IR 05000250/1979004
| ML17338A746 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1979 |
| From: | Blake J, Conlon T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17338A742 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-250-79-04, 50-250-79-4, 50-251-79-04, 50-251-79-4, NUDOCS 7906070375 | |
| Download: ML17338A746 (7) | |
Text
~S RE00 Vp O~
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION
REGION II
10'I MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos.
50-250/79-04 and 50-251/79-04 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33101 Facility Name:
Turkey Point Power Station Docket Nos.
50-250 and 50-251 License Nos.
DPR-31 and DPR-41 Inspection a
oi S te near Homestead, Florida Inspector:
J.
.
B ke Approved by: ~+~M~~Z/a~A T. E. Conlon, Section Chief, RCSES Branch ate Signed at Si ed SUMMARY Inspection on February 6-9, 1979
~l This routine unannounced inspection involved 27 inspector hours onsite in the areas of Inservice Inspection Program, Procedures, and Work Activities; Maintenance Welding; Housekeeping; and Previous Inspection Findings.
Results Of the six areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in five areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was found in one area (Infraction - Welding Material Control).
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Em lo ees
+H. E. Yaeger, Plant Manager
+J.
K. Hays, Plant Superintendent, Nuclear
+R. J.
Spooner, QAO Supervisor
- R. E. Tucker, QA Engineer
+J.
W. Brown, Assistant Manager, QA
- D. W. Jones, Quality Control Cupervisor-P. J. White, Maintenance Superintendent
- G. V. Papalexiou, PRN Specialist G. Gotch, Power Resources Staff Other Or anization Southwest Research Institute
+R. L. Niemeyer, Team Leader
+Attended Exit Interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 9, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph l above.
The inspector reviewed the details of the item of noncompliance and discussed the status of Unresolved Item No. 50-250, 251/78"32-01.
The housekeeping in the lower levels of the containment were highlighted as an area of concern.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s (Closed) Unresolved Item, (50-250/78-32-01, 50-251/78-32-01),
Record Requirements for Visual Inspection of Pressurizer Heater Connections.
The inspector reviewed the inspection records for pressurizer heater connections and verification of reactor coolant system integrity after the system has been opened.
Evidence of leakage through the heater and instrument penetrations would have been documented by either of these inspections.
This item is closed.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved Items were not identified during this inspectio ~
-2" 5.
Inde cadent Ins ection During the observation of inservice inspection work activities the inspector observed the level of housekeeping within the Unit 3 con-tainment building.
There appeared to be an inordinate amount of debris in the lower levels. of the containment.
This condition was identified as an area of concern during the exit interview.
6.
Inservice Ins ection - Review of Pro ram The inspector reviewed the licensees program for the review and control of the quality assurance and technical aspects of the inservice inspec-tion.
The inservice inspection activities were conducted by Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) in accordance with the Project Plan for the 1979 Inservice Examination which had been reviewed and approved by the FPSL ISI team, which is made up of representatives of the power resources office of FPGL as well as the plant QA and QC Staff.
The inspector reviewed the plant QA audit and surveillance program for the inservice inspection and the Power Resources activities concerning the review and monitoring of the inspection activities and results.
There were no item of noncompliance or deviations identified in this area of inspection.
7.
Inservice Ins ection - Review of Procedures The inspector reviewed the inspection procedures provided in the SwRI project plan.
Specific procedures reviewed for technical adequacy included:
SwRI - NDT - 200 - 1; Liquid Penetrant Examination Color Contrast Method.
SwRI - NDT - 300 - 2; Fluorescent Magnetic Particle Examination SwRI - NDT " 600 " 3; Manual Ultrasonic Examination of Pressure Piping Welds.
SwRI - NDT - 600 - 18; Manual Ultrasonic Examination of Pressure-Retaining Studs and Bolts 2" or greater in diameter containing access holes.
These procedure revisions were written to meet the inspection criteria of ASME BSPV Code,Section XI, 1970 Edition with Winter 1970 Addend There were no items of noncompliance or deviations identified in this area of the inspection.
8.
Inservice Ins ection - Observation of Work and Work Activities The inspector obsexved the.following inspection activities:
a.
Ultrasonic inspection of Meld No.
8 on 10" SIS - Loop C
b.
Ultrasonic inspection of studs on Loop C main coolant pump.
c.
Liquid penetrant inspection of weld lA on Pressurizer surge li'ne.
The inspector observed calibration activities for manual ultrasonic inspections and reviewed the qualification certifications for the personnel involved in these activities.
The inspector observed that the data recording activities were consistent with the requirements of the SwRI approved procedures.
There were no items of noncompliance or deviations in this area of the inspection.
9.
Maintenance Meldin On February 8, 1979 the inspector noticed an electrode rod warmer, partially filled with electrode, outside of the maintenance shop.
On February 9, 1979 the rod warner was still in the same location.
This was brought to the attention of the site gA representative.
The inspector and site gA representative checked with the electrode control attendant in the maintenance shop, who determined that the rod warmer in question (rod warmer No.
12) had not been properly issued on the 8th or the 9th and should not have been out with electrode in it.
This is in violation of the requirements of Administrative Procedure 0190.63, Welding Filler Metal Control Procedure.
The inspector informed the licensee that this would be an infraction against Criterion V of l0 CFR 50, Appendix IiJ I
L
~1