ML20137R253
| ML20137R253 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1996 |
| From: | Summers B NRC |
| To: | Boland A NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137R112 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-485 EA-96-020, EA-96-20, NUDOCS 9704140077 | |
| Download: ML20137R253 (4) | |
Text
<-
?i
-t From:
Betty Summers To:
LJW2, ATB Date:
3/25/9611:03am
Subject:
St Lucie EN Enclosed is the EN for St Luoe. If you approve of the changes Joe Gray made in the middle
- of the second paragraph, let me know and I will send it out. -
t 1
1 d
I a
F 9704140077 970404 7
BINDER 96-485 PDR
y 1 t
N
...rch 25, 1996 EN 96-020 OFFICE OF ENFORCEPElT NOTIFICATION 0F SIGNIFICANT EN"OtCEMENT ACTION l
Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Com>any (EA 96-040)
St. Lucie Unit 1. Juno Beac1, Florida Docket No.
50-335 Sub.iect:
PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY - $50,000 This is to inform the Commission that a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $50,000 will be issued on or about March 28, 1996, to Florida Power and Light Company. The action is based on a Severity Level III problem involving an overdilution event which occurred on January 22, 1996, when a licensed operator left the-i i
eintrols without informing his relief of a dilution in progress. Three apparent violations were identified involving the failure to follow procedures; inadequate procedures; and the l
failure to perform a safety evaluation when the dilution procedure was revised. Of particular concern to the NRC were the serious lapse of attention to licensed duties and ineffective management oversight represented by these issues.
The base civil penalty of $50,000 for a Severity Level III problem is warranted because a 7
previous. escalated enforcement action was issued within the last two years; the violations i
tore identified as a result of a self-disclosing event and the licensee had prior oppsrtunities to identify and correct the deficiencies so, under the Enforcement Policy, Credit was warranted for the licensee's credit was not warranted for identification.
corrective actions, which adequately addressed both the procedural weaknesses and the issues i
of management and operating crew performance.
In addition to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty issued to FPL, the NRC will send letter to the licensed operator involved which reiterates the responsibilities of his NRC license and encourages him to share lessons learned with other licensed cparators.
l It should be noted that the licensee has not been specifically informed of the en1'orcement i
action. The schedule of issuance and notification is:
Mailing of Notice March 28, 1996 Telephone Notification of Licensee March 28, 1996 I
The State of Florida will be notified.
The licensee has thirty days from the date of the Notice in which to respond.
Following NRC evaluation of the response, the civil penalty may be remitted, mitigated, or imposed by i'
Order.
Contacts: B. Uryc, RII EICS, 404-331-5505 J. Lieberman, OE, 415-2741 Distribution 0WFN OWFN TWFN Regional Offices Chairman Jackson EDO OC RI RIV Comm. Rogers DEDR AE00 RII WCF0 Comm. Dicus DEDS OP CTR RIII L
- \\
L.
' L)
0 g
m
?
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I I
- ATLANTA, GEORGIA DATE:
/ hen r,'
(496 COMPANY NAME:
9 e t-rr tue.e TOPIC:
o ve. m u n e, u E v c-r NAME TITLE NAME TITLE
/NAcc, kue' 6R.t}sYLuce' p
V N. >. = v ' 57 FYt ! ) d 5-L-
/,Liiv1'u M4 Lh/C&-uLA C1C
/E..V kcbc vn I wec A.a La-y.
k...sc.,....,,a
/G M lb.,,..Jy-GPi. / Rco
' / *.:. e. _.
l en, m,'
/g Qwu m gg
/
C E,. i It s Cada 17 S /f8
, /T, 4 /L /c.,
/Z2i/6[k (A/V D lhfDI5 Nf8C]fhef S' &
eT m t.
RA set (1
6 f). ( W b re s
- ' a.
1 i,,, u,,
on n kidtil)
/sC//
su-:.
f f 5 l ' f,.: k.1 -r
!T_'l c u.s. t.,
U7-f
/D. 7 %~
rs I n-lnc x.
,i lf('
Ca t i..?
5 b' '... l.;M
/
T1 ' ' /,
t
//
rQ ii
- 1. - n. <...
J' E ScAdotA R, Mue fSr Lac <e
/
..crch 25, 1996 7,
EN 96-020 y
0FFICE OF ENFORCEMEDT NOTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT ENF0tCEMENT ACTION Licensee:-
Florida Power and Light Company (EA 96-040) i St. Lucie Unit 1.-Juno Beach, Florida l
Docket No. ~50-335 Sub.iect:
PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY - $50,000 This is to inform the Commission that a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil PCnalty in the amount of $50,000 will be issued on or about March 28, 1996, to Florida Power and Light Company. The action is based on a Severity Level III problem involving an
'overdilution event which occurred on January 22, 1996, when a licensed operator left.the controls without informing his relief of a dilution in progress. Three apparent violations were identified involving the failure to follow procedures; inadequate procedures; and the failure to perform a safety evaluation when the dilution procedure was revised. Of
- particular concern to the NRC were the serious lapse of attention to licensed duties and ineffective management oversight represented by these issues.
The base civil penalty of $50,000 for a Severity Level III problem is warranted because a previous escalated enforcement action was issued within the last two years; the violations were identified as a result of a self-disclosing event and the licensee had prior opportunities to identify and correct the deficiencies so, under the Enforcement Policy, t
Credit was warranted for the licensee's credit was not warranted for identification.
corrective actions, which adequately addressed both the procedural weaknesses and the issues of management and operating crew performance.
In addition to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty issued to FPL, the NRC will send letter to the licensed operator involved which reiterates the responsibilities of his NRC license and encourages him to share lessons learned with other licensed operators.
It should be noted that the licensee has not been specifically informed of the enforcement action. The schedule of issuance and notification is:
Mailing of Notice March 28, 1996 Telephone Notification of Licensee Narch 28, 1996 The State of Florida will be notified.
The licensee has thirty days from the date of the Notice in which to respond.
Following NRC evaluation of the response, the civil penalty may be remitted, mitigated, or imposed by Order.
Contacts: 8. Uryc, RII EICS, 404-331-5505 J. Lieberman, OE, 415-2741 Distribution OWFN OWFN TWFN Regional Offices l
Chairman Jackson EDO OC RI RIV Comm. Rogers DEDR AE00 RII WCFO l
Comm. Dicus DEDS OP CTR RIII i
OCA OE NMSS 11P GC IRM SP lBIL i
SECY NRR OIG ACRS NUDOCS PA 01 RES PUBLIC P ""Y DIPOIMATION. NOT POR Puguc -"" UIfE 1
VWWICATIGOI THAT UCWISE MAS fWCWWW ACTIO91 l
. -., - - - - ~.
uNnrap STATUS
[ase..
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
5
~1o1 MARIETTA STRET, N.W SUITE 300 4
ATLANTA, GEORGE 3D354100 k
March 28,-1996 EA 23-040 Florida Power and Light' Company ATTN: Nr. T..F. Plunkett
- President - Nuclear Division P. 0.. Box 14000
. Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED INPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY -
$50,000 (NRC Inspection Report No.- 50-335/96-03 and 50-389/96-03)
Dear Nr. Plunkett:
This refers to the special followup inspection at the St. Lucie facility conducted on January 26-30 and February 8, 1996, with regard to a Unit 1 overdilution event which occurred on January 22, 1996. The results of our inspection were sent to you by letter dated February 22, 1996. A closed predecisional enforcement conference was conducted in the Region II office on Narch 8, 1996, with members of your staff (including the_ licensed operators involved in the event) to discuss the apparent violations, the root causes, and your co'rrective actions to preclude recurrence. A summary of the conference was sent to you by~1etter dated Narch 13, 1996.
Based on the information developed during the inspection and the information
)
that you provided during the conference, the NRC has detsrinined that violations of NRC requirements occurred. These violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) j and the circumstances surroundin5 them are described in detail in the subject inspection report. Violation A, described in the enclosed Notice, involved a serious lapse of attsntion to control room activities by a licensed operator.
The operator failed to follow procedures for reactor coolant system boron j
i:
dilution and failed to monitor a planned dilution evolution requiring the addition of between 25 and 40 gallons of primary makeup water which should 1
have taken less than a minute to perform. This resulted in an unplanned reactivity addition in that the operator failed to stop the addition of primary makeup water until approximately 400 gallons were added.
In addition, the operator and other crew members conducted an inadequate watch turnover, j
During the event, the temporary relief operator at the controls and the senior reactor operator.were unaware that a boron dilution was in progress.
The event also demonstrated operator performance problems in'that: (1) the method 1
routinely used by St. Lucie operators to dilute the reactor coolant system was i
not authorized by procedure; (2) the method used was not as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR); (3) operators routinely perfomed the dilution procedure from memory when the dilution procedure was i
- designated by administrative requirements as one requiring referral to the written procedure; and (4) operators failed to give prompt verbal notification 4
i
-%,Miq W
7 i
i FPL 2
l I
to the Operations Supervisor of the unplanned reactivity change that had occurred. As a result of these operator errors, 100 percent reactor power was exceeded on January 22, 1996.
i I
Violation' B involved inadequate design control in that the method stated in the UFSAR for adding domineralized water and boric acid to the reactor coolant system was not appropriately translated into plant operating procedures. This condition has existed since plant licensing in January 1976 and during the periodic reviews of this procedure required by Technical Specification 6.8.2, j
you failed to identify the discrepancy.
The root cause of this viol,ation was the failure to implement a comprehensive review of procedural requirements ogainst the operational methods described in the UFSAR.
4 Vislation C involved a change that was made to the Unit 1 operating procedure i
for reactor coolant system boron dilution on January 23, 1996, that again differed from the method stated in the UFSAR, without performing a required 1
safety evaluation. The UFSAR states that boron dilution must be conducted in automatic and described a flow path into the volume control tank. However, under a temporary change to the operating procedure, instructions were added for dilution in manual mode with a flowpath directly to the suction of the l
charging pumps. The temporary change allowed the addition of positive 4
l reactivity faster than the method described in the UFSAR and without an automatic shutoff.
The temporary change was implemented on January 23, 1996, without a written safety evaluation providing a basis for this change. The j
root cause of Violation C was a weakness in the screening process for i
10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations of procedural chang 6s.
The safe operation of your nuclear facility requires strict attention to plant operating conditions particularly when reactivity changes are in progress.
The actual safety consequences of this event were low because the operator i
recognized his error and the crew took prompt actions to restore plant parameters.
Consequently,100 percent power level was exceeded for only a short period of time. However, the event is of significant regulatory concern due to the poor performance practices exhibited by your licensed operating staff and the inadequate control and evaluation of operating procedure s
i requirements before and after the event.
In addition, the NRC is concerned that management failed to set clear standards regarding operator i
attentiveness, watch station turnovers, and oversight of control room activities and protocol. Other weaknesses were identified with regard to operating experience feedback, instrumentation and alarm settings, and 4
management guidance on maintaining operating parameters close to Technical Specification limits. Therefore, these violations are classified in the 4
i aggregate in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, as a Severity 4
Level III problem.
In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $50,000 is considered for a Severity Level III problem. Because your facility has.been the subject of escalated enforcement actions within the last
~.
~..
i s
FPL 3
j 2 years ' the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for Identification and Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy.
In this case, the NRC has concluded that it would not be appropriate to give credit for Identification because the violations were identified as a result of an event and there were i
prior opportunities to identify and correct the deficiencies. We are also i
concerned that your operating experience program failed to ensure that adequate corrective action was taken when you were advised of a similar overdilution event at Florida Power and Light Company's Turkey Point facility.
,[
With regard to consideration for Corrective Action, your immediate cprrective actions included restoring plant parameters and conducting an investigation of the event. Your planned long-term corrective actions were comprehensive and includW, in part: (1) corrective actions to address management issues and 2
clarify managenerat expectations for operating crew performance; (2) revisions 1
of appropriate procedures and policies for reactor coolant system dilution; (3) comprehensive review cf compliance with the UFSAR; (4) chsnges to the 10 CFR 50.59 screening process; and (5) counseling and training plant staff.
The NRC determined that credit was warranted for the factor of Corrective t
Action, and that a base civil penalty is appropriate.
Therefore, to emphasize the importance of control over operational activities affecting safe plant operations and in consideration of your previous escalated enforcement actions, I have been authorized, after consultation with i
the Director, Office of Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) in the base amount of
$50,000 for the Severity Level III problem.
l You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response.
In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional i
actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future j
inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).
To the extent possible, your response should not include l
' A Severity Level III problem with a proposed civil penalty of $50,000 was issued on November 13, 1995 (EA 95-180), for inoperability of the low temperature overpressure protection feature due to PORV failure.
s FPL
'4 any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction.
Sincerely.
4 Original Signed by Stewart D. Ebneter Stewart D. Ebneter Regional Administrator Docket No. 50-335 License No.'DPR-67
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty cc w/ encl:
(See Next Page) l
~ _
j E FPL 5
cc w/ enc 1:
B. Bohlke.
Bill Passetti i
Vice President Office of Radiation Control j
St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Department of Health and P. O. Box 128 Rehabilitative Services i
Ft. Pierce, FL 34954-0128 1317 Winewood Boulevard I
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 H. N. Paduano, Manager l
Licensing and Special Programs Jack Shreve Florida Power and Light Company Public Counsel' P. O. Box 14000 Office of the Public Counsel Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 c/o The Florida Legislature.
l 111 West Madison Avenue, Room 812 J. Scarola Tallahassee, FL 32399-1400
~ Plant General Manager St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Joe Myers, Director P. O. Box 128 Division of Emergency Preparedness Ft. Pierce, FL 34954-0128 Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive E. Weinkan Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Plant Licensing Manager St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Thomas R. L. Kindred i
P. O. Box 128 County Administrator Ft. Pierce, FL 34954-0218 St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue J. R. Newman, Esq.
Ft. Pierce, FL 34982 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius i
1800 M Street, NW Charles B. Brinkman Washington, D. C.
20036 Washington Nuclear Operations i
ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc.
l John T. Butler, Esq.
12300 Twinbrook Parkway,' Suite 3300
{
Steel. Hector and Davis Rockville, MD 20852 4000 Southeast Financial Center Miami, FL 33131-2398 L
f 1
I i
e 4
4 e
p -
-..n e
,6*
FPL' 6
Distribution w/ enc 1:-
PUBLIC SECY CA JTaylor, EDO "JM11hoan DEDR SEbneter, RII
~
LChandler, OGC JGoldberg, OGC JLiebernan, OE Enforcement Coordinators RI, RIII, RIV EHayden, OPA LTemper., OC GCaputo, O!
EJordon, AE00 LNorton, OIG OE:EA File (B. Summers, OE) (2) i JBeall, OE CEvans, RII Buryc, RII j
KClark, RI!
i RTrojanowski, RII CCasto, RII Klandis, RII (IFS Update)
BSchin,-RII JNorris, NRR GHallstrom, RII NUDOCS NRC Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
I 7585 South Highway A1A Jensen Beach, FL 34957-2010 SENf t TO PUBLtc DC'CUMENT ROOMP YE5 NO OFFICE Rit:1PS
/
Ril:DR O Mil:DRP Rit: ORA
/
R11MA,
4 11:
Bil:
(
SIGNATURE NAME C6sto Kl ondie WMerechoff r vM AGib a
yee DATE 03/ 19 8 0
98 03/ N 98
/98 03 /
8 03 / /98 03 196_
COPY?'
kES) NO h NO YES NO
% NO
[ES) NO YES [ )
vre uri 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY DULUMENT hAMM:\\1900 PEN.Lhf \\9604051L.DHWflhAL516.59C L/
t
AND i
PROPOSED INPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Florida Power and Light Company Docket No. 50-335 St. Lucie Unit 1 License No. DPR-67 EA 96-040 4
During an NRC inspection conducted on January 26-30, 1996, violations of NRC l
requirements were identified.
In accordance with the " General Statement of
~
Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the Nuclear i
j Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to section 234 of. the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and associated civil penalty are set forth.
r below:
i A.
Technical Specification 6.8.1.a requires that written procedures be j
established, implemented, and maintained covering the activities recommended in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February 1978. Appendix A includes operating procedures for the chemical and volume control system and administrative procedures for relief turnover, procedural adherence, and authorities and responsibilities for safe 4
operation.
Operating Procedure No. 1-0250020, Boron Concentration Control - Normal
)
Control, Revision 35, step 8.5.14, requires, in part, that when adding a
)
blend of primary makeup water and boric acid to the reactor coolant system by using the manual mode of operation and a flow path directly to the i
charging pump suction, that operators monitor the water flow totalizer and 1
close valve V2525 after the desired volume was added.
i i
Administrative Procedure No. 0010120, Conduct of Operations, Revision 79, Appendix D, Crew Relief / Shift Turnover, requires, in part, that, for short term watchstander relief, a turnover be conducted including: general l
watchstation status, off-normal conditions, and tests in progress.
Administrative Procedure No. 0010120, Appendix N, Procedural Compliance and Implementation, requires, in part, that controlled procedures be implemented and complied with in accordance with the instructions provided in QI 5-PR/PSL-1.
Procedure QI 5-PR/PSL-1, Preparation, Revision, Review / Approval of Procedures, Revision 67, Section 5.13.2, providas that all procedures shall be strictly adhered to and identified that Operating f
Procedure 1-0250020 was not considered " skill of the trade" and was not to be performed from memory without referring to the procedure.
Administrative Procedure No. 0010120, Appendix E, Notification of Operations Supervisor /FPL Nanagement, requires, in part, prompt verbal notification of the Operations Supervisor for unplanned reactivity changes.
Contrary to the above:
1.
On January 22, 1996, at approximately 2:30 a.m., the licensee failed to implement the requirements of Operating Procedure No. 1-0250020 in that Unit 1 operators failed to monitor the water flow totalizer h % %: h-fpp.
)-
9
^
l l
. Notice of Violation and Proposed 2
i Imposition.of Civil Penalty and failed to close valve V2525 after the desired volume of primary L
makeup water was added to the reactor coolant system when using the manual mode of operation and a flow path directly to the charging pump suction.
Specifically, during a planned addition of between 25 and 40 gallons of primary makeup water, operators failed to stop the addition of primary makeup water until approximately 400 gallons i
were added which resulted in a power increase over 100 percent reactor power.
6 2.
On January 22, 1996, at approximately 2:30 a.m., the lic.ensee failed l
to implement the requirements of Administrative Procedure No.
1 0010120 in that the Unit 1 operator at the controls conducted an i
j inadequate short ters watchstander relief turnover. Specifically, the operator failed to include general watchstation status and
]
conditions including the RCS boron dilution that was in progress.
As a result, the relief operator at the controls was unaware that a boron concentration dilution was in progress and failed to 1
adequately monitor and control the dilution.
4 3.
On January 22, 1996, at approximately 2:30 a.m., the licensee failed i
to implement the requirements of Administrative Procedure No.
l 0010120.
Specifically, operators performed Operating Procedure j
,1-0250020 from memory, without referring to the procedure, and without adhering to the procedure.
1 4.
On January 22, 1996, between 2:30 a.m. and 5:45 a.m., the licensee failed to implement the requirements of Administrative Procedure No.
0010120 in that operators failed to give prompt verbal notification to the Operations Supervisor of unplanned reactivity changes that j
had occurred.
(01013) i B.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control, requires that i
measures be established to assure that applicable regulatory requirements and the design basis, as specified in the license application, are correctly translated into procedures.
I Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TS) 6.8.2 requires that each i
procedure of TS 6.8.1 be reviewed periodically as set forth in administrative procedures. TS 6.8.1 requires that written procedures be maintained covering the activities recommended in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February 1978. Appendix A included operating procedures-for the chemical and volume control system.
Procedure QI 5-PR/PSL-1; Preparation, Revision, Review / Approval of Procedures, Rev.
61; required that all plant procedures shall be reviewed every 36 months.
Section 15.2.4.1 of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) states, in part, that during normal operation, concentrated boric acid is i
mixed with domineralized akeup water... and is automatically introduced into the volume control tank in response to a low water level signal from the volume control. To effect boron dilution, the makeup controller mode selector switch must be set to " Dilute" and the domineralizer water batch
. quantity set to the desired quantity. When the specific amount has been injected, the domineralizer water control valve is shut off automatically.
1
_,_________________________________J
- 6 Notice of Violation and Proposed 3
Imposition of Civil Penalty Contrary to the above, from approximately January 24, 1976 (before the Unit 1. operating license was issued), through January 23, 1996, the licensee failed to correctly translate the design basis, as specified in UFSAR Section 15.2.4.1, into procedures in that the UFSAR description of the method for adding a mixture of boric acid and domineralized water to the reactor coolant system was not incorporated into the Operating 1
Procedure No. 1-0250020, Boron Concentration Control - Nomal Control, j
Revision 35, for St. Lucie Unit 1.
Specifically, Operating Procedure No. 1-0250020 described a method for adding a mixture of boric acid'and domineralized water to the reactor coolant system (in manual and directly to the suction of the charging pumps) that was different from the method i
stated in the UFSAR (in automatic and to the volume control tank).
Further, the licensee failed to conduct an adequate periodic review of Operating Procedure No. 1-0250020 as required by TS 6.8.2.
Specifically, during periodic reviews, the last of which was accomplished on.
i July 11, 1995, the licensee failed to correct the difference between the l
procedure and the UFSAR.
(01023)
C.
10 CFR 50.59 allows the licensee to make changes to its procedures as described in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR), without prior Commission approval, unless the change involves, in part, an unreviewed safety question. The licensee shall maintain records of changes in procedures made pursuant to this section, to the extent that they constitute changes i
in procedures as described in the SAR. These records must include a written safety evaluation which provides a basis for the detemination l
that the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question.
Contrary to the above, on January 23, 1996, the licensee made Temporary Change 1-96-017 to Operating Procedure 1-0250020, Boron Concentration control - Normal Operation, Revision 35, a procedure described in the i
i '
UFSAR, and failed to include a written safety evaluation which provided a basis for the determination that the change did not involve an unreviewed i
safety question.
Specifically, the licensee added instructions for dilution in manual and directly to the suction of the charging pumps which is contrary to the UFSAR, paragraph 15.2.4.1, which states that boron dilution must be conducted in the " Dilute" mode (such that when the j
specific amount has been injected, the demineralized water control valve i
is shut automatically) and described a flow path into the volume control tank.
(01033)
These violations represent a Severity Level III problem (Supplement I). This problem is applicable to Unit 1 only.
Civil Penalty - $50,000.
i 3
l-Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Florida Power and Light Company is I
hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, j
Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within 30 days of the 1
date of this Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty l
(Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of i
Violation"'and should include for each alleged violation:
(1) admission or i
denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, and if denied, the reasons why, (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid C
.i
o 3
l Notice of Violation and Proposed 4
Imposition of Civil Penalty 1
1 further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a Demand for Information may be issued as why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown.. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
j i-2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, the Licensee may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draft, money order, or electronic transfer payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or the cumulative amount of the civil penalties if more than one civil penalty is proposed, or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part, by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cosumission. Should the Licensee fail to answer within the time specified, an order imposing the civil penalty will be issued.
Should the Licensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the i
3 civil penalty, in whole or in part, such answer should be clearly marked as an 1
" Answer to a Notice of Violation" and may:
(1) deny the violations listed in this Notice, in whole or in part, (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances, j
(3) show error in this Notice, or (4) show other reasons why the penalty should j
l not be imposed.
In addition to protesting the civil penalty in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.
4 In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors addressed in I
Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy should be addressed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the l
statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g., citing page and i
paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of the Licensee is l
directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for L
imposing a civil penalty.
Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which subsequently has been determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c.
The response noted above (Reply to Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to:
Mr. James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North,11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the St. Lucie i
facility.
r Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the POR without redaction.
However, if you find it necessary to include such information, you should f
Notice of Violation and Proposed 5
Imposition of Civil Penalty clearly indicate the specific information that.you desire not to be placed in the PDR, and provide the legal basis to sc) port your request for withholding the information from the public.
Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this 28th day of March 1996 n
(
t a
4 1
h
.,,7,,
,/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\\
p AsmoN N set mAmerrA svnseT. N.w., surre zoo u
G ATLANTA, GEORGIA 3DB234190 k*****
N March 28, 1996 j
i p
i C'3
$b EA 96-040 i
Florida Power and Light Company ATTN: Mr. T. F..Plunkett President - Nuclear Division P. O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED INPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY -
S50,000 (NRC Inspection Report No. 50-335/96-03 and 50-389/96-03)
Dear Mr. Plunkett:
This refers to the special followup inspection at the St. Lucie facility
't conducted on January 26-30 and February 8, 1996, with regard to a Unit 1 l
overdilution event which occurred on January 22, 1996. The results of our j
inspection were sent to you by letter dated February 22, 1996. A closed predecisional enforcement conference was conducted in the Region II office on 1
l March 8, 1996, with members of your staff (including the licensed operators i.
involved in the event) to discuss the apparent violations, the root causes, and your corrective. actions to preclude recurrence. A suunary of the conference was sent to you by letter dated March 13, 1996.
i Based on the information developed during the inspection and the information i
that you provided during the conference, the NRC has determined that j
violations of NRC requirements occurred. These violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) and the circumstances surroundiag them are described in detail in the sub. ject t
inspection report. Violation A, described in the enclosed Notice, involved a i
serious lapse of attention to control room activities by a licensed operator.
The operator failed to follow procedures for reactor coolant system boron dilution and failed to monitor a planned dilution evolution requiring the i
]-
addition of between 25 and 40 gallons of primary makeup water which should have taken less than a minute to perform. This resulted in an unpianned 1
l reactivity addition in that the operator failed to stop the addition of primary makeup water until approximately 400 gallons were added.
In addition, the operator and other crew members conducted an inadequate watch turnover.
During the event, the temporary relief operator at the controls and the senior reactor operator were unaware that a boron dilution was in progress.
The event also demonstrated operator performance problems in that: (1) the method routinely used by St. Lucie operators to dilute the reactor coolant system was not authorized by procedure; (2) the method used was not as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR); (3) operators routinely performed the dilution procedure from memory when the dilution procedure was designated by administrative requirements as one requiring referral to the written procedure; and (4) operators failed to give prompt verbal notification we