IR 05000250/1980031
| ML17329A280 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point, Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1981 |
| From: | Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17329A279 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-250-80-31, 50-251-80-29, 50-335-80-33, 50-389-80-14, NUDOCS 8103090766 | |
| Download: ML17329A280 (35) | |
Text
2p,8 R20Iy P
+
Cp
- 0
ro n +**yW UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 RePort NoseI 50-250/80-31, 50-251/80-29, 50-335/80"33 and 50"389/80"14 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company P.
O. Box 529100 Miami, FL 33152 Facility Name:
Turkey Point 3 and 4, St. Lucie 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-250, 50-251, 50-335, 50-389 License Nos. DPR-31, DPR-41, DPR-67, CPPR-144
. Meeting at FP&L Corporate Office, Miami, Florida Attending Personnel:
See etails Approved by:
/Z-C R. C. Lewis, Acting Chief, RONS Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Meeting conducted October 29, 1980 This special, announced management, meeting was conducted to discuss the results of.NRC.'s evaluation of FP&L's regulatory performance as concluded in the Systematic Assessment. of Licensee. Performance (SALP) program.
Results A summary of the licensee performance evaluation was presented.
Areas of concern were discussed with. corporate management.
FP&L's performance is. considered to be acceptable although three areas were identified for increased inspection emphasis.
81022d0D ~
DETAXLS *
Personnel Attending Meeting E.
W.
J.
S.
J.
R.
T.
R.
C.
J.
J.
E.
H.
A.
A.
H.
R.
J.
N.
C.
A.
Adomat, Executive Vice President R. Barr, Manager of Purchasing H. Barron, Operation Superintendent of Nuclear Section G. Brain, Senior Project Manager AD DeMastry, Manager Nuclear Licensing F. Englmeier, Assistant Manager of Quality Assurance Essinger, Assistant Manager of Quality Assurance D. Hankel, Assistant Manager of Nuclear Analysis S. Kent, Senior Project Manager R. Killingsworth, Director of Purchasing Inventory Resources M. McCabe, Senior Security Coordinator H. O'Neal, Assistant Chief Engineering N. Paduano, Manager Power Resources Nuclear Services D. Schmidt, Vice President E. Siebe, Manager of Quality Assurance F. Story, Power Resources Section Supervisor E. Uhrig, Vice President Advanced System and Technology E. Vessely, Direct Nuclear Affairs T.
Weems, Assistant QA Construction Manager 0.
Woody, Manager Power Resources Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission J.
P. O'Reilly, Director, Region XI R.
C'. Lewis,. Acting. Chief., RONS'ranch, Region IX R. Martin, Section Chief, RONS Branch, Region IX M. Grotenhuis, Licensing Project Manager, Turkey Point 3 and
J; McKinley, Chief Project Review Branch, gl ACRS I
NRC Resident Inspector S.
A.
H.
B.
EIrod, Senior Resident Inspector at St. Lucie Tgnatonis, -Senior Resident Xnspector at Turkey Point Bibb, Resident Inspector at St. Lucie Marsh, Resident Inspector at Turkey Point Areas Discussed.
A: brief summary of. the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
was presented to include the basis for the evaluation and its purpose.
b.
The results. of the SALP evaluation of the licensee's performance were discussed.
FP&L's performance to date is considered acceptable although three areas were identified for increased inspection emphasis by the NRC.
The SALP evaluations are contained in Enclosures 1 through
to this repor c.
Items of concern were discussed with corporate management to include those areas where the NRC considers additional licensee management attention may be warrante Enclosure
SYSTEMATIC. ASSESSMENT'F LICENSEE PERFORMANCE
'OR FIORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
1-1 R~eion IZ UTILITY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Utility: Florida Power and Light Company Units:
Turkey Point 3,
St. Lucie 1,
Appraisal Period:
Turkey Point. 3', 4, St. Iucie 1 - May 1, 1979 through April 30, 1980 St. Lucie 2 - September 1,
1979 through August 31, 1980 Review Board Members:
R.
C. Lewis, Acting Chief, RONS Branch C. E. Murphy, Chief, RCSES Branch R. Martin, Chief, Reactor Projects Section
J.
C. Bryant, Chief, Projects Section
T. E. Conlon, Chief, Engineering Support Section
M. Grotenhuis, LPM, NRR C'. Nelson, LPM, NRR.
SALP evaluations. for each. site. were generated.
as prerequisites to the NRC.,identi-fying, the: generaL performance. level. of, each. utility with. an NRC license.
These evaluations:
are. forwarded to an interoffice. review board formed of senior members from all Offices of the NRC involved in licensed activities.
The board will, by virtue of'eceiving all SALP'valuations-,
form a national perspective of licensee performance.
Additionally;. the. evaluations will.provide a means for. highlighting
'reas, of NRC programs that may require changes. or redirection.
In. developing the. site-evaluations it was determined.that an. overall evaluation of the utility's performance in its nuclear activities was desirable.
Additional enclosures document the individual site evaluations.
The utility.and.site. evaluations'ere presented in a.meeting with senior corporate management. in order. to, provide the: decision. makers of each utilitywith, the:-NRC's evaluation. of its: ove'rail. performance in nuclear activities'.
, 4 II
1-2 A.
Areas of Good Performance Florida Power and Light (FPSL) is generally responsive to NRC regulations and findings of noncompliance.
Reassignment of personnel at the site level has improved management effectiveness.
Licensed operator performance is above average.
Non-licensed operator performance warrants continued attention by the. licensee.
B.
Areas Where Im roved'erformance is Warranted Substantive differences have been observed in performance between the two sites.
This suggests there is minimal corporate involvement in day-to-day operations.
FPGL exhibits a rigid view of their. regulatory obligations and strives to meet the letter rather than the spirit of their commitments.
This is counterproductive in dealing with the NRC.
A poor attitude toward regulatory efforts exists on the part of certain individuals at the St. Lucie site.
This has been brought to the attention of the corporate office.
C.
Overall Evaluation As a result of this evaluation, FPSL is considered an average performer in the Region. It should be noted that this appraisal. contains the results of two team inspections...
The. results of. the noncompliance items, cannot be directly'compared.to..other facilities which have not received these inspections.
Future inspection results in these areas, compared with these results will be more indicative of both relative and absolute performanc Enclosure
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE FOR'.
TURKEY POINT UNITS 3 AND 4
2-1 Region II n
Licensee Performance Evaluation (0 erations)
Facility:
Turkey Point Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company Unit Identification:.
Docket No.
License No./Date of Issuance Unit No.
50-250 50 "251 DPR-31/7-19-72 DPR-41/4-10-73
4 Reactor Information Unit 3 Unit 4 NSSS MWT Westinghouse 2220
,Westinghouse 2220 Appraisal Period:
May 1, 1979 through April 30, 1980 These dates were used to provide a comparable basis for all operating reactors in Region II. Significant events or enforcement items occurring after these dates were. considered in, arriving at. the. indicated. conclusions.
Appraisal Completion Date:
October 9, 1980 Review Board Members:
R.
C.. Iewis, Acting Chief, RONS Branch.
R. Martin,. Chief, Reactor Projects Section
F. Jape, Acting Project Coordinator M. Grotenhuis, LPM, NRR (contacted by telephone on 10/8/80)
A. Ignatonis,, Senior Resident Inspector (contacted by telephone on 10/8/80)
W. Marsh., Resident Inspector (contacted by telephone on 10/8/80)
A.
Number and Nature of Noncom liance Items Noncompliance Category:
Unit 3 Unit 4 Violations Infractions Deficiencies,
13 2.
9
Areas of Noncompliance (I,ist Areas As Required)
2-2 Unit 3 (Points)
Unit 4 (Points)
Security Radiation Protection Environmental Quality Assurance Admin/OPS/Maintenance TOTAL POINTS
40
20
134
30
20
94 (1)
The Quality Assurance and Radiation Protection areas were addressed during enforcement conferences held June 6,
1979 and October 5, 1979, respectively.
Subsequent re-inspection in the QA area has closed the large majority of the noncompliances in that area.
(2)
Noncompliances in the administrative area were primarily failure to provide adequate procedures and failure.to follow procedures in the'peration and maintenance areas.
The licensee has committed to a program of procedure compliance and to upgrade the quality of procedures.
This is viewed as a major step by management in improving management control of plant activities.
(3)
Recent inspections have indicated signs of weakness in the area of identification, tracking; and completion of commitments to the NRC, such. as corrective action to items of noncompliance or programmatic commitments.
This area also remains open from the QA team visit of March 1979.
(4)
Evaluation. of. the Health. Physics, program was conducted May 5-16, 1980, by a team of radiation specialists including. Health Physics Inspectors from Reg'ion. II. Several. items remainopen.
B.
Number and Nature-of Licensee-Event Re orts Type: of. Events:
(By Cause Codes)
Unit. 3 Unit 4 Personnel. Error Design Installation Component Failure Other Not; Reviewed.
TOTAI,
4
12
6 40'
8 2.
'2
Licensee, Event Reports reviewed included 250-79-01 through 250-79-40, 251-79-1 through 251-79-18, with exceptions note "3 Licensee Event Reports,(LERs)
showed no clear trends.
Several LERs mentioned long-term corrective actions as being "scheduled".
The Resident inspector will review these actions to determine whether or not commitments are being properly tracked and managed.
C.
Escalated Enforcement Actions Civil Penalties:
None Orders:
TMI Lessons Learned License Order issued and resolved.
Immediate Action I,etters:
August, 31, 1979 - Issued to confirm the operational, procedural and instru-mentation actions to be taken by the licensee to avoid a future spent fuel pool overflow.
September 5,
1979 Issued to confirm the additional steps to be taken by the licensee to account for unmonitored radioactive liquid discharges, remove or evaluate the contaminated dry well,, and identify the source of activity in the storm drain system.
D.
Mana ement Conferences Held Durin the Twelve Months (1)
A meeting was held. with FPM, management.
and. corporate personnel in the Region II'ffice on June 6,
1979; The meeting was to express our concerns.
about the effectiveness of'he-FPSL's Operational Quality Assurance Program and Management.
ControL System related to Turkey Point. Units 3 and 4.
The-meeting'was held as a result of our identifying 15; items. and: 13. items. of. noncompliance.
on; Units. 3 and. 4, respectively during a QA Inspection in March 1979.
A followup inspection. conducted in December 1979 to determine the licensee responsiveness to our concerns closed the majority of noncompliances.
(2)
A meeting was held. with FP&L. mangement and corporate personnel in the Region lI office on October 5, 1979.
The meeting resulted, from two Immediate. Action. Letters (Paragraph C.) concerning. unplanned release-of radioactive water.
The licensee committed'o improve procedures, train personnel and to foll'ow.procedures.
The Senior Resident Inspector-reports-a: major improvement. in; the licensee's adherence to-procedures..
The HP. program was-. inspected during-the Health Physics team visit, May 5-16.
P E.
Justification of Evaluations of Functional Areas Cate orized. as Re uirin an Increase in Ins ection Em hasis (1)
A large number of design.
changes are underway as a result of TMI Lessons I,earned Task Force activities and Fire Protection Safety-Evaluation Repor I
2-4 (2)
Noncompliances in the areas of management control and review of design and maintenance activities indicate that weakness may exist in these areas.
(3)
The QA program for fire protection activities has not been fully implemented.
(4)
In 1980, the normal Health Physics Inspection program was modified to include only one visit by a team of radiation specialists responsible for inspection of all phases of the licensee's HP program.
The team concluded that'he.licensee's HP program was above average.
Increased emphasis in the above four areas is planned, but no change in inspection frequency is warranted.
F.
Com arison of Unit 3 With Unit 4 A comparison of Unit 3 with Unit 4 did not indicate that appreciable differ-ences exist between the units.
G.
Overall Evaluation Licensee performance is, acceptable and is judged to be average for the Region.
The routine inspection program will place increased emphasis in the areas of design changes, plant modifications, fire protection and health physics.
No increase in. inspection. scope or frequency is needed.
Appendix A -Functional Areas.
Appendix'
Action Plan (Internal Use Only)
t
APPENDIX A 2-A-1 FUNCTIONAL AREAS (Operations)
Inspection Frequency and/or Scope FUNCTIONAL AREA Increase No Change Decrease 1.
Management Control 2.
Plant Operations X
3.
Refueling Operations and Activities 4.
Maintenance X
5.
Surveillance and Preoperational Testing 6.
Training X
7.
Radiation Protection 8.
Environmental Protection 9.
Emergency Planning.
10..
Fire Protection 11.
Security and. Safeguards 12.
Design Changes and Modifications 13.
Reporting
QA Audits, X
15.
Committee Activities 16.
Quality. Control 17.
Procurement.
E'.
(BRANCH HIEF)
(DATE)
Enclosure
SYSTEMATIC. ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE FOR ST.
LUCIE. UNIT 1
3"1 R~eion ZI Licensee Performance Evaluation (0 erations)
Facility:
St. Lucie
Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company
'I Unit Identification:
Docket No.
50-335 Reactor Information NSSS MWT License No./Date of Issuance DPR-67/3-1-76 Unit
Combustion Engineering 2660 Unit No.
Appraisal Period:
May 1, 1979 through April 30, 1980 These dates were used to provide a comparable basis for all operating reactors in Region. II. Significant. events or: enforcement. items occuring after these dates were considered in arriving at the indicated conclusions.
Appraisal Completion Date:
October 9, 1980 Review Board Members:
R.
C. Iewis, Acting Chief; RONS'ranch R. Martin, Chief, Reactor'rojects Section 2.
F". Jape, Acting Project'oordinator.
C. Nelson,, LPM, (contacted, by'elephone on 10/8/80)
S; Elrod, Senior Resident Inspector (contacted by telephone on 10/7/80)
A.
Number and Nature of Noncom liance Items Noncompliance Category:
Unit
Violations.
Infractions Deficiencies-
13 (3 repeats)
4.
Areas. of Noncompliance.
List Areas As Required Unit
(Points)
Security Radiation Protection Operations/Maintenance Quality Assurance Training
'I TOTAL P,OINTS
40
20
168
The radiation protection items were concentrated in the area of shipping requirements.
Subsequent inspections failed to identify further problems in this area.
The QA items were the result of a team QA inspection.
The security items centered around failure to control accesses, especially to vital area, and searches.
The other areas contain relatively low point values, indicating satisfactory performance.
B.
Number and Nature of Licensee Event Re orts Type of Events:
uantit Personnel Error Design Error Installation Defective Procedures Component Failure.
Other TOTAL
3
1
4
Licensee Event Reports reviewed included 79-001/03L-0 through 79-036/03L.
Evaluation of the Above Tabulation:
Nine of the 36 event reports concerned the rod control system.
It appears that reliability of operation is low but failure prevents rod withdrawal or results, in rod insertion (dropped rod).
This compilation suggests a.design problem. rather than equipment failure.
The, personnel errors, design errors and installation errors are all personnel errors in reality.
They were spread over a spectrum of responsible parties.
No clear pattern emerges.
C..
Escalated. Enforcement, Actions.
Civil Penalties None Orders TMI Lessons. Learned Orders'ssued and resolved; D.
Mana ement'onferences Held Durin Twelve Months A meeting was held with FPGL facility'anagement'nd corporate personnel in Region II Office on March 26, 1980, to discuss NRC's concerns about the licensee's security program at St. Lucie Unit: l.
Areas of major concern were vital area accesses and searches, compounded by repeat noncompliances.
Followup inspections are planne E.
Justification of Evaluations of Functional Areas Cate orized as Re uirin an Increase in Ins ection Fre uenc The evaluation and management conference indicate a
need for increased emphasis in the physical security area.
Followup inspections in the physical security area will be conducted to resolve current issues.
No change in routine inspection program is warranted.
F.
Com arison of Unit 1 With Unit 2 A comparison of Unit 1 (in operation) with Unit 2 (in construction) is not useful for the period of this evaluation.
As Unit 2 progresses through construction (estimated completion early 1982)
an appropriate comparison willbe available.
G.
Overall Evaluation Licensee performance is acceptable.
The licensee's performance is considered average as compared with other Region II reactors.
No increase in the inspection program scope or frequency is needed.
The routine inspection program willplace increased. emphasis on plant physical security.
Appendix A - Functional Areas Appendix B - Action Plan (Internal Use Only)
APPENDIX A 3-A-1 FUNCTIONAL AREAS (Operations)
Inspection Frequency and/or Scope FUNCTIONAL AREA Increase No Change Decrease 1.
Management. Control 2.
Plant Operations 3.
Refueling Operations and Activities X
4.
Maintenance 5.
Surveillance and Preoperational Testing 6.
Training X
7.
Radiation Protection 8.
Environmental. Protection, X,
9.
Emergency Planning 10.
Fire. Protection.,
ll.
Security'nd.
Safeguards'2.
Design Changes and Modifications X
13.
Reporting 14.
QA Audits 15.
Committee. Activities 16.
Quality Control 17".
Procurement (B H CHIEF)
~//z-f/
(DATE)
Enclosure
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OE LICENSEE PERFORMANCE FOR ST. IUCIE. UNIT 2
4-1
REGION II
LICENSEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (CONSTRUCTION)
Facility:
St. Lucie, Unit 2 Licensee:
Florida Power and Ligh't Company Unit Identification:
Docket No.
50-389 Reactor Information:
CP No./Date of Issuance CPPR-144/5/2/1977 Unit 2 Unit No.
.NSSS.
Combustion Engineering MWt 2440 Appraisal Period:
September 1,
1979 through August 31, 1980 Appraisal Completion Date:
October 9, 1980 Review Board Members:
, C. E. Murphy, Chief, RCGES Branch J.
C. Bryant, Chief, Projects Section
/$1 T. E. Conlon, Chief', Engineering Support. Section,j/1 C.
R. McFarland, Project. Inspector R. A. Birkel, Licensing-Project'anager,.
NRR (By Telephone)
A.
Number and Nature of Noncom liance Items Noncompliance-category:
Unit 2 Violations Infractions Deficiencies
6
Areas of Noncompliance:.
(List Areas-as Required)
Unit 2 (Points)
Instructions;,. Procedures, and. Drawings, Par< 2 Procedural. Requirements Environmental Concerns Total Points,
10
64
N
4-2 The board in its deliberation of Noncompliance Items considered that the timing of the noncompliance did not indicate a trend that would indicate any major breakdown in the licensee's QA program.
The licensee's responses to the noncompliances has been found to be adequate and timely.
B.
Number and Nature of Construction Deficienc Re orts (CDRs)
Electrical Mechanical Welding Only one CDR (hurricane damage)
related to site work.
The other CDRs related to design and component manufacturing problems.
The licensee has exercised care in evaluating CDRs and the reports have been acceptable.
C.
Escalated Enforcement Actions None during this audit period.
'ana ement Conferences Held Durin Past Twelve Months None.
E.
Justification of Evaluations of Functional Areas Cate orized as Re uirin an Increase in Ins ection, Fre uenc /Sco e
(See evaluation sheet)
The: construction. activities have increased to the point'hat. within the-next twelve-months windows of opportunities. will be open for all modules.
Cold hydro is scheduled for March 1982, and fuel loading is scheduled for October 1982.
The routine NRC inspection of areas has been needed, but the routine program has been severely impacted by the reactive inspection requirements.
During the. appraisal period no inspections were performed by a mechanical inspector, and only one was performed by an electrical. inspector.
The licensee's construction and inspection programs have been. maintained. on schedule.
F.
Co arison of Unit 2 With Unit 1 A, comparison of Unit 2 (in construction) with Unit 1 (in operation) is not.
useful for the period of; this evaluation.
As Unit 2'rogresses through.
construction (estimated" completi'on" early 1982)
an appropriate-comparison willbe available.
G'.
Overall Evaluation
Inspection results reflect that the licensee's performance is adequate and average for the region.
The licensee is responsive to NRC concerns.
Appendix A Functional Areas Appendix B - Action Plan (Internal Use Only)
APPENDIX A FUNCTIONAL AREAS (Construction)
Inspection Frequency and/or Scope FUNCTIONAL AREA Increase No Change Decrease 1.
Quality Assurance, Management 8 Training 2.
Substructure and Foundations 3.
Concrete X
4.
Liner (Containment and Others)
5.
Safety-Related Structures 6.
Piping 8 Hangers (Reactor Coolant 6 Others)
X
'afety-Related Components (Vessel, Internals and HVAC)
8.
Electrical Equipment 9.
Electrical (Tray and Wire)
10.
Instrumentation.
ll. Fire Protection 12..
Preservice Inspection 13.
Reporting (BRAN F)
( ATE
4