IR 05000250/1980004
| ML17339A987 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1980 |
| From: | Martin R, Vogtlowell R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17339A982 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-250-80-04, 50-250-80-4, 50-251-80-04, 50-251-80-4, NUDOCS 8005050205 | |
| Download: ML17339A987 (12) | |
Text
~R REOII
~o tn
~c n
O e
I ns
+O gO
++*++
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 80 050~0 Report, Nos. 50-250/80-04 and 50-251/80-04 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Glagler Street Miami, Florida 33101 Facility Name:
Turkey Point 3 and
Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 Iicense Nos.
DPR-31 and DPR-41 Inspection at Tur y Point site near Homestead, Florida Inspector:
C77~'7~
R. J.
Vog Lowell Approved by:
R. D. Martin, Section Chief, RONS Branch Date Signed t/ &
D te igned t
SUMMARY Inspection on January 7-31, 1980 Areas Inspected This routine inspection involved 120 inspector-hours on site in the areas of plant operations;-
maintenance activities; reactor coolant pump seal replacement; equipment clearance orders; Quality Assurance Records; Licensee Action on IE Bulletins.
Results Of the six areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in four areas; two apparent items of noncompliance were found in two areas (Infraction:
Failure to follow procedures
- paragraph 8;
Deficiency:
Failure to follow Topical Quality Requirement 17.0 as implemented by AP 190.14 "
paragraph 9).
f)<~ )
r,~ gF g!'
>,
i
DETAILS Persons Contacted H. E. Yaeger, Site Manager J. K. Hays, Plant Manager - Nuclear J.
E. Moore, Operations Superintendent
- Nuclear D.
W. Haase, Technical Department Supervisor V. B. Wager, Operations Supervisor G.
G. Jones, Nuclear Plant Supervisor T. A. Finn, Nuclear Plant Supervisor L. C. Huenniger, Nuclear Plant Supervisor K. S. Metzger, Nuclear Watch Engineer J
J.
E. Crockford, Nuclear Plant Supervisor P.
R. Lanning., Nuclear Watch Engineer R.
G. Mende, Unit 3 Reactor Engineer D,
C. Bradford, Refueling Coordinator W. A. Klein, Licensing Engineer P. J. White, Maintenance Superintendent W. R. Williams, Assistant Superintendent Electrical Maintenance J.
P. Mendieta, I 8 C Department Supervisor L. Thomas, Assistant Superintendent Nuclear Maintenance - Primary B.
C. Kilpatrick, Assistant Superintendent Nuclear Maintenance - Secondary D. Jones, QC Supervisor S. Feith, Operations QA Supervisor Other licensee employees contacted included operators, craftsmen, technicians, security personnel, QA personnel, and engineering personnel.
2.
Management Interviews A management interview was conducted on February 1, 1980, with the Plant Manager and selected members of his staff.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of his inspection activities'he licensee did not take exception to the items of noncompliance discussed in paragraphs 8 and 9 of this report.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items None identified during. this report period.'
5.
Plant Operations
~ >Mr The inspector reviewed plant operations to ascertain conformance with regulatory requirements, technical specifications and administrative directives.
The control room logs, shift supervisors'ogs, and equipment clearance
o
logs for both units were reviewed.
Interviews with a number of plant operations personnel were held on the day and night shifts.
Supervisor and control room operator actions were observed during shifts and at various shift changes.
The number of licensed personnel on each shift met or exceeded the requirements of the Technical Specifications.
Operators were responsive to annunciator alarms and appeared to be cognizant of plant status.
The following areas were toured by the inspector at various times during the inspection report period:
a b.
C.
d.
e.f.
Control Room Cable Spreading Area Rod Control Equipment Rooms Switchgear Rooms Auxiliary Building Turbine Area During the tours, observations were made of housekeeping and cleanliness, ongoing activities, security equipment status and radiation control practices.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were t
identified.
6.
Maintenance Activities a.
Electrical Maintenance - The inspector conducted various discussions with the Plant Electrical Maintenance Superintendent and reviewed the status of work controlled by plant work orders (PWO) which were in effect during the refueling 'outage.
Discussions were also conducted with the electrical department Quality Control Technician.
The inspector reviewed the status of a sample of completed PWOs which had been transmitted to the Document Control Department.
b.
Mechanical Maintenance - The status and degree of completion of several PWOs being implemented during the outage was reviewed by the inspector.
Various PWOs were inspected at the actual work location to ascertain the following:
(1)
Administrative approvals were obtained and controls were established for performing the work.
(2)
Maintenance was accomplished using an approved and technically adequate procedure.
(3)
Post maintenance testing was delineated,
-as appropriat (4)
Quality control records were available for the maintenance being performed.
(5)
Maintenance was accomplished by technically qualified personnel.
C ~
Instrumentation and Control Maintenance - The inspector reviewed the program for control of PWO's issued under the purview of the Instrumen-tation and Control (ISC) Department.
A random sample of open PWO's was reviewed by the inspector.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP)
3C Seal Replacement The inspector reviewed PWO 1407 associated with the inspection of the 3C RCP seals which had experienced a failure on January 24, 1980.
The inspector verified that the PWO was approved by Quality Control and that properly approved plant procedures were referenced for the work t'o be done.
A containment entry on January 29, 1980 was made by the inspector to verify by observation that work in progress on the RCP was being. performed in accordance with the required plant procedures.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Equipment Clearance Orders The inspector reviewed Administrative Procedure A. P. 0103.4, "In-Plant Equipment Clearance Orders" in addition to a selection of completed Equipment Clearance Order forms for Unit 3 for the months of December 1979 and January 1980.
These forms were reviewed in the Document Control Room where they had been sent upon completion, as required by AP 0103.4.
The inspector noted various discrepancies in the way the forms.were filled out versus the requirements of AP 0103.4.
The following. are some of the examples:
Clearance No.
Date Issued Discre ancies
1-259 1-28-80 1) Number. of tags issued does not equal number of tags r
2) Time the clearance was released was omitted I
~
~
ly P
-4-Clearance No.
1-225 Date Issued 1-24-80 (CONTINUED)
1) Number of tags issued does not equal number of tags removed 2) Date, time and person releasing the clearance was omitted 1-192 1-20-80 Number of tags issued was omitted 1-267 1-29-80 Reason for the clearance was omitted 1-268 1-29-80 1) Number of tags issued does not equal number of tags removed 2) Time the clearance was issued does not indicate AM or PM In that AP 0103.4 delineates the proper method for filling out Equipment Clearance Order forms and such method was not followed, as shown in the above examples, this is an item of noncompliance
{50-250/80-04-01).
9.
Quality Assurance Records The inspector reviewed Administrative Procedure AP 0190.14,
"Document Control and Quality Assurance Records".
As part of his review, the inspec-tor examined a random sample of the following. Quality Assurance Records:
a.
Equipment Clearance Order forms b.
Equipment Clearance Order index c.
Compliance Review Sheets Paragraph 8.4.5 of AP 0190.14 states, in part, that "any entry that is incorrect shall be corrected by drawing. a single line through the incorrect
.entry then adding the correct item.
The person marking. the correction shall initial and date the correction".
Contrary to this requirement, the
~
~
O inspector noted that corrections were made on the following Unit 3 equiment clearance order forms without these corrections being initialed and/or dated:
Clearance No. 1-261 Clearance No.
12-57 This is an item of noncompliance (50-250/80-04-02).
10.
Licensee Action on IE Bulletins a
~
(Closed)
IE Bulletin 79-28 - Possible Malfunction 180 Iimit Switches at Elevated Temperatures:
The was reviewed by the NRC regional technical staff.
evolved subsequent to their review.
This item is of Namco Model EA licensee's response No further questions closed.
b.
(Closed)
IE Bulletin 79-24 - Frozen Lines:
The inspector reviewed the licensee's response to this item and had no further questions.
This item is close I C"