ML20202D990
| ML20202D990 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1997 |
| From: | Ignatonis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202D873 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-97-484 NUDOCS 9802180042 | |
| Download: ML20202D990 (18) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- _ . . _ - . - - . . . . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .__ _. -.. i
# 8 "800 UNITED STAT (s y
j'I 9'o S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i i
" RIGloN il -
101 MAnfETTA STREET, N.W.. sulTE ?JJO ! E ATLANTA. GEORGIA 3%I234193
%, *...+/
February 12,1997 i o ,
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATION REPORT Rll 97 A 0027 K. 3 [.u .. M This is a follow-up to my letter to you dated February 7,1997, regarding conceih expressed to yo ~ the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on January 30,1997. Your concems dealt with licensee's control of on site hazardous materials, industrial safety concems, and management at Florida Power and Light Company's St. Lucie facility. A description of your concems was provided to you in my previous letter to you in enclosure 1, Statement of Concems. This is to inform you that we 6150 intend to refer item D of the Statement of Concems to the State of Florida for their review. For convenience, I have enclosed another copy of1he Statement of Concems, Should you have further questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (404) 331-4194. Collect calls will be accepted. '.'ou can also contact me by calling 1800 577-8510 or respond in writing. Our mailing address is P.O. Box 845, Atlanta, GA 30301. Sincerely, hp[ Al Ignatohs,
'1 Senior Allegations Coordinator Enforcement and Investigation Coordination Staff
Enclosure:
As stated H p.. "& Certified Mail Number. P 058 060 428 RETURN RECElPT REQUESTED
%.n!!oa la t:id rGcrd tm de;nd sa LC:Ordarice with th5 fr0%0m Of Inictmation Act, exen:p onsM FOIA --
74/,6/ . \O I 9802100042 980123 PDR FOIA B ARTON97- 484 PDR
.. .- 4 l Rll 97-A-002Z Page 1 of 2 FLORIDA POWER and LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT. UNITS 1 and 2 l STATEMENT OF CONCERNS l l
.-s J. In 1995 the concerned Individuals (Cis) were told to move approximately seventy five 55
~
gal drums of liquid out of the RCA to be processed for water and oil sepaTation. The Mechanical Maintenance (MM) personnel reported that they were reluctant to take the drums out of the RCA because there was no evidence that the drumt had been samoted and analyzed and free of hazardous materials. There were no markings or labels , identifying the contents on the drums. The MM personnel were concemed that the drums contained hazardous materials that would be released to the environment. The Chemistry department took random samples of the drums contents and sampled the liquid for radioactive material but did not sample for other hazardous material such as anti-freeze. , _
- 0. The MM foreman notified the Plant Manager that he was concemed about the possible release of hazardous material to the environment. The Cl reported that the Plant Manager verbally committed to having the liquid material removed from the RCA properly tested, labeled, and documented. The Cl reported that correction of the sampling, analysis, and drum labeling activities never occurred.
C The Cls stated that numerous drums of liquid material being stored in the Dry Storage Facility that were still untabeled. The Cls stated that a HP technician had told the Cls and an NRC inspector that no one knew the contents of the drums in the Dry Storage Facility. D. The Cls reported that the water effluent from the oil and water separator had a blue color similar to the color of "Now Cool" a anti freeze used in the diesel generators. The water _ was routed to a storm drain that flowed into the west pond located within the protected area. E. Management has reassigned task to other work crews when a work crew raised concems about a particular activity. Issue below is an example Carbon Filters in the Water Treatment Plant have Material Safety Data Sheets requiring workers to wear supplied air respirators when handling filters. When the crew raised the concem to management, the task was assigned _toanother work crew and the new work crew wore dusle mask rather than supplied air respirators when handling the materials. F. Spilled resin and scaffold ladders in the Blowdown Building have contributed to three personnelinjuries, one resulting serious inju.y. G. The Cls stated that a failure to properly operate the systems within the steam generator blow down building was a root cause for many of the issues observed. H. Scaffolds constructed within the steam generator blowdown building are not properly assembled and are left standing too for g.
i Ril 97 A 0027 Page 2 of 2 FLORIDA POWER and LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT. UNITS 1 and 2 STATEMENT OF CONCERNS i< _
- l. Management does not pay attention to details. Plant Work Orders (PWOs) issued by ,
planning are pre reviewed and do not get detail quality control reviews. Arlpssessment of the PWO process was performed by QC and identified nurnarous issues with inadequate PWO planning. J. Middle levels of management are unwilling to listen to recommendations and suggestions. by the maintenance personnel who have experience with the work activity. Many of the personnel in middle management on swing shift and night shift do not have adequate backgrounds and experience ir, the areas they supervise. Cls believe certain manager is committed to correchng problems at St. Lucie but is hampered by middle managers that , do not know or report the true conditions of plant activities. Cls suggest that a certain manager go directly to line personnel to find out were the problems are,
+
a 4 4
# ** *1:1s$ $
t 4 Y
-.--- , , , , , , g y ,, ,
4' fy 233 1998
'" ~
y[(p ' ~ (MgQq@i_%E3p,,ugig'J.
' E's' V!$l4Qrj i s g,ggg . as, .
. . .z, a M,.y.. ;,'gA gg-~g...
- . a'-hii,' ; , _ . ,,
, J , ,
-"~
..n. m g .. .' j ;.% v ;, ,., ,% ..: ,- g,g y; ,f.; .~ s.?;a y ;l
.n =a,;- : >u .x,. .9
. :. a_..
$1 O TION;s$1 : w e.a '
, '""WWMhY.iN&W.' hhh i h
.*~
L,LEGERWDDRESS: CHANGE OF ADDRESS i o ; - 4 .
.: m.- .
{gE *-
- o b
HOME PHONE:( ) .
.J
! o WORK PHONE:( ) WORK PHONE:( .) ! . CASE NO: Ril-96.A 0150 FACILITY: ST. LUCIE ,
> OCCUPATION , Florida Power & Light- -
DOL COMPl.AINT: YES () NO 01 INVESTIGATION: YES () NO k ERA NO: 01 CASE NO: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/OTHER CONTACTS .. - Reference tilegation Ril-96 A 0145 . 0
,2
- l
@ .g .., , , . - - ..<== ^~.e,.
e .. - O l.".'O.'. '!:',:s! 5.1 f.' : f 20pd ty3; Ac,.. ,. i -..vi s.e4 weQ U.c tt3Mgm M [ggg 40l.4Xt3:ptl0037C iss. _ 9 ')- V/ t/ h
, . V
i 1 . * - nian om 2s1 CLOSED CASE CHRONOLOGY pnday, n,30, j997 l Ril 1996-A-0180 1 DATE. DAIE. DAIE. SAIE. DAYSl.Q.
!LECENED A6810NED DUE COMP 1EIE COMPLETE j Concern 1 8/22/96 2/3/97 2/3/97 i
0 Action BARR Status letter DeeGdellen CLOSURE LETTER FOR TECH ISSUE Concem 1 10/31/96 10/31/96 10/31/96 0 Action ENNIS ARB Meeting Destflstlen DRS/PSBbriefed on inspection results re: possible backdating of document. Document involved appeared to be 9/27/96 setter to State of Florida. 01 (McNulty) to open case on basis of possible integrity issue involving licensee mgt. personnel. Concem 1 10/8/96 10/8/96 0 Action BARR Followup ARB Meeting Description PURPOSE: To consider additionalinformation relating to the EP inspection in progress at St. Lucie. EP liisps to be sensitive to this issue during the inspection and be alert for any
; inconsistencies in the documentation / paper trail for documents Concem i 10/3/96 10/3/96 0 AGt\QD DEMIRANDA status Letter Description Concern 1 9/27/96 9/27/96 0 Act\0D ENNIS Acknowledgement Letter DescIlptlen Consem 1 9/13/96 9/13/96 0 Astion BARR Followup ARB Meeting Descriptien REPANEL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RCVD FROM ALGR. ITEM 15 ORIGINAL CONCERN.
DRS/PSB INSPECT. Concam 1 8/29/96 8/29/96 0 ActlDD BARR Followup ARB Meeting Description DRS/PSB REVIEW REVISED EMERGENCY PLAN. ElCS PREPARE ACKNOWLEDEMENT LETTER BY 9/20/96. 4
e , ,g.
2 2J UD Ih! flCJd011 Of lnforn13tjoll
., x
\-
a. f0lA- - m@?- FM , ..
-/ .
Ril-1996 A-0180 2 DAIE DA1E DAIE. _DAIE QAYalD. RECE!VED ASE1GNED DDE COMELEIE CDM2LEIE
~
Consern 2 8/22/96 2/3/97 2/3/97 0 Acuan BARR Status Letter DesGdpupa CLOSURE LETTER FOR TECH ISSUE Concem 3 2/3/97 2/3/97 0 Action BARR Status tetter DetGdellen CLOSURE LETTER FOR TECH ISSUE Concern 4 2/3/97 2/3/97 0 Acuen BARR Status Letter - Deatdation CLOSURE LETTER FOR TECH ISSUE , Concem 6 2/3/97 2/3/97 0 Astlan BARR Status Letter - DesGdpuen CLOSURE LETTER FOR TECH ISSUE Cancern 6 2/3/97 2/3/97 0 Action BARR Status Letter DeeGdpuen CLOSURE LETTER FOR TECH ISSUE CenGetu 7 2/3/97 2/3/97 0 Acuen BARR Status Letter DeeGdellen CLOSURE LETTER FOR TECH ISSUE Concern 8 2/3/97 2/3/97 0 Actlen BARR Status Letter Dettdallen CLOSURE LETTER FOR TECH ISSUE
< 2
. . ._ _ _ _ . _ _ _ = _ . - _ . - . = _ . .
Ril-1996-A 0180 l DAIL DAIL DAIL .DAIL DAYSlD_ RECELVED A881GNED DME CDidlELEIE CQMP1EIE ConGem 9 8/2246 2/3S7 2/3S7 0 , Acuen BARR Status Letter a DetGdpMOD CLOSURE LETTER FOR TECH ISSUE Coneem 10 2/347 2/3S7 0
, AGuan BARM Status Letter j
. Deasdaden CLOSURE LETTER FOR TECH ISSUE consam 11 2/3/97 2/3/97 0 AGUDn BARR Status Letter _ Dessdauen CLOSURE LETTER FOR TECH ISSUE Concem 12 2/3/97 2/3/97 0 AGuen BARR Status Letter DesAdpuen CLOSURE LETTER FOR TECH ISSUE Concem 13 2/3/97 2/347 0 Acuan BARR Status Letter DesGdellen CLOSURE LETTER FOR TECH ISSUE Concem 14 2/'497 2/3/97 0 Acuen BARR Status Letter Deandstion CLOSURE LETTER FOR TECH ISSUE Consam 15 2/3S7 2/3/97 0 Action BARR Status Letter Densdotion CLOSURE LETTER FOR TECH ISSUE 3
- _._-_ .. . . _ . . _ - . ._ ~ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ .
Rll-1996-A-0180 DAIE. DATE DAIL .DAIE DAYS 70 i REGALVED AtalGNEQ DME GQMP1EIE COMP 1EIE conearn 16 s/22/96 5/29/97 5/30/97 5/30/97 1 Acuen DEMIRANDA Moview submittel Dancripuon SAC FINAL QA REVIEW OF CASE FILE I j Gensern 16. 4/21/97 6/2/97 5/29/97 38 - I
- hauan LANDIS Moview OlReport Demarinuarl IF NO NEWISSUES, FORWARD THE 01 SYNOPSIS TO THE LICENSEE AND THE ALLEGER i FOR CASE CLOSURE AND OBTAIN EICS AND Of CONCURRENCE. IF NEWISSUES IDENTIFIED, NOTIFY ElCS FOR REVIEW AT ARB,
!. Genaam 16' 5/29/97 5/29/97 5/29/97 0 Acuen LANDIS Closure Letter _ l j
~
DetadeWen On GYNOPSIS TO THE LICENSEE AND THE ALLEGER. CASE CLOSED I Gensam 16 2/12/97 3/12/97 2/28/97 16
. AGuen DEMIRANDA Other
! Descripuan AWAITING OE MEMO Coneam 16 11 4/96 2/28/97 2/12/97 98 Acuen MCNULTY . OIinvestigation Descrintion 01 INVESTIGATION, CLOSED . NOT SUBSTANTIATED concent 16 10/31/96 10/31/96 0 Action MCNULTY . FoNowup ARE Meedng Description DRS/PSB briefed on inspection results re: possible backdating of document. Document involved appeared to be 9/27/96 letter to State of Florida. 01 (McNulty) to open case on basis of possible integnty issue involving licensee mgt. personnet t G 4
"~ ~ ~
ORA ~ fax 034 4b N /o6 Feb 6 93 11:07 P.'12 ^ l . . Page 2 n,n sy.v . ... yg::a, w.9[t f S O .c m sATMy
- 4yy S '
) .
%d nun iim:.p;NDIEGGYics y2 v .,
u,a.- DATE/ INITIALS _ ACTIVITY SEC1.LON 10 Freen e Joel Munday g/02/95:0DH Toe OID **
*y-L_ pates
- 10/2/96 1:43 ****' .
- M, Subjects St. Lucie Al agation U on Detober 2,19 mately est o ,,, EP organ 1:stian, of the of the 1 c sation, K r and the allegar tors office when 2 y returned from the plant.
d g g' j inforination on the upc af sa ion. were requesting I told thee, in g the presence of the alleger, that two individuals would
- sT.
u ~ ,t4 arrive on site Monday October 7,1995 t o in the aria of Emergency rreparedness. an inspection ~ the individuals was Jim Kroh. I told h sked if one'of
- was my.
{ 0 $* understanding, He asked about the ot.her inspector. I told him I undaratood that he and waslef f rom asked no store questions t. HQ but wasn't certain. They The alleger stayed and . o D' i
.1 commented that it was ironic that he was in the Resident
- as P' Inspectors the upcoming office when Banken and Walkar arrived questioning inspection. No stated that he would crobably d )% ; cive the allenation_ to the 11 tenses either Thursday or Friday W but that he would inform um beforeA&DA. I told him that he ~
l') ,k h* ' did not need to inf orm us beforehand but if he didn't mind letting us know after he gave it to thou we would appreciate it. He stated that he would. He then left the office.
*p s 10/03/96s0DH SAC LETTER TO ALOR - OUR UNDERSTANDING OT- HIS IDENTITY E PROTECTIOW. COPY TAXED TOT EE SITE FOR THE RESIDENTS 70 MAND
/4 k, DELIVER TO THE ALGR. OVERNIGHT EEPRESS MAIL HARD COPY TO THE
,K ALGR 1 ko/04/96s0DH Front Mark Miller M(,f To BZU Date: 10/4/95 4:41am subjects st. Lucia EP Allegations '
Recapping our discussion of 10/3, I provided a faxed copy of tae letter stating that we intended to inspect the EP
- allegations openly to the alleger. I witnessed him reading
~ the latter and ensured that he understood that his identity
*eould be rervoaled through this approach. Additionally,-r+
stressed to him that, should he develop any reservations about this approach before the inspection began, he should contact Oscar or arysalt immediataly. He stated that he understood and th&t, at that time, he had no reservations. k) V while discussing the issue, he inentioned some activities the EP group was performing to get ready for the inspection. That portion of the conversation resulted in the attached allegation. ! "I'0/07/isIODE~ ' HARKHILLERCh!1EDSACANDADVISEDTHATTHEALGRWALKEDINTO 1 THE RESIDENT 8S OFFICE TEIS HORNINO B:00 AM AND STATED THAT EE HAD PROVIDD A COPY OF PORT TO TEE LICENSEE. IN ADDITION. TEC A!4a ER A COPY OF AN EMAIL TO A LARGE DIITRIBUTION THAT COMMUNICATED THAT TEE ALGR EAD BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE NRC. MILLER FAIED SAC A COPY WHICH WAS PROVIDED TO URYC. SAC REQUESTED THAT MILLER EMAIL ME A MEs5 AGE ON RIS CONTACT WITH THE ALQR. r
September 10,1996 E 4
- w. 4: . , , , JLLEGER IDENTIFICATION SHEET
] - K ALLEGER \ ADDRESS: CHANGE OF ADDRESS MC f - 0 3 ' HOME PHONE:( ) [ WORK PHONE:( ) TJL CASE NO: Rll 96 A-0180 FACILITY: ST. LUCIE b EMPLOYER: Florida Power,& Light DOL COMPLAINT:YES() NO(x) 01 INVESTIGATION: YES ( ) NO (x) ERA NO: 01 CASE NO: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/OTHER CONTACTS
-u, o
I
.J
' -J t. I !'
m i, '40mklicaS% c tie;4,1 ci,t;lctmation I0lA- WVfy _
6' '4 UNITED S f AiES
%,o '
/'st ,,, NUCLEAH REGULATORY COMMISSION r A1l ANTA RA CENTER
, ! 61 FoRS(TH STREE T. SW. SUITE 23785
<,,, v / ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303
***** May 29,1997 m
A
SUBJECT:
ST LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT: ALLEGED FALSIFICATION AND BACKDATING OF k EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DOCUMENT (RII 96 A 0180) (0FFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS CASE NUMBER 2 96 042) This refers to information you provided regarding possible falsification and bo - backdating of an emergency preparedness document at the St Lucie Nuclear Plant. Our Office of Investigations (01) has com;ileted their investigation into this'
~
matter and their findings are documented in the enclosure to this letter. 01 was unable to substantiate the allegation of falsification and backdating, If you have any questions regarding this matter, you can contact me at 1800-577 8510 or 404 562 4530 or by mail at P.O. Box 845, Atlanta Ga., 30301. Sincerely, Kerry . h6 Lan is, Chief React r Projects Branch 3 Divis, ion of Reactor Projects -
Enclosure:
Investigative Synopsis, 01 Case No. 2 96 042 . Certified Mail No. P 785 728 157 '. RETURN RECEIPT RE0 VESTED I h [ g, y-
,tse t IItedom of in,'ormation r - - , . .
b 5- -? l - _ . _
l May ?9,1997 P
SUBJECT:
ST LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT: ALLEGE 0 FALSIFICATION AND BACK0ATING OF
% EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DOCUMENT (RII 96 A 0180) (0FFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS CASE NUMBER 2 96 042) ,
jf H ~ ~
.o This refers to information you provided regarding possible falsification and backdating of an emergency preparedness document at the St Lucie Nuclear Plant.
Our Office of Investigations (01) has completed their investigation into this. - matter and their findings are documented in the enclosure to this letter. 01 was unable to substantiate the allegation of falsification and backdating.
--If you have any questions regarding this matter, you can contact me at 1800 577 8510 or 404 562 4530 or by mail at P.O. Box S45, AtIanta Ga. 30301.
Sincerely. Orig signed by Kerry D. Landis Kerry D. Landis, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects , j
Enclosure:
Investigative Synopsis, 01 Case No. 2 96 042 Certified Mail No. P 785 728 157 - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED - SIGNATIRE NAME Q/f ODeMiranda WHtW t " DATE Q H M / 97 05 / b ! 97 05 / '
/ 97 05 / / 97 05 / /9 '05 / / 9:
COPY? [YE 5) NO YE{ NO YES YFS NO NQ YES 45 Informauan in th:s record was dested m at ordanga with the Fedom of in'ormation ' Ad. xemp40 _ f
-z _ _ .
l 1 l 1 ; May 20, 1996 INDEX OF CONCERNS
^
'ST.'LUCIE ,
..u.
* -RII-95:-ALO186-
+
NO. DESCRIPTION , LOCATION 1/5 The ALGR said that his _ main concern is _that work i[beina done Date:11/27/95EI without orocedures or inadeaunte crocedures CS ALLEG RPT ACTION: :.2/07/96 ARB - DRP REVIEW CONCERN #1 AND PROVIDE INPUT TO DRS, DRS REVIEW CONCERNS #2 & #3 #4. DRP REVIEW CONCERN #5 REGARDING HOUSEk2RPING. CLOSURE: This concern is +, rue; however, it is not an allegation as this concern was. known to the NRC; as this concern had been identified through issuance of many violations involving a failure to follow procedures (see Enclosure 2) prior to receiving this concern. 2/5 The ALGR said that recentiv he became aware of Hatardoug WA.11.t Date:11/27/95EI Drums beina removed to the secondary sid,g thpt have no taan. CS ALLEG RPT
, labels or HP crocedures ACTION: 12/07/96 ARB - DRP REVIEW CONCERN #1 AND PROVIDE INPITT TO DRS, DRS REVIEW CONCERNS #2 & #3 #4. DRP REVIEW CONCERN #5 REGARDING HOUSEKEEPING.
EMSURE: Based on interviews with licensee staff, recora reviews, and observations made duri 2g tours of licensee f acilities; the inspector found no concerns with the removal of drume from the primary to secondary side of the f acility and no uncontrolled . containers of radioactive material or contamination.* The inspector found evidence that the pond sediment and not the pond water had measurabic contamination. Concerns (2) and (3) are not substantiated. 3/t The ALCR said that there are conds on the secondary side that Date:11/27/95EI have radiation siens costed and are fenced to orevent neoole CS ALLEG RPT . f rom enterina but does not orevent wildlife f rom feedina in Iht PSIl51R ACTION: 12/07/96 ARD - DRP REVIEW CONCERN #1 AND PROVIDE INPUT TO DRS, DRS REVIEW CONCERNS #2 & #3 #4. DRP REVIEW CONCERN #5 REGARDING HOUSEKEEPING. CIASURE: Based on interviews with licensee staff, record reviews, and observations made during tours of licensee facilities; the inspector found no concerns with the removal of drums from the primary to secondary side of the facility and no uncontrolled containers of radioactive material or contamination. The inspector found evidence that the pond sediment and not the pond water had measurable contamination. Concerns (2) and (3) are not substantiated. 4/5 Peoole are cettino fired who Soeakout Date:11/27/95EI' _. . _ _ CS ALLEG RPT l =, _ _ _~ % UIIN t c rd was gg! g In ;CCCidanca njtb the fgggggm og gng0unati0n sWeh - - - . . , . ,/ . @/ L A'
2
=
INDEX OF CONCERNS ' ST.. LUCIE . .
. o RII-95-ALO186- '
m, , L NO. DESCRIPTION LOCATION ., ACTIoM 12/07/96' ARs - DRP REVIEN CONCERN #1 AND A'ROVIDE .2.MPUT TO DRS7 DRS REVIEW CONCERNS #2 & #3 #4. DRP REVIEN CONCERN #$ REGARDING HOJ3EKEEPING. , CLopDRE: The results of the Speakout inspection could not substantiate that people who-speakout are fired. Consequently this concern could not be substantiated. 5/5 GREEN DEFICIENCY TAGS OVER OhE YEAR OLD ON EQUIPMENT & 400 Daj:e :11/27/95E! I VOLT PANELS RUSTED OUT. CS ALLEG RPT
~
ACTIQM 12/07/96 ARB - DRP.REVIEN CONCERN #1 AND PROVIDE INPUT TO DRS. DRS REVIEN . CONCERNS #2 & #3 #4. DRP REVIEW CONCERN #5 REGARDING HOUSEKEEPING. - i closure: The concern regarding old deficiency tags is not an allegation as it has been ! known by NRC at least since August of 1995. Regarding the concern about 480. Volt panels being rusted out, the Residents have observed no rust related concerns with safety related panels. 6/ Dates _/_/_Pa-go para: ACTION: Clos 01tE s 7/ , Dgtes_/_/_Pa gea para: ACTION:
- CLOsDILE:
8/ Datei,_/_/_Pa go: 93gg __. ACTION: ., CLosultE - 9/- Dates _/_/,_,Pa l get para s __ ACTION: , CLOSURE:
>we-+ u--vy -++qyy-9 y-gg~,--,ww, vr wgy-sw -www w - e tr'-mwre w 'e*w - .wW- weg--y--w w W y Wm w- 4-f-g.yrug ew ww"- g w-4Wvg-we-C 19^y-t7 T' g"-w-ewI*q' vW4-w*'*--'^W 7-
y ,_ w _ g -- - g g W 711:3477 4 0 I _C A7S A _N _O : RII_- 9 5 - A- 018_6 _ F y.ACILTTY: STwLUCIE m k _ CON NOss (12 3 & 4) DOCKET NO: 50-335, 389
' ; ALLEGER: AW00G M W g ADDRESS: EMPI4TER:FP&L _ _ _ , ,
I t N TI'a'LE i HONE PsOMM ( T~_ "' {g
' woar Pnos*: ( )
pTE RIC3IVsDe 11/27/95 (0940-1033) _ . - g sad received a phone call frcan an anonymous alleger whv tideseed
,i various concorps related to maintanance pract the .' Lucie Nuclear Plant. aid that he was E- rurkey PoiR'~for and at St. Lucie worked at Q that theddaditi Lucie is as it used e ALGR Ttirley Point in stated il the late 1980s.
(1) The A mn without procedures or inaggguate ortcedgrgg.said tigtt his main g;gg;ern is ~ i attitude is they need it right now do it The ALGR said tha~t 'the
, later.*,
The ALGR said 'that it would be sasy they'll get the to verify i paperwork' work being done in process and esked for the proceduru'. f we checked The ALGR said that if we checked at night we would probably find it easier to prove. the ALGR if he could provide an example. The ALGR said that , from Turkey Point was sent up to 3. mid N to '
/ a on a valve cover, on
,(,2,1,,,Jhe AIER unid that rec _antly he bar mm,e aware of Harardous Waste Drum?
beina rc=noved to the seennomry side ehnt have no, tags. labels or HP nrncedures. The ALGR said that a verbal order was given to a crew to remove the drums from the hot side to the secondary side and dump the - concents in the oily waste separator. for three days. The ALGR said that to The ALGR said that this went on date, chemistry does not have a procedure for removal of hazardous drums. The ALGR said thtt all chemistryishas are guidelines to perform spot checks which thG ALGR believes inadequate. - Alleger infonned of MRc identity protecticut policy?. . Y,/ W Did alleger request confidenHality 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N'7 Did the alleger object to a lionneae/ state nfarral?... TY.,
=6 N,',/ o Was the allegar informed of Dot reporting requirements? Y,7, F,,
Type of "1staa Ar tivitvi . - e-(a)/_ moac.cor b),,,,,,, vendor (c),,,,,Matarie.ls (d),,,,, Safeguards (a) 'other: Functi-1 arma fsi : (a) _ operations (c) safeguards (d),,,,,, Transportation (a ,,,,Constructic.n 4
. *Maalth s-Safety -(g)____ offsite Health &(b)T~ anergeaty Preparedness(f)
Marety '(e)/ bther MAIsTtsosca , Oncite Ask all above this questioca, do not
- w. leave any blanks, comprete one sheet for each issue.
l_RAC phone snumbers are 1404) Porward form tot arr/= copies subsequent to nosipt by RAC. o.o. mor ses an==ta. um gg,RA. Do not retain any file 331 4133 8 331-o194 PREPARED BY: OSCAR DEKIRANDA DATE PREPaurn: 11/27/95
y ,,- - 797 g3g p/g.g - " "g,gggrIGION! REPORT-e 0 ..- .. . . m ch u. o u.w.s.p.s ., c .a e n, w w . e cm
-.....c n..s.,-
y -
,a 2t'm:,.3 J.E Sa.IJ.MMf4 CONTINUATION i85EETO!Jh '.,.*,J
&c6W Q '.L .
. y...,',-i ,
CASE NO: RII 95-A 0186 IFACILITY: ST. LUCIE ADDITIONAL INFORMRTION (3 )_ The 1mm maid Phat thare are nnnds on ehm macaridary aida that have
~
rmdi ne i nn mirrne nnated and are f aneed to nravant amania frasi anearin- ! but dona not nrewat wildlife frc fandina in the nnnAa, gg gLgg gggg, '
'what about the birds, raccoons and ducks eating there?' The ALGR said that wild 1-ife and protected species should not be exposed )o contamination.
-{4) ene makTehe Amm la* he had I-E-Ortad any of him enneD to
' manma crazy."- nt"Pennie of~to Sn==kannt anA the RfAB YED1ied. "You stint hh4nk ilm are mattina fired whn M= knitt . e '!he ALER said that if l
we were to talk to the bargaining unit employees, they would tell us about Speakout. speakout, management The ALGR knows said who thattheywhen arethe NRC talks because of the to lists workersof ' about individuals the NRC asks to talk to. The ALGR said that the NRC needs ' - to find.a was way to intervi'ew the workers without sanagemspt knowing who intarviewed. ' l , ; e
?
AnnITIonaL caansaurs The ALGR said that the plant is a mess. SAC asked him to explain. The* ALGR said that there are green deficiency tags over one year old on equipment. The AI4R said that there are 480 volt panels rusted out. ACTICII REQUIRED
~
_- r, PREPARED bye oScha omvanna nhT5 PREPAREDs 11/27/95
Wii f ax :404-%p .;rc,t, feb b '98 11:% P.11 P May 4,1996 Q if. n .
. - . . - wpf.
; e .i. .~ ,3
'4 ..
. .g ;.
l ALLEGER \ ADDRESS:
- CHANGE OF ADDRESS-
-l - ,
~~
?
{ i n ._ l W L HOME PHONE: L_.) ..
\
WORK PHONth ( ) - CASE NO: Ril-05 A 0199 FACILITY: ST LUCIE - OCCUPATION: EMPLOYER: FP&L V _ DOL COMPLAINT: YES () NO(/) ERA NO: "a 01 INVESTIGATION: YES () NO (/) 01 CASE NO: l ADDITIONAL INFORMAT10NtoTHER CONTACTS
~
"-: REFERENCE Ril 95 A-0026 FOR DOL '
INFORMATION l .
.a . ~,
4 _, 1 I
.forCaliOD in t.h.: f0C0fd .
m xx,eem.. ,m_'725 d om,_1,0, .'0!2d A:tTsempt s _7c FOIA-
) ~Vi y
~
~
\
. . _ _ - . . _ . . _ .. . _ . . . . _ _ - _. ._ _. ~ . . _ - - - . . - . . . . _ . . - - . - - - . - . ~ . _ _ _ +
k8 fis UNI?tD STATi$ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.y ' "
CtoloN 11 101 MARitTVA STQttT, N.W., SUITE 2000 4 l ATLANTA, GtoRGIA 333DC180
^ Hay 1, 1996
, C % %.* /
-r m
? m i { Suii3CCft RII-96-A-0190 - QUESTIONABLE INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROL PRACTICES N . . i This refers to our htter dated Februar 12 1996, in dich you were advised 5 ! that we were continuing our review of i e concerns you expressed related to
,9 the versatile 200 florescent digital display indicctors at the St Lucie Nuclear Plant.
Our review regarding this matter has been completed, and our findings are documented in the enctosures to this letter. Based on the information . proildei, we were,able to substantiate the concerns. This concludes the staf8's activities regarding this matter. If you have ar.y questions, you may contact me at 1-800 577-8510 or (404) 331-5509 or by mail at P.O. Box 845, Atlanta, GA 30301. Sincerely, {erryD td h andi , Chief Reacto rojects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosures:
- 1. Allegation Evaluation Report
- 2. Inspection Report Nos.
- E0-335/96-01 and 50-389/96-01
- 3. Insp?ction Report Nos. -
50-335/95-15 and 50-389/95-15
~
r -- Certified Mail No. Z 238 513 628
- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 9
' *E 8 lf $ t 4 &
in 3;;4u;B with the heedom olInfonn% Act, exem tions7C 1-Vyt/ FolA - f - e42coonnn no . - - - - - h
ALLEGATION EVALUATION REPORT ALLEGATION NUMBER Ril-95-A-0199 CONTROL ROOM VERSATILE INDICATOR DISPLAY FAILURES ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 , DOCKET NUMBERS 50-335 AND 50-389 ALLEGATION: There are operability concerns with the Control Room Versatile-f000 indicators which could lead to improper reading of the system indications. _
~
DISCUS $10N.: . The Versatile-2000 indicators provide Control Room.ind,1 cation fop'various safety related systems parameters. The indicator provides a visual fluorescent bar graph display of the monitored aarameter as well as a digital disslay. The digital display is intentionally alocked on some indicators due to iuman factors related to horizontally mounted indicatnrs and logarithmic scale applications. Failed indicators were described as bar graph lit displays in which ten to 15 percent of the upper or lower range did not light to indicate the parameter in this range. Dimmed indicators were described as _. a reduced light intensity display through the entire range of the bar graph. - The potential plagt operability concern was that a failed indicator could result in improper perception by an operator of system conditions. Indicator failure was initially identified in the simulator and documented on St. Lucie Action Report (STAR) 951509 in February, 1995. The failed indicators were discarded. The STAR was assigned to Engineering in April, 1995, and a control room walkdown at that time identified no failed . indicators. Two dimmed indicators from the simulator were sent to the supplier in May 1996 for analysis. The supplier concluded there was no deficiency with,the dimmed indicators. No correlation was established between dimmed and failed indicators. A failed indicator was identified during a Unit 2 instrument loop check in October, 1995. Display testing was conducted on all plant Versatile-2000 indicators in December,1995. Of the 279 Unit 2 . indicators, 66 were dimmed and 44 failed; of the'134 Unit 1 indicators, 105 were dimmed and 5 failed. The licensee's intarim corrective actions resolved the potential plant ' operability concerns and were completed prior to Unit 2 restart. All failed ' display units were replaced. Failed display units were returned to the supplier for failure analysis. The dimmed displays were evaluated with the OpRations staff for acceptability. The development of long termaorrective actions was pending completion of the supplier cause analysis and would include routine dis lay testing or replacement of susceptible indicator displays. The disp ay failure did not impact the safety related alam or control functicns o the instrument. You also highlighted a concern identified by the Resident inspector at the exit meeting regarding inadvertent hydrogen over-pressurization of the Unit 2 main generator. The inspection of this issue, including the operational use of the turbino generator hydrogen panel was documented as a weakness in Inspection Report Nos. 50-335/95-15 and 50-389/95-15, paragraph 3.b.ll). No generator damage occurred and no regulatory requirements were violated.
. l l
CONCLU$10N: Ihe alleaation was substantiated in that there was an instrument operability orobles with the Versatile-2000 indicators: however there was not a olaD1 ooerability concern as a result of the indicator disclav failure mechanisgi The licensee's interim corrective actions were adequate to assure no plant operability concern as a resuit of the potential indicator display failures. The identification of the failed indicator display during an instrument loop check indicated that the failure mechanism could be age related since previous loop checkt identified no failures. Review of the licensee's in-house event . reports and STARS indicated that no plant transients or events occurred due to failed Versatile-2000 displays. The licensee was adequately monitoring
' instrument performance and proceeding with long term corrective actions.
The operational use of tha turbine generator hydrogen panel was documented as a weakness, however, no regulatory requirementt were violated. This allegation is considereo closed. e
#M se g y 4
0 1 -
uns
~--
ra c apg=5579 76L RLF Vik - 'li ga ~~ F;' gf -~ ~ ~ ~ - AuguOt 1"7, 1996 q wx. M:vn NC (-
] .. ..
- n' w-
-W -- .fy a
Ts i i k f-h NO .
- DESC'RIPTION . LOCATION 1/ EXPLOSION DAMPER SETTINGS MAY BE OUT OF
*, SPECIFICATION. THE DAMPERS ARE LOCATED NIUtR.THE Letter to NRC i BOTTQs or UNIT 2 REACTOR VESSEL.
l; dated 2/31/96 DAMPER SPRING TENSION WAS CHECKED DURING UNIT 2 Page 1 of 1 REFUELING OUTAGE APPROXIMATELY AGO. ALLEGER BELIEVES TNAT EVEN TROU .-
'FOUND THE DAMPERS 'IV BE IN SPEC, '
JOB WITH DAMPERS. OUT OF SPECIPI . g IQN: 2/29/96 AM - EICS CONTACT ALGR FOR MORE INFO - CLOSURI: The.inspectore concluded that the concern was substantiated. *
- The review of the pressure relief damper surveillance and maintenance practices are documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-335,389/96-09. Two 1
violations were identified: (1) Failure to Test the Reactor Cavity Pressure Relief Dampers In Accordance With The Vendor's Technical Manual ! and (2) Failure Pressure Relief To Perform Adequate Testing On The Reactor Cavity Dampers. Notwithstanding the low safety significance j (given the results of the SER) of the blast damper deficiencies identified by the inspectors, the fact that the' licensee had treated
- l them as safety-related indicated a. poor application of QA plan l
1 requiremants to the maintenance and testing consequently, the violations identified abov,ofethe component,s., remain cited, as they indicate a programmatic weakness with regard to the testing of (designated) safety-related components. . The maintenance and testa parformed on these dampers during the recent. 1996 refueling outage indicated that the dampers were operable. This i allegation is considered closed. 2/ . Dater Page: Para: Item: ACTIQEt "' - ' ggggggi ' Loformation in this record was deleted in accordance with the freedom of ltifortnation Act, exemption.E. FolA- 7 7'44 Y _ & 0
i' l"$ b : (f
DearMr.DeMiras.Ja:
I would like to report an incident that occurred at St. Lucle's unit 2 approximately three year
- 4 -
o review the appropriate procedures and set up and begin the l process retung o ) explosion dampers located near the bottom of the reactor. i These annpers consist of two separate panels adampus held dosed by spring tension. i C As j pulley, winch assemb}y is lastalled and the to is compared to the procedures accepumos j criteria. There are two positions from which . rig can be inwallad and ' t ' - endy on as to the correct positioning. AAcr this was reso began
)
. theimpection. ,
4 ! all of the despers in both panels to be oct efereci6 cation asIbegan the ' i Process ofa4ustingthesedampers. At this point h beaune naaMerable time that thisjrh was going to betaking brou jht into the picture with there own fb. i j i ork thisjob non-stop ir. two hour shifts. After 6 turnover jdb, having only comoed one or two dampers on one panel. ! Before ,
' ned two hours esp'6 reported to the work assignment area and
{ jidwas finished and all tooling was nmoved from the area.1 j made an error in checking the dampers and that they were all m spec we had made our inspections in each possible way but their reply was we must have mistaken.
- I fully believe that thisjob was left with the dampers out of speciScation.
j T F
- lo CC/L Z MTa)(G)/(7)
{ .. - J . i
****.......y .
e- .. l
%26&
j
- 1 l .. ..
\ l i
4 4 1
~m , - - - -e,,,-,rwn ,-e, - - - ce-,-m, e .,wm-,-we--- - , . - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - + - - , -- w-,-w,--n --- e--,----e-we ------m-,---w --- - - = - - - - = , - , -
= r * *mMM-Tt N IT:01 P. 0?
o f
/petic %
- UNITED stall 3 NUCLEAR MEGULATORY COMMISSION
*
- O '
g REGloN 11
;, 101 MARtETTA Staffi. N.W.. eUfTE muo ATLANTA GEOAetAastucias m ,
[./ - e ' August 5, 1996 Q m a Q3 J O . . .
SUBJECT:
RI,1-96-A-0029 - PRESSURE RELICF DAMPERS IMPROPERLY SET . '
,c . + u d
This refers to our letter dated February 26 1996 in which we advised you that 3 $ we were continuing our review of the concern, you expressed regarding damper settings at beinq llL p building F' left in an out-of-specification condition inside the reactor plant. orida Power and Light Company's St. Lucie Unit 2 nuclear ' power documented in the enclosure to this letter.Our inspection regarding' this m provided, we were able to substantiate the allegation. Based on the information ., a Violations of regulatory requirements were identified and are reported in the enclosed NRC Inspectiori Report, 50-335,389/96-09.
- This concludes th staff's activities regarding this matter. If you have any questions, you may contact me at at P.O. Box 845, Atlanta, GA 30301. 1-800-577-8510 or (404) 331-5509 or by mail Sincerely, Kerry D. Landis, Chief. Branch 3 -
Division of Reactor Projects -
, , _ , . _ = _ ..
-=-
Certified Mail No. P 485 920156 RETURN RECE!PT REQUESTED
Enclosures:
- 1. Allegation Evaluation Report
- 2. Report Nos. 50-335,389/96-09
, , . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . ' ~
,N'NU I'1 this f!CO'd rl!3 Q.'2'.d y Of In!0Trnation pa u-y
- mm xrvttb reu Ems 1110 7 ~ P. og
(. - ALLEGATION EVALUATION REPORT ALLEGATION NUMBER RII-96-A-0029 s PRESSURE RELIEF DAMPERS IMPROPERLY SET ST. LUCIE UNIT 2 NUCLEAR PLANT DOCKET 50-389 I gw
- EONCIRd:%
'N The concerned individual provided a concern related to the pressure relief 4 damper spring tension that was checked during a refueling outage t Unit 2 about 3 years ago. The concerned individual stated tha ucie, ound virtually all dampers in both panels to be out of specificattor.. Another crew with another foreman was called in to assist in ;.mpleting the job, and the -
other crew reportad that the first crew must have made an error in checking the dampers and that they were all within specifications. The concerned individual believes that the job - left with the dampers out . of specification. DISCUSSION: The reactor pressure relief dampers were described by Unit 1 FSAR Section 6.2.1.3.3 and by Unit 2 FSAR Section 6.2.1.2.1. These dampers are closed during normal plant operations to aid in maintaining proper reactor cavity
. ventilation. During a LOCA event, these dampers are designed to open and provide pressure relief through two electrical tunnels to maintain the pressure rise in the reactor cavity below the design safety limits.
The inspector reviewed the previous maintenance and tests performed on these pressure relief dampers. The vendor recommended that maintenance and testing of the Unit I dampers be performed annually and once each 18 months for the Unit 2 dampers. The maintenance and testing of the Unit I dampers were on a 54 month frequency and the Unit 2 dampers were on an 18 month frequency. The licensee did not have an evaluation to .iustify deviating from the vendor's recommended maintenance and test frequency for the Unit 1 dampers. Procedure QI 5-PR/PSL-1, Rev 71, ' Preparation, Revision, Review / Approval of Procedures," Section 5.11, stated that maintenance and preventative maintenance requirements specified in vendor technical manuals shall be considered when writing maintenance procedures. Deviations- from these recommendations must be justif' ed by a techn.ical review performed by the respective maintenance engineering group. The failure to provide a technical review justifying
~ ' , ,. ' .chaftges. t.o t.he maintenance. and testing of the Unit 1 pressure relief dupers from annually to once ser 54 months is identifled as an example of Violation 50-335,389/96-09-03, Yallure to Test the Reactor Cavity Presrure Relief Dampars In Accorriance With 1he Vendor's Technical Manual."
6 3
* . 1
- The work orders for the maintenance and testing of these dampers referenced !
the vendor technical manuals as the document providing the method for testing the dampers and the minimum acceptance requirements, lhe vendor manual for the Unit 2 dampers identified torque value set points for each pressure relief damper blade. During a review of the vendor's manual stored in the maintenance planning library, the inspector noted an internal memorandum in . the manual for the Unit 2 riampers which contained alternate ac:eptance criteria for the torque values required for the damper blades. . This engineering memorandum changed the vendor's recommended set points of the damper blades from plus or minus 5 lbs. to plus or minus 30 lbs. for blades Nos.1 through 6 and plus or minus 26.5 lbs. for blade No. 7. There were no records to indicate that this change to the vendor document had received the required safety review prior to implementation. These revised values had apparently been in use for Unit 2 since November 13,'1987. The vendor manual in the documant control vault did not contain this change. Therefore, the inspectors concluded that these changes had not been reviewed and approved as required by Procedure QI 5-PR/PSL-1, Section 5.11.5. This procedure stated that preventative maintenance requirements specified in technical manuals shall be considered when writing maintenance procedures and that the vendor recommendations for preventative maintenance activities or frequencies - contained in the vendor technical manuals may be deviated from, provided a technical review is performed by the respective maintenance engineering group. The use of technical reference data which had not received a technical review and approval is identified as another example of Violation 50-335,389/96 03, " Failure to Test the Reactor Cavity Pressure Relief Dampers in Accordance With The Vendor's Technical Manual." The records for the maintenance and testing performed by the W0s identified the torque values measured for each damper during the maintenance and measured test activities, except for WO 9502884301. This WO was for the Unit I dampers and did not list the measured torque values. The maintenance craft records only indicated that the dampers met the vendor's requirements. Discussions with mechanical maintenance personnel indicated that this information was obtained but the data was left in the Unit I reactor building. The licensee obtained a statement from the maintenance craft which indicated that the work was accomplished. The inspector noted that WO 9502884301 used the vendor's technical manual as a reference document which did not require review by the facility Review Group (FRG) and approval by the Plant General Manager. However, the work order did not contain sufficient detail instructions to perform the required i maintenance, lebrication and testing required for the dampers. For example, i the work order did not provide a description of the test procedure and did not 3rovided the acceptable test values, (e.g. torque required on each damper alade). The work order stated that the referenced vendor manual was not required to be present at the job site. The inspector concluded that the vendor manuals were in fact required to be at the job site in order to perform the required maintenance and test on these dampers. The work order did not provide sufficiently detailed information to ' perform the maintenance or to conduct the required. test activity. Procedure QI 5-PR/PSL-1,.Section 5.ll.2, . stipulated that vendor manuals could be used to supplement an invoked plcnt approved procedure / guideline or work scope / instructions without FRG review and Plant General Manager approval. However, I
to meet this requirement, the work order must provide sufficient information to accomplish the task. For this work order, the information in the vendor's technical manual was required to perform the maintenance and test. This item is identified as another example of Violation 50-335, 389/96-09-03, " Failure to Test the Reactor Cavity Pressure Relief Dampers in Accordance With The Vendor's Technical Manual." Maintenance inspection, testing and lubrication data for the Unit I reactor cavity pressure relief dampers from 1987 and from 1990 for Unit 2 were evaluated. The inspector noted a number of significant deficiencies. These included: Unit I dampers worked by WO 91102918301, completed December 7, 1991, did not provide the ) roper torque values for the dampers. The work order indicated t1at the torque adjustments for 4 of the 7 damper blades to reactor cavity damper 1 were left out of tolerance and the torque values for 3 of the 7 damper blades to reactor cavity damper 2 were left out of tolerance. Unit 2 dampers worked by WO XA900621191827, completed October 24, ^ 1990, did not provide the proper torque values for dampers. The torque adjustments f or 4 of 7 of the damper blades for damper I were out of tolerance and the tolerance for 5 of the 7 damper blades for damper 2 were found out of tolerance using the vendor technical information. However, it appears that unapproved alternate acceptance criteria may have been used. As discussed above, the use of this unapproved data is identified as a violation. Unit 2 dampers worked by WO 9200226001, completed May 21, 1992, did not provide the proper torque values for reactor cavity damper
- 2. The torque adjustments for all 7 of the damper blades were found out of tolerance. The work data did not clearly indicate that these dampers were properly readjusted. No retests results were provided in the work package. Damper I was found satisfactory, adjusted and rotested.
Unit 2 dampers worked by WO 9300990701 only tested one of the two dampers. Damper 2 was not tested. The test for damper 1 did not use the acceptance criteria of the vendor technical manual but used alternate values. This issue is discussed above and is identified as a violation. The licensee reviewed this issue and confirmed that only one of the two dampers had been tested. Based on these finding, the licensee issued Condition Report 96-1524 to address these items. These discrepancies are considered a failure to conform to the test requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix 8 Criterion XI, Test Control, and are identified as Violation 50-335,389/96-09-04, " failure To Perform Adequate Testing On The Reactor Cavity Pressure Relief Dampers." During this review, the inspector noted that the licensee had received information from the vendor which indicated that a some of the pressure retention springs for the Unit I dampers should be replaced. These springs had been procured and the inspector verified that the installation had been
- .-. . - . .- =- -
; [ .
scheduled for the 1997 Unit I refueling outage. The maintenance and tests performed on these dampers during the current 1996 refueling outage indicated that the dampers were operable; therefore, the proposed modification schedule was satisfactory. As regards safety significance, the licensee presented information that indicated that the blast dampers' classification as safety-related was conservative. An NRC Safety Evaluation Report, dated March 5, 1993, concluued that dynamic effects associated with postulated pipe breaks in the RCS could be excluded from the design and licensing bases for St. Lucie. That determination was based upon the licensee demonstrating that they were bounded by the Combustien Engineering Owner's Group's leak-before-break analysis and that leakage detection s.vstems for the RCS were capable of identifying sufficient 1v low leak rates (allowing time for operator action before leaks manifested themselves as larger breaks). Consequently, the blast dampers, which had been designed to accommodate dynamic effects, were not necessary in a safety-related context. CONCLUSION: The inspectors concluded that the concern was substantiated. The review of the pressure relief damper surveillance and maintenance practices are documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-335,389/96-09. Two violations were identified: (1) Failure to Test the Reactor Cavity Pressure Relief Dampers In Accordance With The Vendor's Technir.al Manual and (2) Failure To Perform Adequate Testing On The Reactor Cavity Pressure Relief Dampers. Notwithstanding the low safety significance (given the results of.the SER) of the blast damper deficiencies identified by the inspectors, the fact that the licensee had treated them as safety-related indicated a poor application of QA plan requirements to the maintenance and testing of the components. Consequently, the violations identified above remain cited, as they indicate a programmatic weakness with regard to the testing of (designated) safety-related components. The maintenance and tests performed on these dampers during the recent 1996 refueling outage indicated that the dampers were operable. This alleption is considered closed. 8
! ORA Fax:404-562-4765 Feb 6 '98 11:00 P.06 i . . August 17,1996
.Wyk$$Y$$
.rWri"?_~ " E _$$- $;.h -- di h $ t$ kkNbbf.dbliEEIEfif W W$M~! M #98??
= = = _ " - -" P M M- -
[sg?;E, N CHANGE OF ADDRE5F AI.LEGERWDDRESS: --(#)G)jC)) lo C
-p-- '
-- i;
(: _. I P HOME PHONE: ( _1 WORK PHONE: ( ) WORK PHONE: ( ) '
- l **
CASE NO: Ril-96-A-0029 FACILITY: ST. LUCIE, UNfr 2
- o -
OCCUPATION EMPLOYER: ? DOL COTAPLAINT: YES () NO (x) Of INVESTIGATION: YES () NO (/) ERA NO: Of CASE NO: . ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONIOTHER CONTACTS _ .-=+ i ' InformatiO3 la D.!? f;;CT' WM E0 8d in a:ccrdance with the Free.icta of information Act, exempt: as N-1 bb . FOIA- NN}}