ML17347B193: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:4~~UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS MR.VICTOR STELLO, JR.In the Matter of\Florida Power and Light Company Turkey Point Nuclear Station, Units 3 and 4 Docket Nos.: 50-250 50-251 10 CFR 2.206 ANSWER TO PARTIAL DIRECTOR'DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 INTRODUCTION On December 21, 1988, Thomas J.Saporito, Jr, herein referred to as Petitioner, submitted a request pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 to Mr.Victor Stello, Jr., Executive Director of Operations with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)for certain and specif ic actions relevant to operations at the Turkey Point Nuclear Station.Subsequent requests pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 and germane to operations at the Turkey Point Nuclear Station were submitted on January 13, 1989, January 30, 1989, Febuary 7, 1989, March 1, 1989, March 22, 1989, April 25, 1989, April 26, 1989, June 20, 1989, June 22, 1989, July 3, 1989, and July 7, 1989.On January 12, 1989, Mr.Lawrence J.Chandler, Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement with the NRC Office of the General Counsel, submitted a memorandum to Mr.Thomas E.Murley, Director, NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of which the subject matter was Thomas J.Saporito, Jr.2.206 Petition'Regarding Turkey Point Nuclear Station.In his memorandum, Mr.Chandler elaborates on the December 21, 1988 petition outlining the Specific Requests and Basis and Justification.
{{#Wiki_filter:4
Finally, Mr.Chandler makes mention of certain Department of Labor actions wherein Petitioner had involvement with the Florida Power and Light Company (FPL).  
~   ~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS MR. VICTOR STELLO, JR.
In the Matter of                                   Docket Nos.: 50-250
                                \
50-251 Florida   Power and Light Company Turkey Point Nuclear Station,                     10 CFR 2. 206 Units  3 and 4 ANSWER TO PARTIAL DIRECTOR'     DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2. 206 INTRODUCTION On   December   21, 1988, Thomas J. Saporito,   Jr, herein referred to as Petitioner,     submitted a request pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 to Mr.
Victor Stello, Jr., Executive Director of Operations with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for certain and specif ic actions relevant to operations at the Turkey Point Nuclear Station. Subsequent requests pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 and germane to operations at the Turkey Point Nuclear Station were submitted on January 13, 1989, January 30, 1989, Febuary 7, 1989, March 1, 1989, March 22, 1989, April 25, 1989, April 26, 1989, June 20, 1989, June 22, 1989, July 3, 1989, and July 7, 1989.
On   January   12, 1989, Mr. Lawrence J. Chandler,     Assistant General Counsel   for   Enforcement   with the   NRC Office of the General Counsel, submitted a memorandum to Mr. Thomas E. Murley, Director, NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of which the subject matter was Thomas J.
Saporito, Jr. 2.206 Petition 'Regarding Turkey Point Nuclear Station. In his   memorandum,   Mr. Chandler   elaborates   on the   December 21, 1988 petition outlining the Specific Requests and Basis and Justification.
Finally, Mr. Chandler makes mention of certain Department of Labor actions wherein Petitioner had involvement with the Florida Power and Light Company   (FPL).


On January 30, 1989, Mr.Thomas E.Mur 1ey, Director, 0++ice o+Nuclear Reactor Regulation, sent Petitioner a letter acknowledging receipt of petitions+i led on December 21, 1988 and January 13, 1989.Also enclosed with the aforementioned letter, was a RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 dated January 30, 1989, wherein Mr.James H.Sniezek, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, issued a preliminary review which did not indicate an immediate necessit to kee the Turke Point Plant Units 3 and 4 reactors shut down.The basis+or this osition is that the Petitioner's concerns do not identif an new information which is not alread bein addressed b the licensee and the staf+or which we were not alread aware of.On March 6, 1989, Mr.Thomas E.Murley, Director, Office o+Nuclear Reactor Regulation, sent Petitioner a letter acknowledging receipt of Petitioner's requests submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 on January 30, 1989 and Febuary 7, 1989.The letter also stated that Petitioner's 10 CFR 2.206 request of December 21, 1988 was being supplemented by 10 CFR 2.206 requests made on January 13, 1989, January 30~1989, and Febuary 7, 1989.A rel iminar review o+the concerns in su lements 2 and 3 does not indicate an immediate need to sus end and revoke the o eratin licenses of the Turke Point Plant.Our basis+or this+indin is that our su lements have not identified an si ni+icant new information be ond that alread acknowled ed b our letter to ou dated Januar 30 1989.
On   January     30,     1989,     Mr. Thomas E. Mur 1ey,     Director, 0++ice   o+
On April 14, 1989, Mr.Thomas E.Murley, Director, Off ice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, sent Petitioner a letter acknowledging
Nuclear   Reactor     Regulation, sent Petitioner a letter acknowledging receipt   of petitions +i led on December 21, 1988 and January 13, 1989.
\receipt of Petitioner's request submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 on March 1, 1989, and two letters dated March 2, 1989, and a letter dated March b, 1989, and finally a 10 CFR 2.206 request dated March 22, 1989.Mr.Mur 1ey states: Because none o+the above letters addresses new concer ns (be ond those in our letters of December 21 1988 and Januar 13 19 30 (two letters)and Februar 7 1989)or rovi des information we did not alread have no additional NRC action is necessar BACKGROUND The Florida Power and Light Company (FPL, the licensee), is the holder of Facility Operating License Nos.DPR-31 and DPR-41 (the licenses)which authorize the operation of the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4 at steady state power levels not in excess of 2200 megawatts thermal (rated power).The licenses were originally issued on July 19, 1972 for Unit 3, and April 10, 1973 for Unit 4.The facility consists o+two pressurized water reactors located at the licensee's site in Dade County, Florida.Based on voluminous NRC inspection documentation and the enforcement history at the Turkey Point Plant, Petitioner has concluded that FPL has not maintained effective management controls in tho operation of its facilities.
Also enclosed with the aforementioned             letter,   was a RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR   DIRECTOR'S     DECISION     UNDER     10   CFR 2.206 dated January 30, 1989, wherein   Mr. James     H. Sniezek,     Deputy   Director,     Office of Nuclear Reactor   Regulation, issued a         preliminary review which did not indicate an   immediate necessit           to kee     the Turke     Point Plant Units   3 and 4 reactors     shut     down.     The   basis   +or   this     osition is that the Petitioner's     concerns     do   not   identif   an   new   information which is not alread   bein   addressed     b   the licensee and the staf+ or which we were not alread     aware   of.
As a result of problems identified during 1984, FPL established the Turkey Point Per+ormance Enhancement Program to improve the operation of its facility and to correct-the deficiencies identi+ied.
On March     6,   1989,     Mr. Thomas   E. Murley, Director, Office o+
A Confirmatory Order was issued by the NRC on July 13, 1984 to confirm the implementation of this corrective action program.
Nuclear   Reactor     Regulation,       sent   Petitioner     a letter acknowledging receipt   of Petitioner's requests submitted pursuant to                 10 CFR 2.206 on January   30,   1989   and     Febuary   7,   1989. The   letter also stated that Petitioner's     10   CFR   2.206     request   of   December     21, 1988 was being supplemented   by 10 CFR 2.206       requests   made on   January 13, 1989, January 30~   1989, and Febuary 7, 1989.           A   rel iminar review o+ the concerns in su lements 2 and 3 does not indicate an immediate need to sus end and revoke the o eratin licenses of the Turke Point Plant. Our basis +or this +indin is that our su lements have not identified an si ni+icant new information be ond that alread acknowled ed b our letter to   ou dated Januar         30   1989.
An October 1985 NRC Report identified problems at Turkey Point to consist of...High Employee Turnover, Poor Management, Poor Maintenance, and a lack of experienced employees.
 
A year later in 1986, because of the NRC's concerns regarding the adequacy of the Performance Enhancement Program due to the extent of the problems identified at the Turkey Point facilities, FPL presented information to the NRC on January 8, 1986 describing management actions taken and planned to correct deficiencies identified during the NRC Safety System Functional Inspection and the NRC Region I I+ol low-up inspections.
On   April   14,   1989,   Mr. Thomas   E. Murley,   Director, Off ice of Nuclear   Reactor   Regulation, sent Petitioner a letter acknowledging
A comprehensive program was then developed to assess the operability of other safety systems.A descr iption of this program was presented to the NRC in a management meeting on Febuary 26, 1986.The details of this program were described in FPL Letter L-86-112 and its enclosures dated March 19, 1986 and FPL Letter L-86-197 dated May 19, 1986.In view of the extent of the deficiencies identified in the NRC ins ection activities and the enforcement histor at the Turke Point Plant the NRC determined that the ublic health safet and interest re uire issuance o+a Conf irmator Order dated Au ust 12 1986 superseding the Confirmatory Order of July 13, 1984 since it confirms the implementation of the Turkey Point Performance Enhancement Program including the Phase I I Assessment Program.The NRC stated that this Order is necessary to ensure that the facility is in compliance with regulatory requirements and to bring the faci 1ity into conformance with written commitments by the licensee.
                                                                                \
In 1986 the NRC f ined Turkey Point$400,000 in penalties for operation of the faci 1ity in violation o+NRC requirements.
receipt   of Petitioner's request submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 on March   1, 1989, and two     letters   dated March 2, 1989, and a       letter   dated March b, 1989, and     finally a   10 CFR   2.206 request dated March 22, 1989.
Security violations attributed to$25,000 of the$400,000 in f ines.The NRC identified a major problem with the reactor operator training program as indicated by the'excessive failure rate of operators to pass NRC licensing tests.The NRC placed Turkey Point on its list of problem plants requiring special monitoring.
Mr. Mur 1ey   states:     Because     none   o+ the above   letters   addresses   new concer ns   (be ond   those   in     our   letters   of   December   21   1988   and Januar     13   19     30 (two   letters)     and Februar     7   1989)   or   rovi des information     we   did   not   alread     have   no   additional   NRC   action is necessar BACKGROUND The   Florida Power and Light Company (FPL, the licensee), is the holder of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41 (the licenses) which authorize the operation of the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4 at steady state power levels not in excess of 2200 megawatts thermal (rated power) . The licenses were originally issued on July 19, 1972 for Unit 3, and April 10, 1973 for Unit 4. The facility consists o+ two pressurized water reactors located at the licensee's site in   Dade County,   Florida.
In March 1987, a cono-seal leak on top of one Turkey Point reactor allowed boric acid to deteriorate three reactor head retaining studs and created a 550 pound bal 1 o+boric aci d on top of the reactor.FPL was aware of the leak early on, but+ai led to take prompt corrective measures and allowed the plant to operate.In September 1987, a girl friend of reactor operator manipulated the controls of a reactor an-line at near+ull power.Four licensed operators stood by and did not intervene and the event was not immediately reported to FPL upper management.
Based     on   voluminous       NRC   inspection documentation and the enforcement history at the Turkey Point Plant, Petitioner has concluded that FPL has not maintained effective management controls in tho operation of its facilities. As a result of problems identified during 1984, FPL established the Turkey Point Per+ormance Enhancement Program to improve the operation of its facility and to correct -the deficiencies identi+ied. A Confirmatory Order was issued by the NRC on July 13, 1984 to confirm the implementation of this corrective action program.
The NRC issued a Confirmatory Order on October 19, 1987 ordering an independent management appraisal o+Turkey Point.The NRC fined Turkey Point$475,000 in 1987 of which$150,000 was for security violations.
 
In 1988, twenty-two emergency operation speakers were found stuffed with rags, a problem which the NRC had previously identified in the past.In August 1988, three thousand three hundr ed gal lons of radioactive water spilled and much of this radioactive water was absorbed by the environment.
An October 1985 NRC Report identified problems at Turkey Point to consist of...High Employee Turnover, Poor Management, Poor Maintenance, and a lack of experienced employees.
R Beptember 1PBB NRC Report states...There remains a si ni+icant number f lant e ui ment roblems that have not been re aired...(the lant)needs close re ulator attention.
A year later in 1986, because of the NRC's concerns regarding the adequacy   of the Performance Enhancement Program due to the extent of the problems identified at the Turkey Point facilities, FPL presented information to the NRC on January 8, 1986 describing management actions taken and planned to correct deficiencies identified during the NRC Safety System Functional Inspection and the NRC Region I I +ol low-up inspections. A comprehensive program was then developed to assess the operability of other safety systems. A descr iption of this program was presented to the NRC in a management meeting on Febuary 26, 1986. The details of this program were described in FPL Letter L-86-112 and its enclosures dated March 19, 1986 and FPL Letter L-86-197 dated May 19, 1986.
The NRC fined Turkey Point$150,000 for security violations in 1988.
In view of the extent of the deficiencies identified in the NRC ins ection activities and the enforcement histor at the Turke Point Plant   the NRC determined that the ublic health safet and interest re uire   issuance o+ a Conf irmator   Order   dated Au ust 12 1986 superseding     the Confirmatory Order of July 13, 1984 since it confirms the   implementation of the Turkey Point Performance Enhancement Program including the Phase I I Assessment Program. The NRC stated that this Order is necessary     to ensure that the facility is in compliance with regulatory requirements and to bring the faci 1ity into conformance with written commitments by the licensee.
A NRC Systematic Assessment of Licensee Per+ormance (SALP)Report issued in September 1988 evidenced the overall poor performance of the Turkey Point+acility.The NRC rated the plant areas of operations, maintenance, and security/safeguards as a Category 3 which is the lowest possible rating achievable short of a shut-down.
 
The Turkey Point plant has consistantly failed to improve per+ormance over the years as evidenced by previous Category 3 SALP ratings by the NRC and the recognition by the NRC as one of the ten worst plants in the United States.During the latter part of November and early December 1988, a NRC special maintenance inspection team visited Turkey Point.The findings of the NRC team indicate that per+ormance at Turkey Point has not signif i cant ly improved.Dur i ng the beg i nni ng o+1989, numerous equi pment pr ob 1 ems prevented FPL from starting either of the two reactors at Turkey Point.In January 1989, FPL fai led to timely noti+y state and+ederal authorities of a radioactive water leak in reactor primary water system which resulted in an ALERT condition.
In 1986   the   NRC   f ined   Turkey Point $ 400,000 in penalties for operation of the faci 1ity in violation o+ NRC requirements. Security violations attributed to $ 25,000 of the $ 400,000 in f ines. The NRC identified a major problem with the reactor operator training program as indicated by the 'excessive failure rate of operators to pass NRC licensing tests. The NRC placed Turkey Point on its list of problem plants requiring special monitoring.
In March 1987, a cono-seal leak on top of one Turkey Point reactor allowed boric acid to deteriorate three reactor head retaining studs and created     a 550 pound bal   1 o+ boric aci d on top of the reactor. FPL was aware     of the leak early on, but +ai led to take prompt corrective measures   and allowed the plant to operate. In September 1987, a girl friend of reactor operator manipulated the controls of a reactor an-line at near +ull power. Four licensed operators stood by and did not intervene and the event was not immediately reported to FPL upper management. The   NRC   issued   a Confirmatory Order on October 19, 1987 ordering   an   independent management     appraisal   o+ Turkey Point. The NRC fined Turkey Point $ 475,000 in         1987 of which $ 150,000 was for security violations.
In 1988, twenty-two emergency operation speakers were found stuffed with rags, a problem which the NRC had previously identified in the past. In August 1988, three thousand three hundr ed gal lons of radioactive     water   spilled     and   much of this radioactive water was absorbed by the environment. R Beptember 1PBB NRC Report states...There remains a si ni+icant number f lant e ui ment roblems that have not been re aired... (the         lant) needs close re ulator attention. The NRC fined Turkey Point $ 150,000 for security violations in 1988.
 
A   NRC   Systematic Assessment of Licensee Per+ormance (SALP) Report issued   in September 1988 evidenced the overall poor performance of the Turkey   Point +acility. The NRC rated the plant areas of operations, maintenance,     and   security/safeguards     as   a   Category   3 which is the lowest   possible     rating achievable short of a shut-down. The Turkey Point plant has consistantly failed to improve per+ormance over the years as evidenced by previous Category 3 SALP ratings by the NRC and the recognition by the NRC as one of the ten worst plants in the United States.
During     the latter part of   November and   early December 1988, a   NRC special   maintenance     inspection team visited Turkey Point. The findings of the     NRC   team   indicate that per+ormance at Turkey Point has not signif i cant ly improved.
Dur i ng   the   beg i nni ng o+ 1989,     numerous   equi pment pr ob ems 1
prevented FPL from starting either of the two reactors at Turkey Point.
In January 1989, FPL fai led to timely noti+y state and +ederal authorities of     a radioactive water leak in reactor primary water system which resulted in an ALERT condition.
In Narch 1989, FPL again failed to timely noti+y state and federal authorities of a radioactive water leak in reactor primary water system which resulted in an ALERT condition.
In Narch 1989, FPL again failed to timely noti+y state and federal authorities of a radioactive water leak in reactor primary water system which resulted in an ALERT condition.
At the end of Narch 1989, eleven of twenty-four reactor operators failed a NRC license requalification exam.During April 1989, leaky pipes on the reactor's seal table were identified and subsequently, a wor ker initiated a cut on the wrong pipe during repairs to the seal table.In June 1989, the FBI arrested a Turkey Point worker on drug charges and indicated other individuals may be indited at Turkey Point.
At the end of Narch 1989, eleven of twenty-four reactor operators failed a NRC license requalification exam.
Contrary to NRC concerns of management stability and concerns identified by the Independent Management Appraisal conducted by Enercon Services which identi+ied management stability as a problem, FPL continues to have management stability problems.In 1987, FPL hired Bill Conway as the Senior Vice President+or Nuclear Energy.In 1988, FPL hired John Odom as the Turkey Point Site Vice President and Jim Cross replaced Chris Baker as the Turkey Point Plant Manager.In 1989, Bill Conway resigned from FPL and is temporarily being replaced by C.O.Woody.
During April 1989, leaky pipes on the reactor's seal table were identified   and subsequently,     a wor ker initiated   a cut on the wrong pipe during repairs to the seal table.
The Tut key Point Site Vice President, John Odom, has been replaced by Ken Harris, the Turkey Point Maintenance Superintendent, Joe Kappes, has been replaced by John Gianfransisco, the Turkey Point Instrument Control Department Head, Dan Tomaszewski, has been replaced by Everett Hayes.The Turkey Point Instrument Control Planning Supervisor was fired for drug related reasons and was replaced by Bruce Koran and now Koran has recently been replaced.The Turkey Point Instrument Control Production Supervisor, Gerald Harley, has been replaced by John Burke and Vern Miller.The NRC has already fined Turkey Point$100,000 in 1989 for security violations.
In June 1989, the FBI arrested               a Turkey Point worker on drug charges and indicated other individuals         may be   indited at Turkey Point.
DISCUSSION The aforestated voluminous NRC inspection documentation and the escalated civil penalties issued by the NRC in an attempt to deter continued operation of the Turkey Point facility outside compliance within NRC Requirements and Regulations, demonstrate the exemplary performance of the NRC Region II personnel.  
 
Contrary   to   NRC   concerns   of   management stability and concerns identified   by the Independent Management Appraisal conducted         by Enercon Services   which   identi+ied     management   stability   as a problem, FPL continues to have management       stability   problems.
In 1987,     FPL   hired Bill Conway     as the Senior Vice President +or Nuclear Energy.
In 1988,     FPL   hired   John   Odom   as   the Turkey Point Site Vice President   and Jim Cross replaced Chris Baker as the Turkey Point         Plant Manager.
In 1989,     Bill     Conway resigned from   FPL and is temporarily being replaced by C.O.Woody.       The Tut key Point Site Vice President, John Odom, has   been   replaced     by Ken Harris,       the Turkey Point Maintenance Superintendent,     Joe Kappes,       has been replaced by John Gianfransisco, the Turkey Point Instrument Control Department Head, Dan Tomaszewski, has been replaced     by Everett Hayes.
The Turkey Point Instrument Control Planning Supervisor was fired for drug related reasons and was replaced by Bruce Koran and now Koran has recently been replaced.
The Turkey Point Instrument Control Production Supervisor, Gerald Harley, has been replaced by John Burke and Vern Miller.
The NRC has already           fined Turkey Point $ 100,000 in       1989 for security violations.
DISCUSSION The   aforestated voluminous NRC inspection documentation and the escalated civil penalties issued by the NRC in an attempt to deter continued operation of the Turkey Point facility outside compliance within NRC Requirements and Regulations, demonstrate the exemplary performance of the     NRC Region   II personnel.
 
Although      the licensee has sustained cumulative  civil penalties of about 1.5 million dollars, the payment of monetary penalties has failed to demonstr atively deter the licensee from operating the Turkey Point facilities outside of the Federal Regulations and NRC Requirements.
Although NRC personnel claim to closely scrutinize the Turkey Point    +acility, certain    and specific events have occurred which appear to indicate the contrary.
The NRC    Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation as represented by Mr.
Murley, appears to have acted outside of the NRC Regulations wherein evidence would show that:
(1>  Mr. Murley did not act in the best interest for the health and safety of the public in his consideration of Petitioner's basis and justification for license action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 which demonstrates      reasonable  doubt for the safe operation o+ the Turkey Point  facilities.
(2)    Mr. Murley supplemented  certain petitions and ignored others in his determination f'r the health and sa+ety of the public.
(3) Mr. Murley appears to have abused his authority and acted not in compliance with NRC Regulations.
(4>    Mr. Murley appears to have addressed only six of the twelve outstanding        petitions related to the Turkey Point facility and therefore has prematurely reached a determination and conclusion without reviewing al l of the facts and circumstances involved.
(5) Mr. Murley appears        not to have considered the BIG PICTURE relating to the grave safety concerns at Turkey Point and the failure of plant management to demonstrate the ability to operate the Turkey Point facility in a safe and reliable manner consistant with NRC Requirements    and Federal  Regulations.
 
(6) Mr. Murley appears    to have failed to realize, acknowledge, and properly address the severity and magnitude of the gr ave sa+ety concerns related to the overal          1  poor conduct of maintenance and operations at the Turkey Point facility.
(7) Mr. Murley appears to have acted improperly by not considering the overwhelming evidence of reasonable            doubt established    in the Petitioners aforestated requests to Mr. Victor Stel lo, Jr .
CONCLUSION Petitioner states that the NRC must act decisively and without hesitation to shut down the Turkey Point +acility until such time as the  licensee  can  demonstrate  the  ability to  operate the Turkey Point facility in      a    sa+e    and  reliable  manner  consistant  with  NRC Requirements. To  do  otherwise    would  place reasonable  doubt for the health and safety of the public and would evidence a failure o+ the NRC to achieve its own mandate and mission as a regulator.
It is unrealistic for the NRC to believe that FPL can establish signif icant  improvements    at Turkey Point in the areas of training, operations, maintenance,        security and safeguards, and the numerous other problem areas by December 1989. These significant problem areas have been the subject of NRC concern and attention for years.
Petitioner states that the NRC appears to have abused its authority in not taking appropriate license action as stated above and therefore may be in collusion with the licensee and thus jeopar dizing the  health and safety of the publ ic in +avor of economics and nuclear power generation.      Petitioner'      concern of collusion will be further addressed    and delineated      to the NRC Inspector General's Office for investigation  and  resolution.


Although the licensee has sustained cumulative civil penalties of about 1.5 million dollars, the payment of monetary penalties has failed to demonstr atively deter the licensee from operating the Turkey Point facilities outside of the Federal Regulations and NRC Requirements.
Petitioner seeks address of all twelve 2.206 petitions submitted to Nr. Victor Stel lo, Jr., the Executive Director +or Operations with the NRC.
Although NRC personnel claim to closely scrutinize the Turkey Point+acility, certain and specific events have occurred which appear to indicate the contrary.The NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation as represented by Mr.Murley, appears to have acted outside of the NRC Regulations wherein evidence would show that: (1>Mr.Murley did not act in the best interest for the health and safety of the public in his consideration of Petitioner's basis and justification for license action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 which demonstrates reasonable doubt for the safe operation o+the Turkey Point facilities.
Petitioner seeks a meeting with all five NRC Commissioners and representatives of the NRC Region II office to discuss the severity and magnitude of the grave safety issues         germane to the Turkey Point facility and the extensive evidence of reasonable doubt embraced within the 2.206 petitions justifying the safe shut-down o+ Turkey Point.
(2)Mr.Murley supplemented certain petitions and ignored others in his determination f'r the health and sa+ety of the public.(3)Mr.Murley appears to have abused his authority and acted not in compliance with NRC Regulations.
Petitioner   requests that this document be referred to the Secretary for the Commission's review and that a copy of this document be filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
(4>Mr.Murley appears to have addressed only six of the twelve outstanding petitions related to the Turkey Point facility and therefore has prematurely reached a determination and conclusion without reviewing al l of the facts and circumstances involved.(5)Mr.Murley appears not to have considered the BIG PICTURE relating to the grave safety concerns at Turkey Point and the failure of plant management to demonstrate the ability to operate the Turkey Point facility in a safe and reliable manner consistant with NRC Requirements and Federal Regulations.
Dated at Jupiter, Flor ida             Sincerely, this 16th day of July 1989.
(6)Mr.Murley appears to have failed to realize, acknowledge, and properly address the severity and magnitude of the gr ave sa+ety concerns related to the overal 1 poor conduct of maintenance and operations at the Turkey Point facility.(7)Mr.Murley appears to have acted improperly by not considering the overwhelming evidence of reasonable doubt established in the Petitioners aforestated requests to Mr.Victor Stel lo, Jr.CONCLUSION Petitioner states that the NRC must act decisively and without hesitation to shut down the Turkey Point+acility until such time as the licensee can demonstrate the ability to operate the Turkey Point facility in a sa+e and reliable manner consistant with NRC Requirements.
Thomas J. Saporito, Jr.
To do otherwise would place reasonable doubt for the health and safety of the public and would evidence a failure o+the NRC to achieve its own mandate and mission as a regulator.
1202 Sioux Street Jupiter, Florida 334SB (407) 747-8873 cc: United States President George Bush United States Senator John Breaux Nr. Nark Resner, NRC Inspector Generals Office Nr. Kenneth Carr, Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nr. Thomas E. Nurley, Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nr. Stewar d Ebneter, NRC Regional Administrator Region I I Nr. Oscar De Niranda, NRC RAC Region I I County Manager of Netropolitan Dade County Florida Governor Bob Martinez Ns. Joette Lorion, Dir. Center for Nuclear Responsibility Ns. Billie Garde, Attorney at Law
It is unrealistic for the NRC to believe that FPL can establish signif icant improvements at Turkey Point in the areas of training, operations, maintenance, security and safeguards, and the numerous other problem areas by December 1989.These significant problem areas have been the subject of NRC concern and attention for years.Petitioner states that the NRC appears to have abused its authority in not taking appropriate license action as stated above and therefore may be in collusion with the licensee and thus jeopar dizing the health and safety of the publ ic in+avor of economics and nuclear power generation.
                                  }}
Petitioner' concern of collusion will be further addressed and delineated to the NRC Inspector General's Office for investigation and resolution.
Petitioner seeks address of all twelve 2.206 petitions submitted to Nr.Victor Stel lo, Jr., the Executive Director+or Operations with the NRC.Petitioner seeks a meeting with all five NRC Commissioners and representatives of the NRC Region II office to discuss the severity and magnitude of the grave safety issues germane to the Turkey Point facility and the extensive evidence of reasonable doubt embraced within the 2.206 petitions justifying the safe shut-down o+Turkey Point.Petitioner requests that this document be referred to the Secretary for the Commission's review and that a copy of this document be filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Dated at Jupiter, Flor ida this 16th day of July 1989.Sincerely, Thomas J.Saporito, Jr.1202 Sioux Street Jupiter, Florida 334SB (407)747-8873 cc: United States President George Bush United States Senator John Breaux Nr.Nark Resner, NRC Inspector Generals Office Nr.Kenneth Carr, Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nr.Thomas E.Nurley, Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nr.Stewar d Ebneter, NRC Regional Administrator Region I I Nr.Oscar De Niranda, NRC RAC Region I I County Manager of Netropolitan Dade County Florida Governor Bob Martinez Ns.Joette Lorion, Dir.Center for Nuclear Responsibility Ns.Billie Garde, Attorney at Law-10-}}

Latest revision as of 08:19, 22 October 2019

Answer to Partial Director'S Decision Under 10CFR2.206.* NRC Must Act Decisively to Shut Down Facility Until Licensee Can Demonstrate Ability to Operate Plant in Safe & Reliable Manner Consistent W/Nrc Requirements
ML17347B193
Person / Time
Site: Turkey Point  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 07/16/1989
From: Saporito T
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
References
CON-#389-8935 2.206, NUDOCS 8907260052
Download: ML17347B193 (12)
v • d • e


Text

4

~ ~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS MR. VICTOR STELLO, JR.

In the Matter of Docket Nos.: 50-250

\

50-251 Florida Power and Light Company Turkey Point Nuclear Station, 10 CFR 2. 206 Units 3 and 4 ANSWER TO PARTIAL DIRECTOR' DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2. 206 INTRODUCTION On December 21, 1988, Thomas J. Saporito, Jr, herein referred to as Petitioner, submitted a request pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 to Mr.

Victor Stello, Jr., Executive Director of Operations with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for certain and specif ic actions relevant to operations at the Turkey Point Nuclear Station. Subsequent requests pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 and germane to operations at the Turkey Point Nuclear Station were submitted on January 13, 1989, January 30, 1989, Febuary 7, 1989, March 1, 1989, March 22, 1989, April 25, 1989, April 26, 1989, June 20, 1989, June 22, 1989, July 3, 1989, and July 7, 1989.

On January 12, 1989, Mr. Lawrence J. Chandler, Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement with the NRC Office of the General Counsel, submitted a memorandum to Mr. Thomas E. Murley, Director, NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of which the subject matter was Thomas J.

Saporito, Jr. 2.206 Petition 'Regarding Turkey Point Nuclear Station. In his memorandum, Mr. Chandler elaborates on the December 21, 1988 petition outlining the Specific Requests and Basis and Justification.

Finally, Mr. Chandler makes mention of certain Department of Labor actions wherein Petitioner had involvement with the Florida Power and Light Company (FPL).

On January 30, 1989, Mr. Thomas E. Mur 1ey, Director, 0++ice o+

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, sent Petitioner a letter acknowledging receipt of petitions +i led on December 21, 1988 and January 13, 1989.

Also enclosed with the aforementioned letter, was a RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 dated January 30, 1989, wherein Mr. James H. Sniezek, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, issued a preliminary review which did not indicate an immediate necessit to kee the Turke Point Plant Units 3 and 4 reactors shut down. The basis +or this osition is that the Petitioner's concerns do not identif an new information which is not alread bein addressed b the licensee and the staf+ or which we were not alread aware of.

On March 6, 1989, Mr. Thomas E. Murley, Director, Office o+

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, sent Petitioner a letter acknowledging receipt of Petitioner's requests submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 on January 30, 1989 and Febuary 7, 1989. The letter also stated that Petitioner's 10 CFR 2.206 request of December 21, 1988 was being supplemented by 10 CFR 2.206 requests made on January 13, 1989, January 30~ 1989, and Febuary 7, 1989. A rel iminar review o+ the concerns in su lements 2 and 3 does not indicate an immediate need to sus end and revoke the o eratin licenses of the Turke Point Plant. Our basis +or this +indin is that our su lements have not identified an si ni+icant new information be ond that alread acknowled ed b our letter to ou dated Januar 30 1989.

On April 14, 1989, Mr. Thomas E. Murley, Director, Off ice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, sent Petitioner a letter acknowledging

\

receipt of Petitioner's request submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 on March 1, 1989, and two letters dated March 2, 1989, and a letter dated March b, 1989, and finally a 10 CFR 2.206 request dated March 22, 1989.

Mr. Mur 1ey states: Because none o+ the above letters addresses new concer ns (be ond those in our letters of December 21 1988 and Januar 13 19 30 (two letters) and Februar 7 1989) or rovi des information we did not alread have no additional NRC action is necessar BACKGROUND The Florida Power and Light Company (FPL, the licensee), is the holder of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41 (the licenses) which authorize the operation of the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4 at steady state power levels not in excess of 2200 megawatts thermal (rated power) . The licenses were originally issued on July 19, 1972 for Unit 3, and April 10, 1973 for Unit 4. The facility consists o+ two pressurized water reactors located at the licensee's site in Dade County, Florida.

Based on voluminous NRC inspection documentation and the enforcement history at the Turkey Point Plant, Petitioner has concluded that FPL has not maintained effective management controls in tho operation of its facilities. As a result of problems identified during 1984, FPL established the Turkey Point Per+ormance Enhancement Program to improve the operation of its facility and to correct -the deficiencies identi+ied. A Confirmatory Order was issued by the NRC on July 13, 1984 to confirm the implementation of this corrective action program.

An October 1985 NRC Report identified problems at Turkey Point to consist of...High Employee Turnover, Poor Management, Poor Maintenance, and a lack of experienced employees.

A year later in 1986, because of the NRC's concerns regarding the adequacy of the Performance Enhancement Program due to the extent of the problems identified at the Turkey Point facilities, FPL presented information to the NRC on January 8, 1986 describing management actions taken and planned to correct deficiencies identified during the NRC Safety System Functional Inspection and the NRC Region I I +ol low-up inspections. A comprehensive program was then developed to assess the operability of other safety systems. A descr iption of this program was presented to the NRC in a management meeting on Febuary 26, 1986. The details of this program were described in FPL Letter L-86-112 and its enclosures dated March 19, 1986 and FPL Letter L-86-197 dated May 19, 1986.

In view of the extent of the deficiencies identified in the NRC ins ection activities and the enforcement histor at the Turke Point Plant the NRC determined that the ublic health safet and interest re uire issuance o+ a Conf irmator Order dated Au ust 12 1986 superseding the Confirmatory Order of July 13, 1984 since it confirms the implementation of the Turkey Point Performance Enhancement Program including the Phase I I Assessment Program. The NRC stated that this Order is necessary to ensure that the facility is in compliance with regulatory requirements and to bring the faci 1ity into conformance with written commitments by the licensee.

In 1986 the NRC f ined Turkey Point $ 400,000 in penalties for operation of the faci 1ity in violation o+ NRC requirements. Security violations attributed to $ 25,000 of the $ 400,000 in f ines. The NRC identified a major problem with the reactor operator training program as indicated by the 'excessive failure rate of operators to pass NRC licensing tests. The NRC placed Turkey Point on its list of problem plants requiring special monitoring.

In March 1987, a cono-seal leak on top of one Turkey Point reactor allowed boric acid to deteriorate three reactor head retaining studs and created a 550 pound bal 1 o+ boric aci d on top of the reactor. FPL was aware of the leak early on, but +ai led to take prompt corrective measures and allowed the plant to operate. In September 1987, a girl friend of reactor operator manipulated the controls of a reactor an-line at near +ull power. Four licensed operators stood by and did not intervene and the event was not immediately reported to FPL upper management. The NRC issued a Confirmatory Order on October 19, 1987 ordering an independent management appraisal o+ Turkey Point. The NRC fined Turkey Point $ 475,000 in 1987 of which $ 150,000 was for security violations.

In 1988, twenty-two emergency operation speakers were found stuffed with rags, a problem which the NRC had previously identified in the past. In August 1988, three thousand three hundr ed gal lons of radioactive water spilled and much of this radioactive water was absorbed by the environment. R Beptember 1PBB NRC Report states...There remains a si ni+icant number f lant e ui ment roblems that have not been re aired... (the lant) needs close re ulator attention. The NRC fined Turkey Point $ 150,000 for security violations in 1988.

A NRC Systematic Assessment of Licensee Per+ormance (SALP) Report issued in September 1988 evidenced the overall poor performance of the Turkey Point +acility. The NRC rated the plant areas of operations, maintenance, and security/safeguards as a Category 3 which is the lowest possible rating achievable short of a shut-down. The Turkey Point plant has consistantly failed to improve per+ormance over the years as evidenced by previous Category 3 SALP ratings by the NRC and the recognition by the NRC as one of the ten worst plants in the United States.

During the latter part of November and early December 1988, a NRC special maintenance inspection team visited Turkey Point. The findings of the NRC team indicate that per+ormance at Turkey Point has not signif i cant ly improved.

Dur i ng the beg i nni ng o+ 1989, numerous equi pment pr ob ems 1

prevented FPL from starting either of the two reactors at Turkey Point.

In January 1989, FPL fai led to timely noti+y state and +ederal authorities of a radioactive water leak in reactor primary water system which resulted in an ALERT condition.

In Narch 1989, FPL again failed to timely noti+y state and federal authorities of a radioactive water leak in reactor primary water system which resulted in an ALERT condition.

At the end of Narch 1989, eleven of twenty-four reactor operators failed a NRC license requalification exam.

During April 1989, leaky pipes on the reactor's seal table were identified and subsequently, a wor ker initiated a cut on the wrong pipe during repairs to the seal table.

In June 1989, the FBI arrested a Turkey Point worker on drug charges and indicated other individuals may be indited at Turkey Point.

Contrary to NRC concerns of management stability and concerns identified by the Independent Management Appraisal conducted by Enercon Services which identi+ied management stability as a problem, FPL continues to have management stability problems.

In 1987, FPL hired Bill Conway as the Senior Vice President +or Nuclear Energy.

In 1988, FPL hired John Odom as the Turkey Point Site Vice President and Jim Cross replaced Chris Baker as the Turkey Point Plant Manager.

In 1989, Bill Conway resigned from FPL and is temporarily being replaced by C.O.Woody. The Tut key Point Site Vice President, John Odom, has been replaced by Ken Harris, the Turkey Point Maintenance Superintendent, Joe Kappes, has been replaced by John Gianfransisco, the Turkey Point Instrument Control Department Head, Dan Tomaszewski, has been replaced by Everett Hayes.

The Turkey Point Instrument Control Planning Supervisor was fired for drug related reasons and was replaced by Bruce Koran and now Koran has recently been replaced.

The Turkey Point Instrument Control Production Supervisor, Gerald Harley, has been replaced by John Burke and Vern Miller.

The NRC has already fined Turkey Point $ 100,000 in 1989 for security violations.

DISCUSSION The aforestated voluminous NRC inspection documentation and the escalated civil penalties issued by the NRC in an attempt to deter continued operation of the Turkey Point facility outside compliance within NRC Requirements and Regulations, demonstrate the exemplary performance of the NRC Region II personnel.

Although the licensee has sustained cumulative civil penalties of about 1.5 million dollars, the payment of monetary penalties has failed to demonstr atively deter the licensee from operating the Turkey Point facilities outside of the Federal Regulations and NRC Requirements.

Although NRC personnel claim to closely scrutinize the Turkey Point +acility, certain and specific events have occurred which appear to indicate the contrary.

The NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation as represented by Mr.

Murley, appears to have acted outside of the NRC Regulations wherein evidence would show that:

(1> Mr. Murley did not act in the best interest for the health and safety of the public in his consideration of Petitioner's basis and justification for license action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 which demonstrates reasonable doubt for the safe operation o+ the Turkey Point facilities.

(2) Mr. Murley supplemented certain petitions and ignored others in his determination f'r the health and sa+ety of the public.

(3) Mr. Murley appears to have abused his authority and acted not in compliance with NRC Regulations.

(4> Mr. Murley appears to have addressed only six of the twelve outstanding petitions related to the Turkey Point facility and therefore has prematurely reached a determination and conclusion without reviewing al l of the facts and circumstances involved.

(5) Mr. Murley appears not to have considered the BIG PICTURE relating to the grave safety concerns at Turkey Point and the failure of plant management to demonstrate the ability to operate the Turkey Point facility in a safe and reliable manner consistant with NRC Requirements and Federal Regulations.

(6) Mr. Murley appears to have failed to realize, acknowledge, and properly address the severity and magnitude of the gr ave sa+ety concerns related to the overal 1 poor conduct of maintenance and operations at the Turkey Point facility.

(7) Mr. Murley appears to have acted improperly by not considering the overwhelming evidence of reasonable doubt established in the Petitioners aforestated requests to Mr. Victor Stel lo, Jr .

CONCLUSION Petitioner states that the NRC must act decisively and without hesitation to shut down the Turkey Point +acility until such time as the licensee can demonstrate the ability to operate the Turkey Point facility in a sa+e and reliable manner consistant with NRC Requirements. To do otherwise would place reasonable doubt for the health and safety of the public and would evidence a failure o+ the NRC to achieve its own mandate and mission as a regulator.

It is unrealistic for the NRC to believe that FPL can establish signif icant improvements at Turkey Point in the areas of training, operations, maintenance, security and safeguards, and the numerous other problem areas by December 1989. These significant problem areas have been the subject of NRC concern and attention for years.

Petitioner states that the NRC appears to have abused its authority in not taking appropriate license action as stated above and therefore may be in collusion with the licensee and thus jeopar dizing the health and safety of the publ ic in +avor of economics and nuclear power generation. Petitioner' concern of collusion will be further addressed and delineated to the NRC Inspector General's Office for investigation and resolution.

Petitioner seeks address of all twelve 2.206 petitions submitted to Nr. Victor Stel lo, Jr., the Executive Director +or Operations with the NRC.

Petitioner seeks a meeting with all five NRC Commissioners and representatives of the NRC Region II office to discuss the severity and magnitude of the grave safety issues germane to the Turkey Point facility and the extensive evidence of reasonable doubt embraced within the 2.206 petitions justifying the safe shut-down o+ Turkey Point.

Petitioner requests that this document be referred to the Secretary for the Commission's review and that a copy of this document be filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.

Dated at Jupiter, Flor ida Sincerely, this 16th day of July 1989.

Thomas J. Saporito, Jr.

1202 Sioux Street Jupiter, Florida 334SB (407) 747-8873 cc: United States President George Bush United States Senator John Breaux Nr. Nark Resner, NRC Inspector Generals Office Nr. Kenneth Carr, Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nr. Thomas E. Nurley, Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nr. Stewar d Ebneter, NRC Regional Administrator Region I I Nr. Oscar De Niranda, NRC RAC Region I I County Manager of Netropolitan Dade County Florida Governor Bob Martinez Ns. Joette Lorion, Dir. Center for Nuclear Responsibility Ns. Billie Garde, Attorney at Law

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17347B193&oldid=1963671"