ML17347B538

Requests NRC Actions,Including Immediate Investigation of Recent Trips at Plant to Determine Root Cause of Events & Imposition of Escalated Civil Penalty in Trips Due to Poor Maint Practices or Incorrect Operations,Per 10CFR2.206 & 2

ML17347B538
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	12/29/1989
From:	Saporito T NUCLEAR ENERGY ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML17347B536	List: ML17347B538
References
2.206, NUDOCS 9001300489
Download: ML17347B538 (7)

Text

WAAR 8 NUCLEAR ENERGY ACCOUNTABILITYPROJECT 1202 Sioux Street ~ Jupiter, Florida 33458 ~ (407) 743-0770 Environmental Protection ~ Involvement ~ Litigation ~ Information o ~O

~<alin<'xecutive Director of Operations December 29, 1989 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Turkey Point Docket Nos: 50-250 and 50-251

Dear Sir:

Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 2 Appendix C Section V.B.7, and 10 CFR 2.206, we request action by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as delineated below:

S ecific Re uest:

Immediately investigate the recent trips of the Turkey Point nuclear units 3 and 4 on or about Christmas to determine the root cause of the events.

2. If the NRC investigation reveals off-line due to poor maintenance practices or incorrect that the reactors tripped operations of the plants, then we request that an escalated civil penalty be imposed on the licensee.

3 ~ If the investigation reveals that these reactor trips could have been prevented through correct maintenance practices or proper operation of the plant, then we request the immediate suspension of operating licenses DPR-31 and DPR-41.

Basis and Justification:

Reasonable assurance for the continued safe operation of the Turkey Point units 3 and 4 does not exist due to- the loss of administrative controls and significant plant events resulting in reactor trips which evidence deficiencies in the licensee's programmatic overall maintenance of the physical plants.

Reasonable assurance for the continued safe operation of the Turkey Point units 3 and 4 does not exist because the licensee has failed to establish a satisfactory operator training program which meets the NRC criteria of such a program. Indeed, 50X of the licensee's reactor operators at Turkey Point failed a NRC administered requalification exam in March 1989.

In the interest for public safety and the protection of the environment as a whole, the NRC must not hesitate to act responsibly as they are mandated to ensure safe commercial nuclear power.

5'002300'R o04SS 500L23 Sincerely, ADOCy 0g000$

PDC ~

cc: Stewart Ebneter, ADM. Thomas J. Saporito, Jr. ~

II

~

USNRC Region Executive Director, NEAP

~

~ v a ~ M1a P

Docket No.

(10 C.F.R. 5 2.206)

Mr. Thomas J. Saporito 1202 Sioux Street Jupiter, Florida 33458

Dear Mr. Saporito:

This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your Petition dated December 29, 1989, requesting that the Commission take action with regard to Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. Specifically, you request that the NRC immediately investigate and determine the root cause of reactor trips which you allege occurred on or about December 25, 1989, at Turkey Point Units 3 and 4; impose an escalated civi 1 penalty on the licensee if the investigation reveals that the reactors tripped off-line due to poor maintenance practice or incorrect operations of the plants; and immediately suspend the operating licenses for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 if the investigation reveals that these reactor trips could have been prevented through correct maintenance practices and proper operation.

You allege, as bases for these requests, that reasonable assurance for the continued safe operation of Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 does not exist because of loss of administrative controls and significant plant events resulting in reactor trips, which evidence deficiencies in the overall maintenance of the plants; and because the licensee has failed to establish a satisfactory operator training program.

Your Petition has been referred to me pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. As provided by section 2.206, action will be taken on your request within a reasonable time. However, a preliminary review of the concerns in your Petition does not indicate any need to take immediate action as you request because [STAFF: PROVIDE BASIS FOR THERE BEING NO NEED TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION3. I have enclosed for your informatior a copy of the notice that is being filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.

Sincerely, Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated cc: Florida Power Corporation

[759O-O>]

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C051t4ISSIOW Docket Ho.

FLORIDA PONER CORPORATION (Turkey Point Units 3 and 4)

(License No. )

RECIEPT OF PETITION FOR DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 Notice is hereby given that by Petition dated Decmeber 29, 1989, Thomas J. Saporito, Jr., has requested that the Commission take action with regard to Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. Specifically, Hr. Sapor ito requests that the NRC immediately investigate and determine the root cause of reactor trips which he alleges occurred on or about December 25, 1989, at Turkey Point Units 3 and 4; impose an escalated civil penalty on the licensee if the investigation reveals that the reactors tripped off-line due to poor maintenance practices or incorrect operations of the plants; and immediately suspend the operating licenses for Turkey point Units 3 and 4 if the investigation reveals that these reactor trips could have been prevented through correct maintenance practices or proper operation.

Hr. Saporito alleges, as bases for these requests, that reasonable assurance for the continued safe operation of Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 does not exist because of loss of administrative controls and significant plant events resulting in reactor trips, which evidence deficiencies in the overall

t n

C maintenance of the plants; and because the licensee has failed to establish a P

satisfactory operator training program.

The request is being treated pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. The request has been referred to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). As provided by section 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this request within a reasonable time.

A copy of the Petition is available for inspection at the Commission's Pub'lic Document Room at 2120 L. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555 Dated Rockville, Maryland this day of 1990.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COh1t1ISSION Thomas E. Hurley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation