![]() |
|||
Index | Site Map | FAQ | Facility Info | Reading Rm | New | Help | Glossary | Contact Us | ![]() |
EA-97-162 - Crystal River 3 (Florida Power Corp.)EA 97-162 Florida Power Corporation SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND EXERCISE OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-302/97-06) Dear Mr. Anderson: This refers to the inspection conducted March 19-21, 1997, at Florida Power Corporation's (FPC) Crystal River Unit 3 nuclear facility. The purpose of the inspection was to assess changes made to the unit's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and operating procedures that involved a substantial increase in the number of operator actions necessary to mitigate a design basis small break loss of coolant accident (LOCA). The results of the inspection were formally transmitted to you by letter dated April 17, 1997. Based on the information developed during the inspection, the NRC has determined that a violation of NRC requirements occurred. The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice), and the circumstances surrounding the violation are described in detail in the subject inspection report. The violation involved (1) the failure to identify that the addition of required operator actions to mitigate a design basis small break LOCA constituted an unreviewed safety question (USQ); and (2) the subsequent failure to obtain NRC review and approval of that mitigation strategy. The apparent root causes of the violation were inadequate safety evaluations for procedure and FSAR revisions that added operator actions for design basis small break LOCA mitigation. Specifically, FPC failed to identify that, per 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2), the addition of operator actions to the previously approved design basis accident mitigation strategy may result in an increase in the probability of occurrence of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR and the possibility of a malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the FSAR. The changes introduced additional opportunities for operator error during small break LOCA mitigation and an increase in the probability of reactor coolant pump seal failure. Accordingly, FPC failed to identify that the changes involved an USQ that required NRC review and approval prior to implementation. Further, when FPC recognized that the additional operator actions were required, it failed to incorporate this latest developed information into an FSAR revision that was intended to reflect this change. This violation is a significant failure to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, including a failure such that a required license amendment was not sought and, therefore, has been categorized as a Severity Level III violation. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, a civil penalty normally would be considered for a Severity Level III violation. However, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, to exercise enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.(6) of the Enforcement Policy and not propose a civil penalty in this case. The NRC has concluded that discretion is appropriate in that: (1) the Crystal River facility is shutdown for performance reasons including engineering violations such as the ones in this case and those issued on March 12, 1997 (EAs 96-365, 96-465 and 96-527) which involved a Severity Level II problem for the failure to perform adequate reviews pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59; (2) the Crystal River facility will remain shut down until completion of a comprehensive program of improvements in the engineering area; (3) FPC has demonstrated that remedial action is being taken to ensure reestablishment of design margins for plant systems prior to plant restart; (4) NRC issued a $500,000 civil penalty on July 10, 1996 (EA 95-126) which included sanctions for engineering violations; and, (5) FPC's decision to restart the Crystal River facility requires NRC concurrence in accordance with a Confirmatory Action Letter issued on March 4, 1997. During the NRC review of the safety evaluation for FSAR Revision 23, it was determined that errors in the evaluation are similar to those identified in the March 12, 1997 escalated enforcement action described above. The FSAR Revision 23 safety evaluation contains inappropriate reasoning for determining if a USQ exists. For example, the evaluation states that no change was made to the function of any safety-related equipment when in fact automatic functions assumed in the safety analysis were replaced by manual actions. In addition, the evaluation utilizes industry guidelines that have not been accepted by the NRC. These and other statements are of concern to the NRC because FPC had indicated that this safety evaluation was a final product of its reanalysis effort at the time of the March 1997 inspection. Therefore, FPC is requested to include in its response those corrective actions necessary to ensure that safety evaluations contain sound reasoning and complete analysis to support a determination that a USQ does not exist. The NRC also noted that the FSAR Revision 23 safety evaluation contained a reevaluation of a letdown line break which concluded that the potential offsite dose was greater than stated in the FSAR. The NRC will conduct further reviews of this FSAR change. You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us. Sincerely, Original signed by Luis A. Reyes Regional Administrator Docket No. 50-302 Enclosure: Notice of Violation John P. Cowan, Vice President B. J. Hickle, Director David F. Kunsemiller, Director (SA2A) R. Alexander Glenn Attorney General Bill Passetti Joe Myers, Director Chairman Robert B. Borsum
Florida Power Corporation Docket No. 50-302 Crystal River Nuclear Plant License No. DPR-72 Unit 3 EA 97-162 During NRC inspections conducted March 19-21, 1997, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the violation is listed below: 10 CFR 50.59(a)(1) states, in part, that licensees may make changes to the facility or procedures as described in the safety analysis report, without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change involves an unreviewed safety question (USQ). 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2) states, in part, that a proposed change shall be deemed to involve a USQ (i) if the probability of occurrence of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report may be increased or (ii) if a possibility for a malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis report may be created. 10 CFR 50.59 (b)(1), in part, states that the licensee shall maintain records of changes in the facility and of changes in procedures made pursuant to this section. These records must include a written safety evaluation which provides the bases for the determination that the change does not involve a USQ. 10 CFR 50.59(c) states that a licensee who desires to make a change in the facility or procedures described in the safety analysis report which involves a USQ shall submit an application for amendment of his license pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement I). Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Florida Power Corporation (Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D. C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region II, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the Crystal River facility, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation: (1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may reference or include previously docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required response. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Action, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation. Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. If personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such material, you must specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21. Dated at Atlanta, Georgia |