ML20246N215
| ML20246N215 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1989 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Saporito T AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17347B178 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#389-8908 2.206, DD-89-05, NUDOCS 8907190318 | |
| Download: ML20246N215 (3) | |
Text
,
f[
UNITED STATES nD T
/
F ') 3.m/((g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
4 g/
E WASHING TON, 0. C. 205S5 j
j If['JUL 14198 July 12, 1989 p
o
.s o j
y tocxttma r.
A BEftvrCr; m.t;ca cECY nRO W
Mr. Thomas J. Saporito, Jr.
1202 Sioux Street i
l Jupiter, Florida 33458 Rar Mr. Saporito:
This letter is in response to your submittal of a request for action by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with regard to Turkey Point Nuclear Station that was filed on December 21, 1988, and supplemented b.y letters of January 13 i
and 30, February 7, and April 25 and 26,1989. These submittals are referred to hereafter as the Petition.
In the Petition, you allege that the Turkey Point plant has continuously dem-onstrated poor maintenance, poor leadership, poor quality improvement, unprofessional operator behavior, and the inability of management to resolve these concerns.
In addition, you allege procedural deficiencies, poor training, discrimination against and harassment of ' employees that resulted in a severe chilling effect on reporting safety concerns, and the willful falsification and destruction of safety-related plant documents.
In the Petition, you request that the Florida Power & Light Company (the licensee) not be permitted to bring the Turkey Point Unit 3 and Unit 4 reactors critical until the licensee completes an internal safety investigation and the NRC completes a safety investigation relating to the concerns contained in the report of December 5,1988, that you filed with the NRC Region II office.
You further request that the operating licenses for Units 3 and 4 be imediately suspended and revoked, that an escalated civil penalty be imposed on the licensee for discrimination and harassment, and that an Order be issued outlining steps to be taken to correct problems.
In letters dated January 30, March 6, and April 14, 1989, I informed you that the Petition had been referred to my office for consideration pursuant to 10 CFR 92.206, that a preliminary review of the concerns filed under 10 CFR 52.206 indicated no imediate need to keep the Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 shut down, and that a formal decision would be issued in the reasonably near future.
The NRC is also concerned that performance has not met expectations. We believe a more effective implementation of the Turkey Point improvement program is needed by the site and by senior management. Additional management attention is necessary in order to attain an accelerated rate of improvement.
The Florida Power & Light Company was notified of this concern in a letter from V. Stello, Jr. to J. J. Hudiburg dated May 26, 1989.
However, for the
/
%ph e
DSO9-l
Mr. Thamas J. Saporito, Jr. July 12, 1989 reasons set forth in the enclosed Partial Director's Decision under 10 CFR
$2.206, with the exception of two issues raised in the petition, your request has been denied. Those two issues, which involve (1) a chilling effect on reporting safety concerns as a result of discrimination and harassment, and (2) the falsification and destruction of documents, are still under investigation.
When the investigation is complete, the NRC will determine whether any action is appropriate with regard to these two issues.
In your April 26 submittal, you express concern regarding what you believe is the. failure of NRC headquarters to take appropriate enforcement action and request a meeting regarding this concern.
As you are aware this matter is under investigation by the Office of the Inspector General for whatever action is deemed appropriate.
A copy of the Partial Director's Decision will be referred to the Secretary for the Comission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 62.206.
For your information, I also have enclosed a copy of the notice regarding this Partial Director's Decision, which has been filed with the Office of the Federal 4
Register for publication.
Sincerely, Thomas E. Nurley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
- 1. Partial Director's Decision 89-05
- 2. Federal Register Notice cc w/ enclosures:
See next page Licensee l
1 I
i f
o
_Em
A s.
p-Mr. Thomas J. Saporito, Jr.
Turkey Point Plant cc:
Harold F. Reis Esquire Administrator I ewman and Holtzinger, P.C.
Department of Environmental 1615 L Street, N.W.
Regulation Washington, DC 20036 Power Plant Siting Section State of Florida Mr. Jack Shreve 2600 Blair Stone Road Office of the Public Cor nsel Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Room 4, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Regional Administrator, Region-II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John T. Butler, Esquire Suite 2900 Steel, Hector and Davis 101 Marietta Street 4000 Southeast Financia1 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Center Miami, Florida 33131-3398 Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Mr. Ken N. Harris, Vir a President The Capitol Turkey Point Nuclear blant Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Florida Power and Li'sht Company P.O. Box 029100 Plant Manager Miami, Florida 33102 Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Florida Power and Light Company P.O. Box 029100 County Manager of Metropolitan Miami, Florida 33102 1
Dade County 111 NW 1st Street, 29th Ficor Mr. C. O. Woody Miami, Florida 33128 Acting Senior Vice Prenident-liuclear Nuclear Energy Department Resident Inspector Florida Power and Light Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 14000 Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420 Post Office Box 57-1185 Miami, Florida 33257-1185 Mr. Jacob Daniel Nash Office of Radiation Control l
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Intergovernmental Coordination 1
and Review Office of Planning & Budget Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 1
p o
DD-89-05 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!911SSION
/
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION d UOL l O90 DE r
Thomas E. Murley, Director lZ 00% g s %u[wca[b; a
In the Matter of
)
AMD Docket Nos. 50 230 ~R V 1
FLORIDA POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY and 50-251 (Turkey Point Nuclear Station, Units 3 and 4)
PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 INTR 000CTI0f!
On Decenber 21, 1988, Thomas J. Saporito, Jr., submitted a request pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 that the NRC take certaid actions with regard to the Turkey Point Nuclear Station, Units 3 and 4.
The request of Decemb=r 21, 1988, was sup-plemented by five later submittals dated January 13 and 30, February 7, April 25 and 26, 1989. These six documents were referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for consideration pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206. The documents will be jointly referred to herein as the Petition.
The Petition requests the NRC to (1) keep Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 shut down until Florida Power & Light Company (FPL, the licensee) completes an internal safety investigation and the NRC completes an investigation of allegations provided by Mr. Seporito to the NRC Region II office on Decenter 5,1988; (2) immediately suspend and revoke the operating licenses for Units 3 and 4; (3) issue a notice of violation and impose an escalated civil penalty on the licensee because of discrimination and harassment, and (4) innediately issue an order outlining the steps to be taken to correct problems with security, operations, maintenance, plant equipment, and employee / operator training deficiencies.
16 49p9 paw g
.. As a basis for his requests, the petitioner makes numerous assertions.
Broadly summarized, these are that the licensee has demonstrated and/or experienced: (1) pocr maintenance,,(2) poor leadership, (3) poor " quality improvement,"I (4) unprofessional operator behavior, (5) poor training, (6) procedural deficiencies, and (7) security problems. Mr. Saporito also cites a severe chilling effect on reporting safety concerns as a result of discrimination against and harassment of employees, the willful falsification and destruction of safety-related plant documents, and the licensee's inability to address and resolve these problems effectively.
In addition to the Petition, numerous additional letters were submitted by Mr. Saporito which urged the NRC to implement the requests in his Petition.
In support of his assertions, Mr. Saporito refers to numerous documents that, in his view, have identified problems with the facility.
Many of these documents are simply listed withcut further explanation as to the concerns these documents have identified. To the extent that Mr. Saporito has stated his purpose for citing these documents, the staff has factored the information provided into this Decision. However, to the extent that Mr. Saporito has not provided the factual basis for his request with the specificity required by 10 CFR 52.206, action need not be taken with regard to the alleged findings of these documents. See, e.g., Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), DD-85-11, 22 NRC 149,154 (1985).
I I Mr. Saporito does not explain what h9 means by " quality improvement." For the purpose of this Decision, the staff has interpreted this term to i
encompass Mr. Saporito's claims regarding the licensee's quality assurance and assertions that the licensee has failed to correct long-standing problems in its program, which has resulted in a generally poor enforcement history.
F.-
1 p
l
. By letter dated January 30, 1989, I acknowledged receipt of Mr. Saporito's Petition.
In that letter, I explained that a preliminary review of the concerns raised in the Petition did not indi,cate any ittinediate need to keep the Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 shut down, since the concerns did not identify any new information that was not already being addressed by the licensee and the staff, or of which the staff was not aware. A notice was published in the Federal Register on February 6,1989 (54 FR 5708) indicating that the Petitioner's request was under consideration.2 By letter dated February 1,1989, the licensee was asked to respond to the Petition.
In its response, dated March 15, 1989, r
the licensee stated that, for the most part, the items referred to in statements made by Mr. Saporito involved information already addressed by the NRC and FPL, do nut raise any safety concerns, are so vague as to preclude meaningful response, or are demonstrably untrue, and that the relief requested in the Petition should be denied.
With the exception of two issues raised in the Petition, the NRC staff review of the Petition is now complete. Those two issues, which were also submitted as allegations to the Region II office, are still under investigation and allege that there has been (1) a chilling effect on reporting safety concerns as a result of discrimination and harassment and (2) a willful falsification and 2 A letter to Thomas J. Saporito, Jr., from Thomas E. Hurley, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation dated April 14, 1989, acknowledged receipt of additional submittals by Mr. Saporito.
In that letter, Mr. Saporito was informed that the NRC wculd not separately acknowledge receipt of any future letters he might submit regarding suspension / revocation of the Turkey Point licenses.
F W-
' E
~
yh..
1'
.m m.
l....
b
. destruction of safety-related documents. When the investigation is complete, H
l the' NRC will determine whether any action is appropriate to take with regard'to.
these two issues. With regard to the remaining issues raised by. the Petitioner,
.for reasons stated.in this partial decision, the Petitioner's requests hre denied.
m l
BACKGROUND The NRC staff has been concerned about the performance of the Turkey Point plant for'a number of years. This has been evidenced by an increasing number-
.8 (and magnitude)lof civil penalties that peaked in 1986 and 1987, issuance of-several NRC' orders for specific inproveme,nts, below-average ratings and identi-fication of areas. needing improvement in the.NRC tystematic assessments of i
licensee performance (SALPs), a high level of HRC inspection' effort', and the inclusion of Tu' key Point on the NRC list of plants to be monitored more closely.
r Over the years the NRC staff has identified and documented specific-issues of i
concern.
For example, the most recent SALP report identified maintenance and operations as areas needing improvement.
In two of the three most recent SALP reports, training has been rated below average.
In the confirmatory order issued by the NRC on October 19, 1987, management concerns were identified and an independent management appraisal was ordered. Also, in that confirmatory order, the operator professionalism issue was recognized and a managenent-on-shift (MOS) program was ordered. The need for improved plant procedures was recognized in a confirmatory order dated July 13, 1984, ar.d the licensee initiated a broad-scoped 4
' 4
!., procedures upgrade program. A subsequent confirmatory order dated August 12,
- 1986,.was issued, superseding the order of July 13, 1984, to expand the scope of requirements to include certain other items.
In response to these concerns, the li.;ensee has made many improvements.
In the past few years, several hundred million dollars worth of improved
' facilities and equipment have been added at Turkey Point, such as a new maintenance facility, a new training building with a plant-specific simulator, and new steam generators. The licensee is currently in the process of adding two new safety-related emergency electric power generators, a major safety enhancement, at an additional cost of about 80 million dollars. Reliability of equipment has been enhanced by adding many preventive maintenance and surveillance procedures for plent equipment. Extensive changes in management have been made, bringing in new experienced personnel in key positions and adopting an improved management philosophy.
In 1988, the plant set site records for continuous operation, with no major operational events. The nunber and magnitude of civil penalties also has decreased markedly since 1987.
Although the improvements noted above have been.made, and I believe the plant to be safer today than before the improvements were made, the NRC is still dissatisfied with Turkey Point's performance. The many program, management and hardware changes implemented at Turkey Point have not resulted in plant perfor-mance on a par with NRC expectations. We intend to continue to monitor the operation of the plant closely until it is clear that the plant is operating well and can be expected to continue to do so, On Decenber 5,1988, Mr. Saporito provided the NRC Region II office with a number of allegations that he refers to in support of his subsequent requests.
Nearly all of these allegations were referred to the licensee in a letter from l
1..
. the NRC staff dated January 6,.1989. The licensee responded to these allegations in a letter. dated February 24, 1989. An NRC special inspection was conducted to follow up on these allegations.. The inspection team t'eviewed the licensee's response in conjunction with the followup. inspection of the allegations. Although 43 of the allegations were substantiated, the inspection team concluded that the allegations raised no new safety issues that had not been previously addressed. See inspection report 50-250/89-13 and 50-251/89-13 dated May 8, 1989.
Sub:cquently, on March 3 and 15,1989, a second group of maintenance--
related allegations was provided to the NRC Region II office by Mr. Saporito.
These were very similar in substance to the earlier maintenance-related alle-
- ctions. These allegations were sent to the licensee for response on April 12, 1989. The NRC staff has reviewed these allegations and has concluded that'the second group of allegations had little safety significance and will notify Mr. Saporito of our findings on them under separate cover.
DISCUSSION For the purposes of the discussion below, the Pt.titioner's major areas of concern (which were describec earlier in the introduction to this decision) have been separated into three categories:
(1)poormaintenance, leadership, quality improvement, unprofessional behavior, and inability of management to resolve these problems; (2) procedural deficiencies and poor training; and (3) poor security.
As noted above, the two remaining issues, relating to a chilling effect on reporting safety concerns as a result of discrimination and harassnient and willful falsification of documents, are still under investigation.
t
a
- 6 (1) Poor Maintenance, Leadership, Quality Improvement, Unprofessional Behavior, il and Inability of Management to Resolve Problems The Petitioner alleges that Turkey Point Station has demonstrated poor.
maintenance practices, poor leadership, poor " quality improvement" (i.e., poor quality control and a poor enforcement history), unprofessional operator behavior, and a lack of suitable management expertise to properly address and resolve these concerns.
In support of these assertions, the Petitioner refers to the Enercon Services Inc. report, which was an independent management appraisal that identified five root causes of performance deficiencies to be inadequate i,
leadership, inadequate sense of personal accountability, lack of sufficient technical support, inadequacies in key sypport systems, and a lack of a strong sen5.e of leadership in the operations department, which in his view fails to
" demand excellence" from other departments. The Petitioner also refers to the findings of the systematic assessment of licensee performance (SALP) report dated February 7,1985 for the period July 1,1983, through October 31,1984(50-250/
85-01 and 50-251/85-01), and the most recent SALP report dated September 13, 1988 (50-250/88-15;50-251/88-15) for the period June 1,1987, through June 30, 1988, which rated the maintenance area Category 3 and had many adverse findings that the Petitioner lists. The Petitioner also asserts that because of problems, including maintenance, the licensee has been unable to bring Unit 3 on line since 1
early December 1988. Finally, the Petitioner asserts that conduct of maintenance performed on the Unit 3 thimble guide tube assemblies departed from safety-related procedures.
In his view, the licensee's zeal to return these nuclear units to operation resulted in " rush werk" and a severe accident may well have resulted from this maintenance activity.
%f w
,..a With; respect to the. Petitioner's concern about poor maintenance, the NRC' staff.has recognized the need for improvement in this area as evidenced by a-
. low SALP rating in three of the las.t four SALP periods, including the most "
Y recent one. However, a low SALP rating does not mean a plant'is unsafe but that--
the NRC believes. improvements should be made by the licensee. Partly because'of aging plant equipment, a good maintenance program is especially important to ensure a well-run plant.
In bimonthly management meetings with the licensee since 1987, thel NRC staff has continually focused on the need for maintenance improvements. The licensee has added a new maintenance building in 1988, has significantly increased the ratio of preventive maintenance to corrective main-tenance activities over the past year, and has markedly reduced the number of green tags _(signifying maintenance needs) in the control' room. A special NRC maintenance inspection was conducted in Decenber 1988 and Inspection Report 50-250/88-32; 50-251/88-32 was issued on April 4, 1989. This report concluded that a satisfactory maintenance program had been developed, b'ut that its imple-mentation'is poor. An improving trend was noted, ste ming from changes in management's approach to maintenance and from newly instituted' programmatic
. changes. The recent focus at the site on improving the spare parts program, 1
conbined with other improvements in the maintenance program such as management changes in the maintenance organization and a higher level of staffing, should assist in improving the overall reliability of plant equipment. Although a number of maintenance-related allegations were presented to our Region II office by the Petitioner, inspection Report 50-250/89-13; 50-251/89-13 dated May 8, 1989, presented the results of a special inspection of those allegations, which I
indicated that no significant safety concerns were found that would justify shutting down the plant.
y t
9 The Petitioner also cited an instance of maintenance error in performing work on the Unit 3 thimble guide tube assemblies, as noted above, and attributes it to rush work. Our inspection ef, forts indicate the error occurred because of carelessness by a worker. Although the guide tube to be repaired was well r rked, f
and deteils of the repair work to be performed had been discussed with the worker, he proceeded to begin work on the wrong guide tube. The mistake was considered to result from an unacceptable implementation of work controls, and the worker i
was dismissed from employment by the licensee.
With respect to Petitioner's concerns about unprofessional operator behavior, this concern was raised by the NRC staff in 1987 and documented in Inspection Report 50-250/87-44; 50-251/87-44, dated December 9, 1987. Although unprofessional behavior was found not to be pervasive at the site, there were isolated instances identified and reported in the inspection report. One such instance involved an unlicensed person manipulating a control under the super-vision of a licensed operator, in violation of NRC regulations. This event was identified by the licensee, although the licensee did not respond with action in
{
l a timely manner. The NRC responded with high level discussions with the licensee
)
I which resulted in NRC conducting continuous control room observations over an
]
extended period. Since that concern was raised, the licensee has appointed a l
new Plant Manager, a new Operations Superintendent, and several new operations j
shift supervisors.
In addition, a nurtier of newly-trained operators have been added, while some previous operators have been removed from on-shift duty. As a result the NRC staff believes the quality of the operations staff has improved.
A new guidance document for professional behavior was prepared for control room operators and comitted to by them. Control room operators have begun wearing uniforms in an effort to establish pride in their position and teamwork.
As l
E. _
r
)
part of the confirmatory order of October 19, 1987, a management-on-shift (M0S) program was implemented.in late 1987 to monitor operations. This program was conceived by the licensee and included a nunber of independent managers and personnel, experienced in control room operations, who served on shift in a monitoring capacity.
Because of the operational improvements already imple-mented and under way, the NRC granted approval for the licensee to terminate the MOS program on January 20, 1989.
With respect to the Petitioner's concerns about management issues, such as poor leadership, poor quality improvement, and the inability of management to address and resolve concerns, the NRC staff recognized the need for improved management at Turkey Point several years ago.
In its confirmatory order dated October 19, 1987, the NRC staff confirmed the licensee's comitment to cooperate in an independent management appraisal (IMA) of the licensee's corporate and Turkey Point organizations. This appraisal was carried out by Enercon Services Inc. and issued as a report dated April 18, 1988. The issues noted above were
]
1 identified in the IMA along with numerous recommendations. The licensee's formal response to the IMA was dated August 15, 1988.
However, actions to deal with the management preblems began earlier. Widespread management changes were made throughout the organization at corporate headquarters and at the Turkey Point site, bringing in new leadership from outside the licensee's organization in several important positions, including a new site Vice President in mid-1987, a new Operations Superintendent in October 1987, a new Senior Vice President-Nuclear in January 1988, a new Plant Manager in May 1988, and'a new site Vice President in May 1989. Also, in early 1989, a new Maintenance Superintendent and a new Security Director were appointed.
In the licensee's response to the j
i j
l
A IMA, numerous actions were identified to address and resolve the issues iden-tified'in the IMA. Many of these actions have already been. implemented, while some are ongoing, including settincy goals and communicating them to employees, defining job requirements and matching them with skilled people, and establishing performance measures.. Quality improvement information, such as trends in radia-tion exposures and plant performance indicators, is updated on a monthly basis and provided to top management.
The NRC staff is continuing to monitor the licensee's implementation of the numerous IMA recommendations. We believe the IMA effort and the licensee's response so far have resulted in some performance improvements. For example, both units have operated in 1988 with few problems, the nunber and severity of civil penalties has decreased significantly from the high levels of 1986 and 1987, and an improved and more professional attitude can be seen at the site,-
t especially in operations. There are still problems to be overcome at the plant,
)
i but progress has been and is being made.
f 1
(2) Procedural Deficiencies and Poor Training The Petitioner raises concerns with regard to the training of personnel and with procedures. He claims that these problems also have been part of the reasoil that the licensee has been unable to bring Unit 3 on line since early l
December 1988.
In support of his allegations in these areas, he refers to NRC Inspection Report 50-250/85-32; 50-251/85-32. This report had indicated that i
there were no administrative controls or technical specification requirements in place to ensure the availability of the non-safety grade standby feedwater system. The report further stated that, with regard to the safety-related i
I i
. nitrogen system, it cannot be assumed that control room operators would shift the flow control valves from automatic to manual mode within 6-7 minutes following an accident because (1) s,ome operators were trained to assume that they had 15 to 20 minutes to take action, and (2) applicable emergency procedures did not include requirements for the operators to shift the flow control valves to manual. The Petitioner also asserts that the licensee has a well-documented history involving departures from approved procedures that have resulted in escalated enforcement actions.
With respect to procedural deficiencies, there are two basic reasons for such deficiencies:
(1) the procedures themselves.need improvement, and (2) the procedures are not adhered to strictly. The latter problem is a management /
training issue that is expected to improve as the management and training improvements continue to take effect. The need for improved procedures at Turkey Point was recognized by the NRC staff in the early 1980's. After discussions between NRC and the licensee, the licensee proposed a major performance enhancement program (PEP) in a letter to the NRC Region II office dated April 11, 1984.
In confirmatory orders issued by the Connission on July 13, 1984, and August 12, 1986, the PEP program was made a requirement.
One facet of PEP was a procedures upgrade program.
As part of the procedures upgrade program, a major upgrade was made to j
procedures for technical specification surveillance. Many added surveillance /
procedures were developed to permit operators to more closely monitor the l
performance of their equipment. Already-existing surveillance procedures were 1
revised and improved.
Additional preventive maintenance procedures were added.
The NRC staff believes that this effort produced a significant enhancement to j
J i
9;?
' [} l
') safe plant operation. Other procedural improvements include:
the adoption of the writers guide for procedures prepared by the Ir.stitute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO); the consideration of human factors when developing procedures;
. required walkdowns of new procedures, where appropriate; and the implementation of upgraded emergency operation procedures in response to NRC requirements that were developed after the accident at Three Mile Island. The NRC staff recognizes that significant additional improvements are still needed with respect to procedures at the plant. however, the licensee has made considerable progress, and the procedure upgrade process is an activity expected to continue for the life of a plaat (at all plants) and can proceed while the plart operates.
With respect to training at Turkey Point, a new Training Superintendent, who is experienced in operations, was appointed in mid-1987. The training staff was augmented at that time by about 15 contractor personnel who had previously held senior reactor operator licenses.
In addition, the non-operator training changed from a self-teach program to include classroom instruction. The training staff has now increased to nearly 80 personnel from fewer than 60 in early 1987.
The licensee's increasing recognition of the importance of training has led to larger classes of trainees than existed a few years ago. The addition of a new training facility in late 1986, includir.g a recently added plant-specific simulator, represents an improved training capability and is expected to result in a stronger operational staff over the long term. Even with the improvements noted, the NRC staff believes further near-term progress is needed, especially in the in:plementation of improvements already identified by the licensee. This was evidenced by recent unutisfactory performance on NRC administered requali-fication examinations.
Following these exams, extensive retraining and NRC 6
y monitored re-examination were administered.- The licensee has recently outlined steps which are expected to lead to a. satisfactory training program.
For examole, simulator training will be, increased, emergency plan criteria will be de igned into the-simulator scenario guides, and instructors will be retrained and evaluated. The staff has been closely monitoring the licensee's progress in this area.
With respect to certain findings in Inspection. Report 50-250/85-32;
'50-251/85-32 cited by the Petitioner, these findings were published in 1985 and do not reflect the current state of the plant. Corrective actions were taken years ago. For example, for the non-safety grade standby feedwater system, administrative controls, such as periodic testing and limited allowable outage time for the pumps, have been in place for several years to ensure the avail-ability on demand of this' system. As another example, for the safety-related nitrogen system, the licensee responded on October 1,1986, to an NRC notice of 4
violation. The licensee stated that procedures had been revised and operators trained.for proper shifting of the auxiliary feedwater flow control valves from automatic to manual, This was inspected and closed by the NRC in inspection report 50-250/88-14 and 50-251/88-14 dated July 29, 1988 which found that these items had been satisfactorily resolved.
(3) Poor Security Finally, the Petitioner alleges weaknesses in the licensee's security program, as evidenced by what he describes as a continuing nunber of violations in this area.
In this connection, the Petitioner refers to a number of enforcement actions taken against the licensee, as well as the sal _P report for the period June 1,1987 through June 30, 1988, which assessed the licensee's performance in this area at a Category 3.
I l
4 L
s
. The Petitioner has provided no new information regarding security weaknesses.
Instead he cites various reports issued by the NRC or to the NRC.
These were all considered in our performance assessment process (SALP) and i
1 formed part of the basis for a SALP Category 3 rating in the area of security.
Where significant violations of regulations have occurred, civil penalties have
]
f been imposed to encourage the licensee to improve in specific areas. The licensee has continued to increase its security staff, restructure the manage-ment, and add system improvements. The !!RC is continuing to require further improvements.
However, the security violations cited by the Petitioner do not represent a breakdown of the plant security which poses a significant threat to the public health and safaty, or that would justify shutting down the plant. A plant security system has many redundant and diverse features so that security is not compromised when one feature weakens.
CONCLUSION The Petitioner seeks the suspension and revocation of the operating licerses for the Turkey Point facility pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202.
In addition the Petitioner asks that Units 3 and 4 not be permitted to restart until the licensee and the NRC staff complete investigations of allegations provided to NRC on Decenter 5, 1988. The Petitioner further requests that an escalated civil penalty be imposed upon the licensee for discrimination against and harassment of employees and that NRC immediately issue an order outlining the steps to be taken to correct problems with security, operations, maintenance, plant equipment, and employee / operators training deficiencies.
l
n.
q a
- n.
)
l The institution of proccadings pursuant to 10 CFR $2.202 is appropriate only where subst6ntial. health and safety issues have been raised.
See'Conso-t lidated Edison' Company of New York.(Indian Point,. Units 1, 2 and 3),. CLI-75-8, 2 NRC 173,176 '(1975) and hhington Public Power System (WPPSS Nuclear Project -
No. 2), DD-84-7,19 NRC 8"9,. 923 (1984).
This is the standard that has been applied to determine whether the actions requested in the Petition are warranted, i
For the reasons discussed above, no substantia'l basis was found for taking.
')
the actiont requested in the Petithn.
Rather, based upon the identification and pursuit of concerns by the NRC staff and the progress sod improvements made I
by the licensee.in its efforts to reso~lve these concerts, it is concluded that
-l no' substantial. health and safety issues have been raised by the Petition. -
i Accordingly, the Petitioner's request for action pursuant to 10 CFR 62.202,
-l except for the remaining two open issues, is denied.
As provided in 10 CFR
$2.206(c),.a copy of this decision will be filed with the Secretary for tht!
Commission's review.
When the NRC staff investigation of the issues of e severe chilling effect on reporting safety concerns as a result of discrimination, and harassment and of the willful falsification and destruction of safety-related docume(s is complete, I will further review the Petitioner's 10 CFR 6E.206 request with regard to these two issues and determine whether any action is appropriate.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
\\
4 Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12th day of July 1989.
pp,.
y[
[
W
>~
l ay
_ 7J59 -
UtlITED STATES MUCLEAR PEULATORY COMMISSION f
/g TLOR[DAPOWER&LIGHTCOMPANY pooC1D TUNY POINT PQNT, UNITS 3 'AND 4 O3t ' gDL 1 NN 3N ] f DZ XET N05. 50-250 AND 50-251 NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION g
Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has issued a partial decision concerning a request filed pursuant-to 10 CFR $2.206 by Mr. Thomas J. Saporito, Jr., which asked the NRC to '(1). keep i
Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 shut down until Florida Power & Light Company (the licensee) completes an internal safety investigation and the NRC completes an investigation of the allegations provided by Mr. Saporito to the NRC Region II office on December 5, 1988, (2) immediately suspend and revoke the operating y
licenses for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, (3) issue a notice of violation and impose an escalated civil penalty on the licensee because of discrimination and haras:; ment, and (4) immediately issue an order outlining the steps to be taken to correct problems with security, operations, maintenance, plant equipment, i
and employee / operator training deficiencies.
i The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has determined that, with the exception of two issues raised in the Petition, the Petition should be denied.
These two issus, which involve (1) a chilling effect on reporting safety concerns as a result of discrimination and harassment, and (2) the falsification and destruction of documents, are still under investigation. When 1
the investigation is con 5 ete, the NRC will determine whether any action is 1
appropriate with regard to these two issues. The reasons for this decision are l
l
{
l E_
a
[;;
i
'! ~
]
p<x O l L
L explained in the Partial Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 9?.206, 00-89-05, i
which is available for.public inspection in the Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC and at the Local Public Document Room at the Environmental and Urban Affairs Library, Florida International 4
d University, Miami, Florida.
i A copy 6f the partial decision will be filed with the Secretary for the y
l Commission's ersiew in accordance with 10 CFR 62.206(c). As provided in this 1
regulation, the partial dtcision will constitute the final action of the Commission, except for the remaining two open issues, 25 days after issuance, 4
unless the Connission, on its own motion, institutes review of the partial l
l decision within that time period.
]
Dated at'Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of July 1989.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
Thomas E.11urley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j
4
D ' '/ /
~ * '.
S M f I:
J
^f.
n L
Mr. Victor Stello, Jr.
April ~25, 1989' fr Executive Director for Operations
/s, ((]
!U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission FAXED & Cerfifieds Washington,.D.C. 20555 (P'982 346'224) p RE 10 CRF 2'.206'- Turkey Point Nuclear' Stations Dockets Nos. 50-250/50-251 Operating Licenses DPR k DPR Please. txt fadvised and officially informad as this letter represents
. formal notification' to your office requesting specific actions pursuant to
.10 CRF 2.206L(by your office) as delineated below and appropriately warranted asr elaborated in the basis and justification text of this official petition.
SPECIFIC REQUEST:
Take immediate actions to cause the imposition of an escalated civil penalty.
Take immediate-actions to cause the suspention of operating licenses' q
Take immediate actions to cause an order to your licensee outlining the required steps and measures to be taken within a defined time frame to correct theEnumerous security and safeguards problems.at the plant.
~ BASIS & JUSTIFICATION:
April 21, 1987...(EA 87-040) A civil penalty was proposed for numerous
-examples of access control violations. Tha Sivil canalty was escalatgg-because of orier coor performance and oride notice based on internal recorts of similar oroblemex
' April' 22,.
1987...U.S.
NRC News Release...The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. staff has proposed a
$75,000 civil penalty against the Florida Power Light Company for alleged noncompliance with NRC security requirements at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, located near Homestead. Florida.
The NRC said the action was taken af ter an NRC resident inspector found a
security guard asleep at his post, and a second incident in which a NRC inspector from the agency's Region II office in Atlanta discovered a visitor without an escort in a vital area.
In a
letter to the company, Dr.
J.
Nelson Grace, Administrator of the NRC's Region 11 office in
- Atlanta, said the violations were 'of particular concorn' because reviews of records during subsequent inspections
' confirmed the occurrence of six a d di t i o na.1 instances of security personnel being found asluep and identified eight additional instances-where visitors were discovered without an escort.' Grace called. the company's attention to the repetitious nature of the violations, saying they demonstrate a lapse in management control and indicate an. apparent weakness in the company's employee training for j
. security at Turkey Point.
{
kDO---UU4450 Liff'
~
gg7 p.eyg x.,
-- 3,
- 7.
d
.c l
n..
t
['J (
[
.'^
p W, p
[ t;yj n.....
l' BASIS'L JUSTIFICATION 1:
?
^
- Y p
JK
. June,1 ', 1987 - June 130,: 1988..'.JSALP)- ' Systematic Assessmentiof' Licensee.
'n th6 security program have. continued'to?
Performance... Weaknesses i
n 9 prevail..inLthis!SALPiperiod'as indicated by the number of violations.
w
- Seven violat' ions were1 identified during this~ rating period.
L Severity Level III violation for failure to-maintain positive accesa fcontrol,Hsix; examples:
' failure to adequately control' access to the prot'ected area; failure.to adequately control access to the UnitL4. containment personnel hatch; failure to-adequately control access to the. Unit.3 containment hatch; 4
officer sleeping in defensive tower; failure to adequatelyLcontrol access to the protected area; ann an officer leaving-a vital' area compensatory post without proper' relief.
The violations continue to' be repetitive in nature, involving a failure.cf the guard force,to' implement:
the security program, 1
an inability of security personnel and supervisors
-to recognize violations and a lack of management oversight.
These violations included escalated enforcement in the areas of-access control 4
compensatory measures and the control of Safeguards Information.
-l l
l
_2-
k V e 1.h -
J' 9" f
$I i
SSASIS & JUSTIFICATION:
' June 1, 1987 - June 30, 1989...(SALP) continued'from previous page.
Severity Level -III violationifor failure.to recognize, properly mark.
.and protect Safeguards Information.
Severity Laval;IV violation.for inadequate protected area lighting.
.i Severity yLevel IV violation for* inadequate search of vital area prior i
to revitalization.
Severity Level IV violation for inadequate compensatory measure.
Severity Level IV violation for inadequate protected area-barriers.
Severity Level IV violation for inadequate vital area alarm testing.
8 A L'P RATING.. 3 for the reporting period.
July' 28, 1987...(EA 87-089): a civil penalty'was escalated because of-continued poor performance, and we.emphastred the continuing need for
. increased management involvement in oversight.and control of the security program.
'Febuary 11, 1988.. 4EA.87-179) a civil penalty was proposed for access control violations.
The civil penalty was escalated due to continued poor performance and the. number of violations. In that. letter, we noted that FPL's Security Enhancement ' Program had fallad to adequately address the security problems at Turkey Point.
January 20, 1989...at 4: 00 am a security guard was observed sleeping at her post.
Febuary.
1, 1989...$100,000 Civil Penalty...This violation is nignificent in that it demonstrates a lack of awareness of vital areas and vital area boundaries by the security force and a
lack of management oversight for security force operations. The bhse value of a civil penalty for a
Severity Level III violation is $50,000. The escalation and mitigation factors were considered, and the base civil penalty amount has been increased by 100% due to your continued poor performance in the area of security...you must clearly understand that a
continuation of this level of performance cannot be tolerated...Shoul d additional significant security violations occur, we intend to consider action in addition to civil penalties.
Febuary 6-10, 1989... inspection...The violations described in the enclosed Notice are similar to violations contained in the Notice sent to you by our letter dated Febuary 11, 1988.
Because
'similar violations,'
au described in the NRC Enforcement
- Policy, are of significant concern to the NRC, please give particular attention in your response to the identification of the root cause of these problems and your corrective action to prevent recurrence. We are concerned about :the implementation of your security program that permits these repetitive violations to occur.
April 20, 1989... Licensee notified the NRC of a tower guard sleeping while on duty at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant.
_ 3-
S 9 ; ;,. '
'4:
'A:
BASIS & JUSTIFICATION:
/Because the voluminous inspection
'o' cementation and escalated civil d
penalties for violations i n' the areas of security and safeguards.of which numerous. violations in these areas were repetitive;.
and. because these escalated civ,il penalties have not been a determent
- that your. licensee acknowledges to correct these poor performing areas; and because of the continuing poor performance in the area of security and safeguards; and' because of the investigative security material.which was FAXED to
.your NRC Region II office on 4/25/89 relating to. Turkey Point; l
l I
submit to you.and *he NRC Commissioners that immediate enforcement action' beyond that which the NRC haa (previously exercised in the' form of escalated civil penalties), is justified and warranted as I believe that Ethe Health and Safety of the Public is currently.in jeopardy and will remain in jeopardy until the suspention of the Turkey Point.. ;
Nuclear Plant Operating Licenses DPR-31-& DPR-41 occurs.
J i
CONCLUSIONS:
I-respectfully request a written response pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 and in
- addition, 1
respectfully request my voice to be heard before the
.1 Honorable Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners in that I may apprise the Commissioners of the very grave conditions currently existing at the Turkey Point Nuclear Station.
I Sincerely, s
cci U.S.
President George Bush Thomas J.
Saporito, Jr.
U.S.
Senator John Breaux 1202 Sioux Street Congressman Dante B.
Fascell Jupiter, Florida 33458 Govenor Bob Martinez, F1 (407) 747-8873 U.S.
NRC Region II, Oscar de Miranda l
ALL MEDIA SOURCES 1
1 I
1 _ -. _ _ _ _ - _ -. _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _. -
_ _ _ _. _