ML17212A817
| ML17212A817 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 08/12/1981 |
| From: | Alderson C, Vorse J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17212A811 | List:
|
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-1.A.1.3, TASK-TM 50-335-81-06, 50-335-81-6, NUDOCS 8109290533 | |
| Download: ML17212A817 (24) | |
See also: IR 05000335/1981006
Text
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMiSSlON
REGION II
101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303
AN 3'2 )S8f
INVESTIGATION REPORT NO. 50-335/81-06
SUBJECT:
Florida Power and Light Company
St. Lucie Unit 1
St. Lucie, Florida 33101
Possible Material False Statement
DATES OF INVESTIGATION:
January
28 - February 5, 1981
INVESTIGATOR:
. Y.
se,
Regional Investigator,
Region II
Enforcement
and Investigation Staff
~p J/--
Date
OTHER PARTICIPATING PERSONNEL:
E.
C. Gilbert, Investigator
Office of Inspection
and Enforcement
REVIEWED BY:
. E.
A
erson,
Director
Enforc
m nt and Investigation Staff, Region II
Date
81092
~
05QQQ335
III0533 8i0923
ADO
,6
TABLE Of CONTENTS
Section
I.
SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION
A.
INTRODUCTION
B.
SCOPE
C.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Section II.
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION
A.
PERSONS
CONTACTFD
B.
BACKGROUND
C.
INVESTIGATIVE EFFORT
SECTION I
SUfMRY OF INVESTIGATION
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT
ST.
LUCIE
JANUARY 28 - FEBRUARY 5, 1981
r
P
V
A.
IHTRODUCTIOH
In mid-January
1981 the
HRC Resident
Inspector at Florida Power and
Light's (FP8L) St. Lucie Unit 1 plant observed
a December
23,
1980
letter from the
FP5L
t'to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
(NRR), Division
of Licensing, with regard to post
TMI requirements.
'tated,
in part and
under oath, that
NUREG 0737 had been
implemented for Senior Reactor
Operators
and Reactor Operators.
Item I.A.1.3, "Shift Manning"
of NUREG 0737 sets forth that there should
be a break of at least
12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />
(which can include shift turnover time) between all work
periods.
The Resident Inspector
was aware that no administrative
procedure
had been
implemented for the 12-hours in between shifts
as of approximately mid-January
1981.
The Resident
Inspector
subsequently
brought this to the attention of NRC Region II super-
visory personnel.
B.
SCOPE
OF INVESTIGATION
An investigation
was initiated on January
28, 1981,
under the
authority provided by Section 161.c of the Atomic Energy Act of
1964,
as
amended,
to ascertain
whether or not a material false
statement
had
been
made.
The scope of the investigation included
the following:
1.
Interviews of responsible
licensee
management
and line personnel.
'Inteeview of the
NRC Resident
Inspector, St. Lucie
Unit l.
3.
Review of the following licensee
documents:
I
-Nuclear Match Engineer
log'Night
Order book
-Administrative Procedure
0010119,
Revisions 0,
1 and
2
-Facility Review Group meeting minutes for December
23,
1980 and January
13, 1981
-Overtime repor t for exempt employees for one employee
as
well as daily time tickets for that employee
and two
others
C.
FINDINGS ANO CONCLUSIONS
The investigation disclosed that the response
to NUREG 0737 sub-
mitted under oath by an
.
.of Florida Power
and
Light contained
a false statement with regard to Item I.A.1.3 of
NUREG 0737 in that the procedure
implemented at St. Lucie on
December 23,
1980 did not include all of the restrictions
included
in NUREG 0737 and the response
did not take exception to the restric-
tion omitted.
However, the information obtained during the investi-
gation also indicated that except where exceptions
were documented
by FP&L in their response,
the procedure
included all of the other
restrictions identified in Item I.A.1.3 and that the single restriction
omitted was
a result of an oversight by a site employee.
The
investigation failed to identify any information which would indicate
that the false statement
was made knowingly or willfully.
With regard to materiality, the investigation disclosed
information.
which indicated that the licensee
was attempting to comply with the
requirements
of Item I.A.1.3 and while failure to document the few
instances
where exceptions to the restrictions
were granted
by site
management
constitutes
a deviation from commitments,
the false
statement
does not appear to be material from the standpoint of the
health
and safety of the public.
In view of the above, it is concluded that the statement did not
constitute
a material false statement.
However, it is further
concluded that the licensee
needs to develop
a more formal system
for assuring
the accuracy of'information'submitted to NRC.
0
/
0
SECTION II
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION
FLORIDA POMER AND LIGHT
ST.
LUCIE
JANUARY 28 -
FEBRUARY 5. 1981
A.
PERSONS
CONTACTED
Florida Power and Li ht
Cor orate Office
St. Lucie Site
Steel,
Hector and Davis
U.S. Nuclear
Re ulator'ommission
B..
S. A. Elrod, Resident
Inspector, St. Lucie 1
BACKGROUND
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
(NRC), Office of Inspection
and Enforcement (IE), issued Circular 80-02 entitled "Nuclear Power
Plant Staff Work Hours" on February 1, 1980, which recomnended,
among other things, that for scheduling
purposes,
personnel
perform-
ing safety related functions should have at least
a 12-hour break
between shifts.
No written response
to IEC 80-02 was required from
the licensee.
The NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
(NRR), Division of
Licensing,
issued.
a letter dated July 31, 1980, (hereinafter referred
to as the Eishenhut letter) to all power reactor licensees
addressing
the subject of interim criteria for shift staffing.
Although it
contained criteria similar to IEC 80-02, this letter did not list
or make any reference
to the 12-hour break between shifts
as previously
I
recommended
in IEC 80-02.
On page
.3 of that letter, four overtime
restrictions
were listed as follows:
An individual shall not be permitted to work more than 12
hours straight (not including shift turnover time}.
An individual shall not be permitted to work more than 24
hours in any 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> period.
3.
An individual shall not work more than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in any 7
day period.
4.
An individual shall not work more than 14 consecutive
days without having two consecutive
days off."
This letter further stated that administrative procedures
(required
by license'onditions)
shall also set forth a policy concerning
overtime work for Senior Reactor Operators,
Reactor
Operators
and
and that development
and implementation
of the administrative procedures
at operating plants would be
reviewed
by IE beginning
90 Days after the date of the letter.
Subsequently,
another letter from NRR dated October 31, 1980, set
forth post-Three Mile Island
(TMI) requirements
in a document
entitled "Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements"
(NUREG 0737).
Section I.A.1.3 of NUREG 0737 entitled "Shift Manning
Requirements"
set forth the following in regard to overtime restric-
tions:
"l.
An individual should not be permitted to work more than
12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> straight (not including shift turnover time).
2.
There should
be
a break of at least
12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />
(which can
include shift turnover time) between all work periods.
3.
An individual should not work more than
72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in any
7-day period.
4.
An individual should not be required to work more than
14
. consecutive
days without having 2 consecutive
days off.
However, recognizing that circumstances
may arise requiring
deviation from the above restrictions,
such deviation shall
be authorized
by the plant manager
or his deputy, or higher
levels of management
in accordance
with published
procedures
~
and with appropriate
documentation of the cause."
NUREG 0737 further specified in the transmittal letter that pursuant
to 10
CFR Par't 50,54(f) operating reactor licensees
were required
to furnish, within 45 days of the letter (October 31, 1980), confirmation
'? '
>A
~
II-3
that the implementation dates
indicated in Enclosure
1 of NUREG 0737 would be met.
The requirement for limiting overtime was
supposed
to be implemented
by November 1, 1980.
Part 50.54(f)
states:
"The licensee will at any time before expiration of the
license,
upon request of the Commission,
submit written statements,
signed
under oath, to enable the Commission to determine whether or
not the license should be modified, suspended
or revoked."
In mid-January
1981, the NRC's Resident
Inspector at Florida Power
and Light's St. Lucie Unit 1 nuclear power plant reviewed
a letter
to
NRR (Division of Licensing, Attention Mr. D. G. Eishenut)
from
FPSL's
I The letter, dated
December 23, 1980,
(FPI5L
identification: L-80-418) was in response
to
NUREG 0737 and stated
that the October
31,
1980 letter which transmitted
NUREG 0737 had
been reviewed.
The attachment
to the
FPSL letter indicated that
with regard to shift manning, the overtime restrictions
as described
in the July 3I Eisenhut letter and
NUREG 0737 had been
implemented
for Senior Reactor Operator s and Reactor
Operators.
The letter
and
attachment
from
were subscribed
and sworn to before
a
Dade County Notary Public on the 23rd of December,
1980
as being
true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and
belief.
C.
The resident inspector
was aware that the 12-hours-', in:between
shifts had. not been formally implemented in the St;-Lucie'adttiinistra-
tive procedures.
This was brought to the attention of the Resident
Inspector's
supervisor.
It was later determined
by Region II
management that an investigation would be conducted to determine if
a material false statement
had been
made by Florida Power and
Light.
The investigation
was initiated on January
28, 1981, under
the authority provided by Section 161.c of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954,
as
amended.
INVESTIGATIVE 'EFFORT
1.
Interview of
On February 2, 3.981, the
was interviewed
by the investigator
at the Florida.
Power and Light office in Miami, Florida.
Also present
were
the
< and
an attorney from the
firm of Steel,
Hector
and Davis in Miami, Florida.'hey were
advised of the purpose,
authority and scope of the NRC's
investigation.
~ ~
'
r
~
~ P
~
~
~
In essence,
the
( related that he issued the
December
23,
1980 letter believing that the overtime restric-
tions as described in the July 13,
1980 Eisenhut letter and
NUREG 0737 had
been
implemented.
However,
on February 2.
1981.
he learned that a procedure revision for the 12-hovr in
between
work periods
had not been
approved until January
15,
1981.
Apparently, the
had been
aware of the procedural
requirements,
but was
on
vacation
when the St. Lucie Facility Review Group
(FRG) having
responsibility for reviewing and approving plant procedures
met on December
23,
1980.
Hence,
the 12-hours
between shifts
was inadvertently omitted from the administrative procedure.
He pointed out that during the time period from December
20,
1980 to and including January
15,
1981, of 351 licensed shift
positions. manned only 3 instances
occurred in which the 12-
hour in between shifts rule was not adhered to.
He explained that when he signed the letter to the
NRC dated
December
23, 1980,
he had not seen
the administrative proce-
dure covering shift manning requirements
as it was developed
by and maintained at the St. Lucie plant and he did not normally
see copies of such procedures.
During the interview the investigator
was also informed that
FPSL had determined that
a similar situation
had occurred at
Turkey Point Units
3 and 4;
that is, the response
to
NUREG 0737 for Turkey Point indicated that Item I.A.1.3 had been
implemented
when, in fact, it had not.
The
agreed
to provide further details regarding
Turkey Point should they
be desired.
2.
Interview of NRC Resident
Ins ector
On February 3, 1981, the
NRC Resident Inspector, St. Lucie
Unit 1, was interviewed and pravided details of his knowledge
of this situation.
In essence,
he stated
the plant administrative
procedure did
not comply with the requirements
specified in
regarding
the 12-hour break between shifts.
During the months
of November,
December
and January
he brought this to the
attention of several
St. Lucie supervisory personnel.
In mid-
January
1981,
when he observed
the
December
23, 1980, letter
from the licensee
to the
NRC advising that Item I.A.1.3 of
NUREG 0737 had
been
implemented for SROs
and
ROs,
he
knew this
to be untrue and brought it to the attention of NRC Region II
management.
t
Subsequent
to the interview, the inspector provided copies of
St. Lucie Administrative Procedure
0010119,
Revisions 0,
1 and
2.
Additionally, he provided copies of the Facility Review
Group meeting minutes for December
23, 1980 and January 13,
1981.
Interview. of
On February 3, 1981,
J, St. Lucie Unit
1, was interviewed and provided details
concerning his knowledge
regarding this matter.
In essence,
he was pursuing implementation of the pt ocedure
change for all plant staff personnel
performing safety related
functions.
However, in mid-December
1980,
FPSL corporate
personnel
gave oral notice that their position in response
to
Item I.A.1.3 of NUREG 0737 would be to address
only SROs'and
ROs and they would take exception to applying the restrictions
to non-licensed
personnel.
The plant staff was instructed to
prepare
a procedure
which was consistent with that position.
He had
no further involvement in the procedure
change.
Regarding
the 12-hour between shifts,
he .paid 'that although
only recently formalized by the operations
group at St. Lucie 1,
they had adhered
as closely as possible to that rule.
He could
not recall the method
he used to provide the 12-hour between
shifts policy to the shift supervisors.
He thought it may have
been
done orally or written in the night orders.
During the December
23, 1980, to January
12, 1980, time frame,
he recalled being. called several
times by operations
personnel
about granting exceptions
to one of the overtime restrictions
set forth in NUREG 0737.
At that time, he,was
designated
to
perform the function of Plant Manager
Designee
as defined in
Chapter
13 of the
FSAR.
He could not recall documenting
these
exceptions
on any forms and
was not aware of'ny file.
Interview of
On February
3, 1981, the ....
St.
Lucie 1, was interviewed.
In essence,
he became
aware of the
12-hour between shifts requirement
when it was brought to his
attention
by the
NRC Resident
Inspector.
After confirming
this bv r'eviewing
he instructed
a
- to ensure
the 12-hour between shifts for SROs
and
was placed in the procedure
change draft.
He then went on
vacation
on
December
20, 1980,
and returned
on January
5,
1981.
He subsequently
learned
from the
that the 12-
hour requirement
had
been inadvertantly omitted from the
proposed
procedure revision,
and the
FRG had approved
the
~ g
p
~
II-6
administrative procedure revision without the 12-hour requirement.
He later reviewed the
FP&L time card records
and found 2
operators
and one plant supervisor
who had worked 8-hours on,
had only 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> off and returned to work for another
8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />
during the December 20, 1980 to January
16, 1981 time frame.
The names,
times
and dates
were provided to the investigators.
On February 4, 1981, the
't.
Lucie 1, was reinterviewed
by the investigators
and provided
the following information.
The interface
between
FP&L corporate
and St. Lucie site personnel
concerning
the 12-hour in between shifts,
was with the Power
Resources
(corporate) staff and St. Lucie's technical staff.
He had coordinated with a
I
regarding the drafting of the letter which was ultimately sent
to the
NRC.
Shift manning,
among
numerous other things,
was
mentioned,
but he could not definitely recall
any discussions
regarding
the 12-hours in between shifts.
He recalled
a
meeting with the
- on December
15,
1980
and numerous
telephone calls and also
remembered
observing
a
rough draft of the letter.
To ensure that St. Lucie was
complying with the letter
as stated
regarding the implementation
of NUREG 0737,
he instructed
a.
to make
the change in the procedure.
He assumed it would be done and
i
therefore
the letter to be sent to the
NRC would be accurate.
Interview of
.On February 4, 1981, the (former)
>at
St. Lucie
1 during the period
1976 through
1980 was interviewed
by. the investigators.
'In essence,
he stated
he was
aware of the
l2-hour in between shift limitations after being informed of
it sometime in the first half of December
1980 by the
.. In accordance
with the
'instructions,
he prepared
a procedure
change request with the l2-hour limitation
included in it.
However, prior to presentation
to the
FRG,
another
change
regarding shift technical
advisors
was directed
by corporate
personnel;
therefore,
he prepared
another
procedure
'h'ange
request.
The 12-hour between shifts
was inadvertently
left off of this
new procedure
change request,
which was
submitted to the
FRG and finally approved
on December. 23,
1980.
Hence,
the December 23,
1980 Administrative Procedure,
approved
by the
FRG and signed
by the Plant Nanager,
did not
have the 12-hour in between shift limitations included.
Neetin
Mith Plant
iguana er and Other Plan't Personnel
On February 4, 1981, the investigator
was advised that when-
ever
a procedure
change is necessary
guality Control
(gC)
keeps track of it.
That is,
a tracking document ("Pink Slip")
is generated
and forwa'rded to the responsible
department
head
who is required to respond
by providing a date
and what action
will be initiated.
In regard to the 12-hours
between shifts,
the "Pink Slip" was not issued
because
the
gC p~rson
who
reviewed
NUREG 0737 did not realize that there
was
a difference
between
the Eishenhut letter of July 31, 1980,
and
and did not realize
a procedure
change
was required.
Therefore,
they explained, it was
an oversight
by gC that resulted in the
omission of the 12-hour between shift requirement.
Record
Reviews
On February
4 and 5, 1981, the St. Lucie Nuclear Match Engineer's
Log was examined
by the investigator for the period from
7:30 .a.m.
on December 22,
1980 through 3:30 p.m.
on February 4,
1981.
The log is
a chronological listing of personnel
present
during each eight hour shift to include hours of overtime,
sick leave
and vacation time incurred by each individual
during each shift.
The purpose of this review was to deter-
mine whether or not any entries
were made regarding exceptions
from overtime restrictions for the three individuals who
worked 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> on,
8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> off and
8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> on.
No information
pertinent to this investigation
was identified.
The St. Lucie Night Order Book was reviewed
on February 4,
1981,
by the investigator.
The night order book is utilized
as
an informal method of issuing management
instructions which
have short-term applicability, but require dissemination.
Such instructions
encompass
special
operations,
housekeeping,
~
data taking, publications
and their distribution, plotting
process
parameters,
personnel
matters
and other similar items.
Inquiries by the investigator disclosed
the contents
are
periodically purged
or extraneous
information.
The purpose
of the review was to determine if the
had made
any entries in the book regarding
implementation of
the 12-hour between shifts.
An analysis of the existing
information, dated
between
September
12, 1980,
and February 2,
1981
revealed
no data pertinent to this investigation.
The three revisions of St. Lucie Administrative Procedure
0010119,
"Overtime Limitations for Licensed Operators"
were
also reviewed
by the investigator.
This review disclosed that
Revision 0, approved
by the Plant Manager
on October 31, 1980,
formally implemented
the restrictions
contained in the July 31
1
pip
Eisenhut letter (which did not include the 12-hour between
shifts restriction).
Revision
1 which was reviewed
by the
FRG
on December
23,
1980 and January
13, 1981,
and approved
by the
Plant Manager
on January
15, 1981, picked
up the 12-hour
between shift restriction, but was not specific as to who
could approve exceptions
to the restriction or the documenta-
tion required.
Revision
2 approved
by the Plant Manager
on
February 4, 1981, provided the necessary
amplification of
approval
and documentation
requirements.
A review of the minutes for the
FRG meetings
conducted
on
December
23,
198Q and January
13,
1981, disclosed that the
change considered
by the
FRG on December
23 involved the dele-
tion of the Shift Technical
Advisor from the positions
covered
by the restrictions.
The change to add the 12-hour
between
shift requirement
was not considered
by the
FRG until the
January
13 meeting.
Re uest for Overtime Exce tion Documentation
On February 4, 1981, the Technical Staff Supervisor
was'equested
by the investigator to interface with the Plant
Manager,
and attempt to locate
and present
any documentation
of the, granting of the exceptions
to the overtime restrictions
for the three individuals.
On February 5, 1981, the Plant
Manager was contacted
by the investigator
and he advised that
no documentation
had been found at that time.
Interview of
On February 5, 1981, the
l was interviewed
at the Florida Power and Light Company Corporate office in,
Miami, Florida.
During the interview,
he stated that on
November 17, 1980,
NUREG 0737 was delivered to his department,
Power Resources-Nuclear
(PRN).
In that there
was
a response
due,
PRN set about to prepare
the response
with input from. all
responsible parties.
The issue of complying'ith the shift
manning restrictions
was addressed
right from the start;
- however,
the emphasis
was placed
on who should
be covered
by
the restrictions.
FPSL eventually took exception in the
response
to extending
coverage to non-licensed
personnel.
There was then
a review and
comment cycle which ultimately
resulted in a semi-final draft that was discussed
on December
15, .
1980, in a meeting at St. Lucie between
the
- , St. Lucie 1,
an individual from Licensing
and
Environmental
Planning
and himself.
The final draft of the
December
23,
1980 letter
(L-80-418) was prepared
by himself
(noted by the initials
), and transmitted to the
'or .final signature.
0 ~<
0
III
~(P
v
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DADE
ss
~
E. A. Adomat
, being first duly sworn, deposes
and says:
t
That he is
Executive Vice President
of Florida Power 5 Light Company,
the Licensee herein;
That he has executed
the foregoing document; that the statements
made
in this document are true and correct to the best of his knowledge,
information, and belief, and that he is authorized to execute
the
document
on behalf of said Licensee.
Information regarding
the identity of certain
FPL employees
and their
0
1
1
1
a
- 3
gg the enclosed material is/AS exempt from public
sclosure
1n
accordance
with Section 2.790 of'he
NRC "Rules of Practice", Title 10,
Code of Federal
Regulations.
Pursuant to section(s)
90
a
7
this information is exempt from disclosure
because it will constitute
an
unwarranted
invasion of
ersonal
rivac if the
osition titles and
em lo ees'ames
in investi ator
records
corn iled for law enforcement
ur oses
are released.
c
E. A. Adomat
Subscribed
and sworn to before
me this
I
~~ day of
, 19~/
NOTARY PUBLIC,
n and for the County
of Dade, State of Florida.
Voteri Pub!!c, Slate
of Rorida
at
Large
~
.
My Cor.".rn'rssicn
Expires October 30, 1983
ion expires:
.
(
%~) ~ 4
'E