ML20203B362

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Second Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Records in App C Will Be Available in PDR & App B Records Being Released in Entirety
ML20203B362
Person / Time
Site: Crystal River Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 12/03/1997
From: Racquel Powell
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To: Liaw J
WINSTON & STRAWN
Shared Package
ML20203B366 List:
References
FOIA-97-313 NUDOCS 9712150013
Download: ML20203B362 (4)
v • d • e


Text

UA NUCLEAR MtGULATORY Commission R O HLQUES N L H u, '

RE SPONSE TYPE

\

RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF XpiNat l l PARTI AL pnd i INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST o^u

%o we DEC 0 31997 DOCS ET NUVBEHLSI(/f awhcaNel RE QUESTE R Jean Lian PART 1.-AGENCY RECORDS RELEASED OR NOT LOCATED ISee checAedbores)

No egency records subject to the request have been located.

N3 additional a Jency records subject to the request have been located.

Reauested re":ords are available through another public distribution program. See Comments section, Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Append;n(es) I are already available for public inspection and copying at the (X N{C Public Doct ment Room,2120 L street, N W., Washington. DC.

Ager";y records subject to the request that are Identified in Apperndiu(es) R are being made available for public inspection and copying at tPo MRC Public Docun s Room,2120 L street, N.W., Washington, DC,in a folder under this Fol A number.

The nonproprietary version of the proposal (s) that you agreed to accept in a telephone conversation with a member of my staf f is now being made available for public inspection and copying at the N RC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC, in a folder under this Fol A number.

Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Appendim(es) may be inspected and copied at the NRC Local Public Document Room identified in the Comments section. ,

F.nclosed is 6nformation on how you may obtain access to and the charges for copying records located at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC.

gy Agercy records suteinct tc, the request are enclosed. ADDendi x B record e are enclo md.

R cords subject to the request have been referred to another Federal agency (ies) for review and direct response to you.

(y Fees 5 '

,DO y You will be billed by the NRC for fees totaling $ _ _ "F - A dd i t i nrla ] feOS**

You will receive a re8und from the NRC in the amount of $

In view of N RC's response to this request, no further action is Scing talten on appeal letter dated ,, __ ._ , N o.

~

PART 11. A-INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE C:rtain Information in the requested records is being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to the exemptions described in and for the raasons stated in Part II, B, C, and D. Any released portions of the documents for which on% part of tne record is being withheld are being made available for public inspection and copying in the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N W., Washington, DC in a folder under this FOI A number, COMMENTS

  • The actual fees for processing your request are as follows:

8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> professional review: $269.36

+E56 pages dup 1ication: - 25;.20- M .Lc IM $G20.GG Sil. M

-4_95 66 fees already paid

$ ib99 additional fees Pe . E Vou will be billed for additional fees in the amount of $24.90 by the NRC Division of Accounting.

This completes NRC action on your request.

\

. [i o

/ cm_ _

d 1ADN A t VH t r D6Rt C T F NFORMATION AND PUBUCAtlONS SE ? VICES N b d. VISION'Ot F Rt LDO 1hdo #

Gym y x>. ,

q.c > . -

W>

PDR

.n 9712150013 971203 FOIA hf

    • iif 'of0' *lllhl i u

((tf of

'k PDR k -~ ~.L I_AW97-313 - . ~ " ~ n __ _ _

f. .,

Re: F011-97-313 Appts922 B N nd23ng mer.maam zu emeva Erf!aETE mamma th3s amatunypyregg

1. 5/5/95 mahibit 3 to Report of Investigation (Roz) 2-95-020 -I.etter to s. abneter, NRC, from P. M. Seard, Jr., FPI.,-subject:

Unresolved Item 94-22-01, Makeup Tank operation. (5 pages)

2. 12/24/96 sahibit 13 of nor 2-95-020 - Memorandum to M. J. McNulty, oz:RII, NRC, subject: Crystal River Nuclear Plant: Alleged Discrimination Against senior Licensed operations Supervisors (Case Nos. 2-95-020 and 2-95-021) (1 page)
3. 2/26/97 Report of Investigation 1-95-020: CIystal River Nuclear Plant - Alleged Discrimination Against Operations Shift Supervisor for Raising Safety Concerns About An Operating Curva. (22 pageJ)
4. 1/27/97 Report of Investigation 2-96-033: Crystal' River Nuclear Plant Alleged Coverup of Puel Handling Incident. (8 pages)
5. 8/27/96 Exhibit 1 to ROI 2-96 033 - Investigation Status Record. (1

! pa00)

6. 10/3/96 'eishibit 8 to ROI 2-96-033 - Memorandum to B. Uryc from W.

J. McNulty, subjects CIystal River Nuclear Plant Alleged r

Coverup o Puel Handling Incident (Case No. 2-96-033/RII-96-A-0177; (1 page).

7. 12/4/96 Exhibit 9 to ROI 2-96-0333 Memorandum to R. P. Schin, frce W. J. McNulty, subjects Crystal River Nuclear Planti Alleged Coverup of Puol Handling Incident (Case No. 2 033/RII-96-A-0177) (1 page)

I 1

-9. 10/17/96 tahlbit 10 to Roz 2-96-033: Memorandum to C. Casto, from R. Schin, subject: Crystal River Nuclear Plant: Alleged Coverup Ar!. Handling Incident (Case No. 2-96-033/RII-96-A-

t. 0177) (3 pages)

.9. 12/4/96 r.shibit 11 to Rot 2-96-033: Memorandum to R. P. Schin j from M. J. McNulty, subject: Crystal River Nuclear Plant:

Alleged Coverup of ruel Handling Incident - (Case No. 2 l 033/RII-96-A-0177) (1 page)

  • ' s as: POIA-FT-313 AP9W BII B twunsusTS EdtTMS adurmam IN gearra WTrasTT (comM wt M M MTFTItM
40. 12/1/04 mahibit 11 to 202 2-94-036: Transcript of Investigative Interview of Individual. (19 pages) 11, 2/15/95 zahibit 15 to ROI 2-94-036 - Report of Interview with Individual. (1 page)
12. 11/30/95 r.shibit 15 to ROI 2-94-036s - Investigative Transcript of Individual. (36 pages)
13. 1/16/y6 Bahibit 19 to RoI 2-94-0365 - Memorandum to W. J. McNulty from A. P. Gibson, subject: Violations of Procedures Concerning Mateup Tant Pressure at Crystal River NucIwar.

(1 page)

14. 2/5/96 Heno from A. Gibson to L. Reyes, subject Hemo tron Curt Rapp. (1 page)
15. 3/4/96 Meno from C. Rapp to J. Johnson, subject Differing Professional View. (1 page)

-16. 2/26/96 Memo from A. Gibson to L. Reyes, subject: Homo frce Curt Rapp. (1 page)

17. 4/12/96 Memo from S. Ebneter to C. Rapp, subject: Differing Professional View. (52 pages)
18. 1/24/96 Exhibit 11 to ROI 2-95-020: Letter from Morris Weinberg to J. Vorse and J. Dockery. (8 pages) l l

( .

Re FOIA-97-313-4 '

-APPENDIX C.- _

RECORDS ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE PDR '

l --

ACCESSION

&- DATE NUMBER DESCRIPTION /(PAGE COUNT) 1, 05/24/95 9610030015 Investigation Rept 2-94-036 (Cate) (24 pp) -

960524

2. 02/13/96 9610030044 Investigation Rept 2-94-036S ,

(Date). (9 pp) 960918 4

i 4

4 9

t 1-I l

l' i

1 j  :

i i

._.m

.- WINSTON & STRAWN 36 wtat wAcuta OnwE 1400 L STREET. N W s. mut Du cmouc

- CHecAco, wNois aosoi oros 7600s mRis. NNCE WASHINGTON. DC 20005-0502 200 man AVENur (202) 371 6700 -

43. Rut N m NEW YORK, WY 101M-4193 1204 OENEVA. SWITZERLAND uc m . .,, grPAREQUEST 4f9 TI2

'd: 2W ~

- 2-August 14,1997 WCPIO: .-

Mr. Russell A. Powell Chief, Freedom ofInformation Oflice U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738 RE: FO'lA Request

Dear M.. Poweli:

Pursuant to the Freedom ofInformation Act (5 U.S.C. Q552) and to the Nuclear Regulatory f Commission's (NRC) policies and regulations (10 C.F.R. Part 9, Subpan A), I am requesting copics of all'.he records released in response to FOIA requests PA-97-208, PA-97-217, and PA-97-221.

I would appreciate your prompt response within ten (10) working days of the receipt of this request, as provided by 10 C.F.R. Part 9 and the NRC's policies. In addition, I reuest that the response to this request be sent to me only, rather than to the NRC's Public Document Room.

. Sincerely,

. 8 Jean Liaw Legal Assistant wwwm l

L 1

1 l W \, %,c \\-\

-- , r

F1 -

.s...

~ ~

y 6> U FLORIDA POWER col=3Hik

,,, 'b-

~ ~ . 5 May 5, 1995 Upg 3F0595-13 F Mr. Stewart Ebneter Regional Administrator. Region 11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323

Reference:

A. NRC to FPC letter, 3N1194-02, dated November 4, 1994

8. FPC to NRC letter, 3F1294 o9, dated December 2, 1994

Subject:

Unresolved item 94-22-01. Makeue Tank Ooeration

Dear Mr. Ebneter:

This letter supplements our letter of December 2.1994 (Reference B) by providing additional information from our continuing review of unresolved item 94-22 01, makeup tank (MUT) operation. This additional information includes FPC's corrective actior.s to resolve ths issue and further disciplinary action takaa against the responsible Shift Supervisor and Assistant Shift Supervisor.

As you know, this matter has been the subject of an investigation by the NRC's Office of Investigations (01). The focus of that investigation, as we understand it, is whether the actions of an FPC operating shift at Crystal River Unit 3, in conducting an unauthorizac evolution on the MUT on September 5,1994, constituted a willful violation of procedural requirements. FPC takes any NRC concern in this regard very seriously. We have therefore reviewed the events of September 5,1994, from the perspective of whether a willful violatica occurred.

As explained in more detail below FPC in no way condones the actions of the Shift Supervisor and Assistent Shift Supervisor. FPC has taken appropriate disciplinary action with regard to the responsible individuals, which we believe to be adecuate in light of all the circumstances, including their overall performance records. Based upon our review, however, we do not believe that the individuals' actions rose to the level of deliberate misconduct, The were motivated by a desire to obtain data to support a legitimate technfcll concern with the validity of the MUT operating curve, Moreover, they did not understand at the time that the curve reflected des casts limits.

EXHlBIT O 2;95 -

020 -

cammansem _OF $ PAGE(S) meew.ronsessaramarr camenena euemeePAGE 2 * * - W W " "* SS " *

% m ~. icc nm w h -

[:dv 4// - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ -

/ b. S. Nuclear RegulEory Comissien 3f0595 13 Page 2 Under these circumstances, TPC does not believe' that any purpose would be served by NRC enforcement action against the kdividual A. We are also concerned with the message that such an action might sand. FPC management

, has worked hard to instill a questioning attitude among the workforce at Crystal River. Further action against the personnel involved could have the unintended effect of discouraging others from pursuing legitimate cencarns.

Additional Cerrective Actions in addition to the steps described in our December 2,1994 letter, FPC has taken the following corrective actionst

1. The Shift Supervisor and the Assistant Shift supervisor were removed from licensed duties and reassigned within the Operations Department. Their current M is involve procedures development and other operational support hm where their SR0 experience is helpful. FPC has no intent to place th's individuals back on shift at this time. FPC will consult with the NRC before returning either individual to shift duties.
2. FPC has established a detailed follow.on action plan to resolve in a comprehensive fashion, the complex technical issues associated with makeup tank operation and the borated water storage tank / reactor building sump level. The action plan includes further validation of OP.1038,

, Curve 8, to ensure the correct operating region and alarm values.

If any FPC licensed personnel had willfully violated operating procedures, FpC would not hesitate to take even stronger action, including discharge of the persons responsible. Our further review of thl: matter has confirmed our conviction that although the Shift's actions in conducting an unauthorized evolution were unscceptable and warranted strong discipline, the individuals did not engage in deliberate misconduct.

Conclusions p.eaardine Deliberate M4cenduct The facts surrounding the unauthorized evolution on the HUT are summarized in our December 2,1994, letter and the NRC's Inspection Report (Reference A1 We provide here a sunwary of the factors that reflect the stata of mind of the individuals involved. If the NRC is aware of any evidence of wrongful intant, please notify FPC so that we can take appropriate action.

  • In brief, on May 10, 1994, during the refueling outage at CR-3, the Shift Supervisor and Assistant Shift Supervisor were in charge of the operating crew that performed Surveillance Procedure (SP)-630, a full flow test for the High Pressure Injection pumps and check valves. While performing SP 630, the operators observec a noticeable decrease in the MUT level, indicating a pcasible stuck open makeup valve, along with cavitation of MUP IC. This condition was documented in Problem Report (PR) 94 0149, dated May 10, 1994. PA 94-0149 noted that, based on comparisons by Operations personnel of the actual drop in MUT level with the maximus Mur overoressure curve in OP 1038 (Curve 8), a curve plotted with the actual data points trended toward the unacceptable region of curve 8. PR 94-0149 further noted that this occurred even though the initial MUT over-pressure level during EP-630 was below the maximum allowable pressure per Curve s.

Mr.95C020 E*d g w y;. W W M rtro S6. 60 M

U.S.NuclearRegulaYoryCommission 3F0595 13 Page 3 e The corrective actions for PR 94 0149 included evaluating the MUT level drop that occurred to determine whether curve 8 was acceptable. The evaluatien performed by System Engineering (Nuclear Plant Technical Support)concludedasfollows:

The decreasing change between the plotted curve and OP 103B, Curve 1 8 appears to be mainly due to the fact that both curves are converging on Zero psig. Based on this evaluation, it does not appear the plotted curve would have enterer [ sic) the unacceptable region of Curve 8. In add 1 tion, there is conservatisa built into Curve a to ensure that instrument error, for example, could not create an excessive overpressure condition.- [ emphasis added)

. These conclusions were also documented in a memorandum frorn Nucisar Plant Technical Support, dated September 2,1994. A copy of the memorandum was proviJed to the Shift Supervisor and Assistant Shift Supervisor, for the purpose of determining whether they had any adoitional concerns or questions before the issue was closed.

e The Shift Supervisor and Assistant Shift Supervisor have indicated that they did not have enough information to know whether they still should be concerned with the NUT overpressure / level curve. Accordingly, on September 5,1994, they conducted the evolution (described in FPC's

. letter of December 2,1994) to gather additional data by measur.ing the system response as NUT level was lowered. In carrying out this evolution, the Shift Supervisor and Assistant Shift Supervisor have indicated that they followed the operating procedure for the Mu system (0P-402) and initially placed the system on the operating curve limit (i.e., not in violation of the curve). They expressly decided not to take the MUT level below the clearly stated low level limit of 55 inches.

As the MUT 1evel was reduced, they took data on the system response.

Soon after the evolution began, the overpressure drif ted into the unacceptable operating region with respect to MUT level. The crew failed to terminate the evolution at that point or otherwise take appropriate action. The evolution did, however. lead to engineering confirming that the operating curve was inaccurate and nonconservative. The shift reported this discrepancy to their management and initiated a Problem Report (PR 940267).

The NRC's Enforcement Policy,10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C, Section VIII, states that enforcement actions involving individuals are "significant personnel actions which will be closely controlled and judiciously applied.' ,

According to Section VIII of the Enforcement Policy, enforcement actions against an individual are reserved for "(m)cre serious violations. including those involving the integrity of an individual (e.g., lying to the NAC).

Application of this policy is reflected in the following cases involving unauthorized actions by operators, where the NRC has imposed individual enforcement sanctions: igg David Tano Wee, IA 94 06 (b94) (NRC prohibited SR0 frost engaging in licensed activities for three years following celiberate 2;95L020

d ma mn ma m uamre r.s, so Aisa 4

. _ , _ _ . _ ~ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _

i .

j. y' U.S.NuclearRegulYoryCommission 3F0595 13 Page 4

-cover up of mispositioned control rod incidsnt)1 Robert L Dickhareer, EA 90 - -l 31 (1990) ana Commonwealth Edisos Co.

Unit 1). EA 90 32 (1990) (NRC issued (Quad.

orders Cities Nuc) suspending ear of license Power fuel Station,.

handling SR0 and modifying the -license for Quad cities where the

individualengaged in manipulations to make up for an error in the placement
of a fuel assembly): see 'also- GPfl Nue' ear Ce ro. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), EA 87185 (19891 and M fred r , Geaudreau. Jr. , EA 88 224 (1989)(NRCissuedviolationstobotilicenseeanocontrolroomoperatorfor operator's deliberate destruction of alam tape documenting safety limit violation): PEco Enerov (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station), EA 93190 (1994)

(NRC cautiona, licenses that future deliberate violations of procedures governing entry into high radiation areas would result in enforcement action

, against both licenses and individuals involved).

However, in cases not involving deliberate intent to violate regulations or ,

)rocedures, the NRC has found forceful.cisciplinary action by the licensu to  !

l :e sufficient, and has not pursued enforcement action against the  !

individuals involved.. SAR Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Care. (Vermont Yankee
EA 83-34 1983)

Nuclear-duties the Power senior contro Station),l room opera (tor and shift supervisor on duty whern a(lice l technician caused violation of 1.C0 requiring secondary containment integrity during movement of irradiated fuel in spent fuel pool); Carolien - Power &  :

Liaht do. (H.B. Robinson Plant): EA 84-13 (1984) licensee suspended without J

. pay a iconsed operator and shift foreman who fail (ed to follow procedures for l work in high radiation area).

Ertanuatino Factors Although the Shift's actions in conducting the evolution without proper authority were clearly inappropriate, two extenuating factors should be noted. First, the evolution was conducted for the purpose of gathering data to determine whether a technical concern with Curve 8 existed. This ras not a case of a failure te follow procedures motivated by improper or wrongful intent. Second, the Shift Supervisor and Assistant Shift Supervisor did not realize that the operating curve was a design basis limit. They believed i that the curve effectively established administrative limits, as had been

! indicated in the September 2,1994,- memorandum in which Engineering had concluded that Curve a was Maccurate and reascnably conservative ' In fact, only after further design basis evaluation did FPC conclude that operation in the unacceptable region of the curve constituted operatian outside the design basis of the system (see Atcachment 6 of our December 2,1994 letter).

This was also not a case where en operator knowingly failed to follow an explicit procedural step or other requirement, or disregarded the advice of other control room personnel that his action was inconsistent with procedures. The Shift Supervieor and Assistant Shift Supervisor referred to-OP 402 and maintained the MUT level within the normal operating limits of 55

-to 86 inches. In addition, they have also indicated that they were not sure that Curve 8 (of OP 1038) applied during this evolution since it is only referenced in the portion of OP 402 governing venting and hydrogen addition (section4.20). These factors do not excuse the curators' failure to act in a timely manner once the' system response drifted < nto the unacceptable range of Curve 8. However, this case should be distinguished from one where 1: 9 5 0 2 fe'"irement.t"'k qu 'ffir"ettve action that vtalated an explicts procedural W J.d32 wm - nria e u uarire m sa wu l~ - -. - --

v v

.' U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coenission 3F0595 13 Page 5 Sumary We reiterate that FPC in no way condones the actions of the shift in conducting an unauthorized evolution on the MUT. Such an action is

. incompatible with good operating principles and management's expectations.

Nevertheless, FPC remains concerned with the negative Imonet of further NRC enforcement sanctions against the individual Shift Supervisor and Assistant Shift Supervisor in the absence of deliberate misconduct and in view of FPC prior disciplinary actions . Based upon the facts of this case, therefore.

FFC does not believe enforcement action against the individual operators is warranted (e.g., for a violation of the NRC's deliberate misconduct rule in 10 C.F.R. I 50.5).

Sincerely, P. M. eard, Jr.

Senior Vice President Nuclear Operations PMB ff xc Docua nt control Desk

. Office of Investigations Chief, Branch 2, Region !!

Senior Resident inspector NRR Project Manager l

2 -95'-020 L >

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20203B362&oldid=3332760"