ML20140D126

Forwards 860114 Order Imposing Civil Penalty in Amount of $100,000 on Licensee for Violation Concerning Operation of Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Sys.Related Correspondence

ML20140D126
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point, University of New Mexico
Issue date:	01/24/1986
From:	Matt Young NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Cole R, Laza R, Lazo R, Luebke E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#186-855, CON-186-855 EA-85-080, EA-85-80, OLA-2, NUDOCS 8601290183
Download: ML20140D126 (9)

Text

__ ________ _ _______

dt.LATfiO COttdtht'Ol.t;U .t

< QM - <

cp uung'o,,

~ UNITED STATES / ,.

8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'~

3

e WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\

%, $ - v? \

..... January 24,~ 1986 i r 1; y, 4 > ,

t Dr. Robert M. Lazo, Chairman ggV Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission p Washington, DC 20555 In the Matter of FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Turkey Point Plant, Unit Nos. 3 and 4)

Docket Nos. 50-250, 50-251 OLA-2 SFP Expansion

Dear Administrative Judges:

t By a Board Notification (BN-85-080), dated August 23, 1985, the Staff informed the Board and the parties to this proceeding that a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty had been issued to the Licensee, Florida Power and Light Company. The violation concerned activities related to the r operation of the spent fuel pool cooling syste' Subsequently, on January 14, 1986, the NRC issued an Order impos.ag a civil penalty on Licensee.

Enclosed for your information is a copy of the Order imposing the penalty.

Copies of the Order are being distributed to the parties to the proceeding by means of this letter.

Sinc rely, M .Y ng Counsel for NRC Staff

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ encl: Joette Lorion l Michael Bauser Norman A. Coll cc w/o enc 1: Remainder of Service List l

8601290103 860124 )

PDR ADOCK 050 g O .

9 s01

' 'v .

[ .i I - [y GC #o, UNITED STATES 3 8 ,

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

g wasmacrow o.c.2osss

% ***** / JAN 14 M Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41 EA 85-80 Florida Power and Light Company ATTN: C. O. Woody Group Vice President Nuclear Energy Department P. O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408T s

, Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY

'This refers to your letter dated September 19, 1985 in response to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (NOV) sent to you by letter .

dated August 20, 1985. Our letter and Notice described a violation of 10 CFR 50.59 requirements. This' violation was identified by our resident inspector during an inspection conducted from May 15 - June 5,1985 of activities authorized by NRC Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41 for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 We have completed our review of your response in which you admit that the violation

occurred.as stated in the NOV. However, you ob, ject to the escalation of the base civil penalty proposed in the NOV and request instead mitigation of the civil penalty. After careful consideration of your response, we have concluded for the reasons given in the enclosed Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty that the violation did occur as set forth in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty and that you did not provide in your response a sufficient basis for mitigating or remitting the proposed civil penalty.

Accordingly, we .hereby serve the enclosed Order on Florida Power and Light Company imposing a civil penalty in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars

($100,000).

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.

Sincerely,

-[ .f ames M. Ta , Directnr

.' Office of Inspection and Enforcement

Enclosure:

Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty

with Appendix cc w/ encl

(See page 2)

, y ~. ~.< r n ~

, i. 8 . .

5

$? *.; '

(

cc w/ encl: '- .

C. M. Wethy, Vice President '

,. Turkey Point Nuclear Plant .

C. J. Baker, Plant Manager -

Turkey Point Nuclear Plant. .

R. J. Acosta Plant QA Superintendent '

bec w/ encl: '

NRC Resident Inspector State of Florida PDR LPDR SECY e

a

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

In the Matter of )

FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 (Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4) ) License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41

) EA 85-80 ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY I

. Florida Power and Light Company (the licensee) is the holder of Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41 (the licenses) issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) on July 19, 1972 and April 10, 1973, respectively. ,

The licenses authorize the licensee to operate the Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 in accordance with conditions specified therein.

II A safety inspection of the licensee's activities under the licenses was conducted by the NRC from May 15-June 5,1985. As a result of this inspection, it appeared that the licensee had not conducted its activities in full compliance with NRC requi rements. A written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (NOV) was served upon the licensee by letter dated August 20, 1985.

The NOV stated the nature of the violation, the provisions of the NRC's requirements that the licensee had violated, and the amount of the civil penalty proposed for the violation. The licensee responded to the NOV on September 19, 1985.

e 2

III Upon consideration of the licensee's response and the statements of fact, explanation, and argument for mitigation or remission of the proposed civil penalty contained therein, as set forth in the Appendix to this Order, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, has determined that the violation occurred as stated and that the penalty proposed for the violation designated in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty should be imposed.

IV In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 42 USC 2282, PL 96-295, and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The licensee pay a civil penalty in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars (5100,000) within thirty days of the date of this Order by check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States and mailed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.

J V

The licensee may, within thirty days of the date of this Order, request a l l

hearing. A request for a hearing shall be addressed to the Director, Office of

3 Inspection and Enforcement at the 'above address. .A copy of the hearing request shall also be sent to the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of the hearing. Upon failure of the licensee to request a hearing within thirty days of the date of this Order, the provisions of this Order shall be effective without further proceedings.

If payment has not been made by that time, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.

In the event the licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the issues to be considered at such hearing shall be:

(a) whether the licensee violated NRC requirements as set forth in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty; and (b) whether on the basis of such violations this Order should be sustained.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.

. - - s

, '/

a es M. Tay1 , ector gficeofIn ection and Enforcement Dated at Bethesda, Maryland '--

this day of January 1986

APPENDIX On August 20, 1985, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (N0V) was issued for a violation of an NRC requirement. Florida Power and Light Company's response to the NOV was provided in a letter dated September 19, 1985. A restatement of the violation, a summary of the licensee's response, the NRC staff's evaluation of the licensee's response, and its conclusions are set forth below.

Restatement of the Violation 10 CFR 50.59(a) allows the holder of a license to make changes in the facility as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) without prior Commission approval unless it involves a change to the Technical Specifications or is an unreviewed safety question. An unreviewed safety question is created if the consequences of an accident or the malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR are increased.

10 CFR 50.59(b) requires in part that the licensee maintain records of changes in the facility to the extent that such changes constitute changes in the facility as described in the FSAR. These records shall include a written safety evaluation which provides the bases for the determination that the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question. ,

Section 9.3 of the Turkey Point FSAR states that the possibility of siphon draining of the Spent Fuel Pit (SFP) by a break in the SFP drain piping is prevented by a normally closed valve located six feet above the fuel assemblies.

p' Contrary to the above, sometime prior to September 1984, and continuing through June 5, 1985, the licensee had failed to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 in that a change was made to the facility described in the FSAR after license issuance without first conducting and documenting a review to determine that the change did not involve an unreviewed safety question. The change to the facility involved operating a valve on the drain portion of each unit's SFP cooling loop in an open position, although it was described in Section 9.3 of the FSAR as closed. This change involved an unreviewed safety question since a malfunction could have completely drained the SFP. The FSAR includes an evaluation of the possibility of a piping break upstream of this normally-closed valve, but did not evaluate a piping break or other malfunctions of equipment downstream of the valve with the valve open.

This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement I).

(Civil Penalty - $100,000)

Summary of the Licensee's Response Florida Power and Light Company's response admits that the violation occurred as stated in the NOV but objects to the escalation of the base civil penalty. The licensee believes that its extensive programs fonnulated as a result of previous NRC findings regarding the Intake Cooling Water System (Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty, EA 84-121, dated August 20, 1985) are in place and working. Therefore, the current finding regarding the SFP should not

Appendix 2 require penalty escalation in that it predates the Intake Coolihg Water System issue and was within the scope of previously identified corrective actions.

The licensee contends that one of these actions, the System Operability Review Program (50RP) could have recognized and prevented the continued existence of this condition. In addition, considerable efforts have been expended in the Program for Enhanced Performance (PEP) and the Program for Improved Operation (PIO) and that these programs have and will prevent similar occurrences from happening in the future.

The licensee response indicates that the original error in classifying the SFP cooling system valve lineup change was clearly an oversight as opposed to a willful or intentional act. The lineup change was made in response to a problem of vortexing at the upper suction connection. Corrective action for this problem had been identified, was in progress and, in fact, was completed on Unit 3 prior to formal notification of the finding on May 17, 1985.

The licensee also requests that the NRC staff consider the resources it has devoted to improving and upgrading physical features of the spent fuel storage areas, as well as the subsequent evaluation which showed there was reason to believe that the probability of uncovering the fuel in the spent fuel pool was not increased when consideration is given for operator intervention. The licensee notes, however, that operation with the lower drain opened was not recommended.

NRC Evaluation of the Licensee Response The licensee admits that the violation occurred as stated.

The licensee conten'ds that the previous NRC findings regarding the Intake Cooling Water System (EA 84-121) should not be used for penalty escalation because the current finding predates that issue and was within the scope of the corrective action being taken in response to EA 84-121. The current violation and the violation cited in EA 84-121 together reflect a pattern of poor performance in the area of system operability. Although the current violation occurred before the enforcement action in EA 84-121 was taken, identification and corrective action were not taken until several months after that action when it was identified by the NRC resident inspector. The licensee nad many opportunities both before and after EA 64-121 was issued to identify this problem but failed to do so. The improper system alignment existed for an extended period of time. Modified safety analysis reports submitted to the NRC in 1976 and 1984 to support Turkey Point Technical Specification changes failed to identify this problem. Several design changes were also completed on these systems that failed to detect that their operation was outside of the normal operating parameters. As the NRC letter transmitting the NOV in this case indicates, the base civil penalty was escalated in part because of poor performance in the area of concern and in part because the duration of the violation provided opportunities to identify and correct the problem. I l

l

i .

Appendix 3 The licensee also argues that the long term corrective actions formulated as a result of EA 84-121 were still in progress and that the 50RP would have recognized and corrected this problem. However, the interim corrective actions initiated as a result of EA 84-121 were completed in December 1984, and the deficiencies that existed with regard to the Spent Fuel Pit were neither identified nor corrected by the 50RP.

Similarly, the deficiencies in the SFP were not picked up under either the PEP or the PIO although the PEP had been in effect for over a year and the PIO had been in effect for several months. The NRC recognizes that improved performance takes time to achieve but believes that tangible results from these programs have been slow in coming. The staff has determined that escalation of the proposed penalty because of poor performance in the area and the duration of the violation was appropriate and that. the penalty should be imposed to emphasize the necessity for improved performance in normal operating practices to ensure that the changes

! do not create unreviewed safety questions.

With regard to the licensee's arguments that no unreviewed safety question existed, the NRC staff review of the licensee's evaluation indicates that the evaluation was inadequate and, in fact, an unreviewed safety question did exist. Operation of the SFP cooling system using the drain suction increased ~

the potential consequences of a malfunction of the equipment and created a failure mechanism of a different type than any evaluated previously.

The NRC staff did not consider willfulness on the part of the licensee as a factor in determining the severity level of the violation or the civil penalty and, consequently, the absence of willfulness does not provide a basis for mitigation in this case.

Conclusion The violation occurred as stated in the NOV, and the licensee has not provided an adequate basis for either mitigating or remitting the proposed penalty.

Accordingly, a civil penalty in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars

($100,000) should be imposed.

___