- refueling water tank.
4 In order to improve the adequacy of and adherence to work control procedures, the licensee implemented a number of effective improvements 4
during this period including: changing to an automated work control .
process; introduction of quality control holdpoints in the Passport.
program which generates work requests, work orders, and control documents; and post-maintenance test procedure improvements.
" Notwithstanding the effectiveness of these improvements, there were still several lapses during the period attributable to inadequate ,
procedure quality and/or adherence such as the failure to reattach a O
p-e- ,. , , --e.,-. . , - , - . , , , , , -
o d
I i seismic support following maintenance: failure of a bearing due to i improper reassembly of a gearoox oiler; and inadvertent wetting down of j an emergency diesel generator while hosing down the room.
1 i '
Surveillance activities continued to be a strength during this' period.
4 2
Surveillances were timely and of professional quality. The philosophy of scheduling surveillance activities repetitively on the same day of i the week and same week of the month gave the program structure and i predictability. Other activities were worked around scheduled
[ surveillances. e.
! The licensee had a good self-=========t program in the Maintamenes area.
- Corporate Quality Assurance conducted bi-sanual audits of the-
- Maintemence Departaset and the Department *d several of1ts aun audits each year. The audit conducted during this period appear to be technically soend and comprehensive.
i The Maintenance area is rated Category 1.
! !Y. ENB18EERINS
). The functional' area of Engineering addresses 'the adequacy of technical i
and engineering support for all regulated plant activities and interfaces. Design control and modifications are encompassed, as is engineering support for operations, maintenance, ostages, testing, and
- licensing-related activities.
/
The design change process functioned well during this period.
Modifications were technically adequate and sufficiently documented. ;
' Plant and engineering priorities were effectively correlated, and the !
backlog of design change requested actions was significa'atly reduced. !
F The documentation of changes made under the provisions of 10CFREO.59 improved, although there was one issue resulting from a lack of l 1
sensitivity to the need to perforin such reviews for temporary
! modifications.
! The espineering support for operations, maintenance, and radiation i
contro activities as effective. Although this support resides in
' several distinct groups-(e.g., Maintenance Department, Technical i Support, and Engineering), the cooperation among these groups and the i resulting synergism produced a consistently superior level of support i
for both routine events and emergent issues. Consolidatica of' .
J engineering management at the site and the physical proximity of the various engineering managers and supervisors. onsite appear to have
! improved the effectiveness of the organization.
Examples of good engineering support were: technical assistance for i
reactor startup and physics testing, modification of the emergency diesel generator radiator fans to reduce vibration, and an innovative program to deal with identified leaks. Also, maintenance problems were l addressed with design changes, as discussed in the Maintenance section.
f
l
. l 4
l l
l 5 i
- Technical leadership and innovation were demonstrated in determining 1
) effective methods to address equipment-related issues. An example of l F this was: The modification to the main turbine trip to allow on-line
- testing and operability verification.
There was, however, an example where engineering support was inadequate.
, In this instance, a contractor provided the licenses with inadequate
! instructions to perform American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code repairs of pressurizer instrament nozzle cracks. .Despite extensive
- review by the licensee's engineering and technical tupport
! organizations, this error was not detected until an NRC inspector l identified it. This happened early in the assessment period, and the
- licenses conducted an effective review of procedures and practicas to preclude recurrence. '
Licensing submittals were generally of superior quality. They seldom i
required clarification and were always timely'. The licensee was also effective in communicating the facts for events and the bases for licensing requests to the NRC staff.
l The Engineering area is rated Category 1.
V. PUK SUPPORT i The Plant Support functional area addresses all activities related to l radiological controls, chemistry, emergency preparedness, security, fire
- protection, and housekeeping.
i l In the radiological controls area, external and internal exposure were
- well controlled during the period. Collective dose goals were i established and adjusted consistant with the changing workload. During 1992, collective dose was limited to 246 person-res, and during 1993, it
, was limited to 460 person-rem. Although both years included dose for l one refueling outage,1993 also reflected significant dose associated l with an unscheduled outage. Overall, doses were consistent with the i work performed. The respiratory protection program was a strength.
- ' Engineering controls were instituted along with the respirator reduction effort to effectively limit total effective dose. Radiological work was i
appropriately controlled with close adherence to radiation work permits
- by knowledgeable workers. During the period, there was effective
, control of contamination and a reduction of existing . contaminated areas. l l This effort was supported by a good housekeeping program. Perseasel l contamination events were maintained at less than annual goals.
j Management support for training and professional qualification was evidenced by the number of radiation control technicians pursuing and achieving national certification. The ALARA program was effective with several initiatives this period, including the use of robotics for high f dose rate applications and the use of new nozzle dans to save esposure.
Audits in this area were adequate.
The program to control radiological effluents was effectively implemented this period. Radiation and process monitors were well e
4me' = awe e .
, . , en, - - - n - - , - -, . , ..
3 6
l 3 i maintained. Good agreement was noted between licensee analytical 1 results, independent cross-checks, and confirmatory measurement samples.
! A well-run environmental monitoring program confirmed the low level of 1 radiological effluents which caused virtually no dose to offsite i environs. The comparison of results for indepenannt environmental i samples showed good confirmation. Primary and secondary chemistry
] programs were effectively implemented. The training program in this 1 area helped to maintain a high shill level amos i The licensen's audit program in this area was .q.7cheststry i.ive in technictaas.
identifytag
- usaknesses when they asisted and in recommending. corrective actions..
- . Performance in the area of amargency preparadomss contiamed to bei-strong this period, but there were several issues that arose which reisgived reselstism. For esemple, the overall - - + of the emergemey response orTanization during the annual _e...sortise was goods hausser, the
- Emergency operations Facility was not activated in a timely mammer. As
- ' issue also arose concerning the need to update the State with emergency infansstion periodically during the exercise. Notwithstanding the
- aforywtsoned issue, the licensee maintained an excellent working I relationship with offsite agencies. The emergency response facilities
! and equipment were excellent and well maintained. Prompt and effective
} support was provided for the Turkey Point plant following Hurricane
! Andrew, and St. Lucia has significantly upgraded their own preparedness
! as a result of the lessons learned. The audits in this area and the esercise critique were considered adequate.
The physical security program continued to be well implemented during l this period. SecuMty personnel were well qualified and trained. Taare i
was close adherence to security plans and procedures. The personnel acesss control program was well managed during the period. The
! licensee's access authorization program was ..T.ctive. In this area, the licensee was proactive with regard to the extent of tasting and agency record checks, and the staff was well qualified. Safeguards information was appropriately controlled and. in general, plan changes
! were appropriate and timely. . Aedits in the overall security area were i thorough, complete and effective. Corrective actions to findings were
( thorough and timely. Security systems (i.e., barriers, alarms, cameras, j etc.) were well maintained with excellent testing and repair support. .
! The fire protection program continued to be effectively implemented i daring this period. Personnel responded well ta drills, tests, and an L actua' fire. A strong traint pawgram helped to maintain a high level i of proficiency in this area. 1pment was well maintained, and control over flammable material storage was excellent.
! The overall physical condition of the plant was excellent during the l period, reflecting management's attention to the continuing upkeep,and housekeeping. -
i The Plant Support area is rated Category 1.
1 .
j.
., em=pamaues ea -
. - - - - , - n , -- -- -- - - - - - - - - . - ,- - , , . - - - , , - - . . , , - - . . - -,