IR 05000250/1980036
| ML17340A857 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1981 |
| From: | Ignatonis A, Julian C, Marsh W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17340A853 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-250-80-36, 50-251-80-34, NUDOCS 8103190312 | |
| Download: ML17340A857 (12) | |
Text
~g RK0('
~p I
nO I
cA
+~
~O
++*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 JANE'0 en)
Report Nos. 50-250/80-36 and 50>>251/80-34 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, FI 33101 Facility Name:
Turkey Point Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 License Nos.
DPR-31 and DPR-41 Inspection at Turkey Point site near Homestead, Florida Inspector:
A. J. Ignat s
~I>7 3'/
Date Signed Accompanying Personnel:
W.
C.
ars Approved by:
C
'C. A. Julian, cting Section Chief, RONS Branch Date Signed ate igned SUMMARY Inspection on November 1-30, 1980 Areas Inspected This routine inspection involved 144 inspector-hours on site.
During this reporting; period Unit 4-has. been: shutdown for an 8 week refueling outage.
Unit 3 has been restarted following a scheduled maintenance outage, but subsequently experienced two unscheduled shutdowns in the latter part of November.
The areas of inspection were:
followup on previous unresolved items; licensee event report followup; licensee action on an IE Bulletin followup; surveillance test observation; plant, operations which included general observations of Unit 4 refueling evaluations; and plant tours.
Results Of the six areas. inspected no apparent violations or deviations were identified in five areas;, one'apparent violation was found in one area (Violation Failure to fully restore minor portions of the safety related systemsto normal conditions
Followup on Previous Unresolved Items (Closed)
(50-250/80-33, 50-251/80-32-02)
Failure to fully restore a safety system to operation following maintenance.
Based upon further inspection, the inspector concluded that this item was one example of a failure to implement procedures.
(50=250/80-'36-01;.:50-.251/80>>34-01)
.See Paragraph 10.
New Unresolved Items Unresolved 'items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items or may involved vio-lations or deviations.
The unresolved item disclosed during this inspection is discussed in Paragraph 7.
Licensee Event Report Followup.
During this inspection the following Licensee Event Reports were followed Up:
a.
50-250/80-04
"A" Emergency Diesel Generator Update Report No.
b.
50-250/80-17 Nuclear Instrumentation System Channel N-43 c.
50-250/80-20 Technical Specification 4.5.2.a Missed Surveillance For LER No. 50-250/80-17 the inspector has noted that an additional corrective action was taken. other than;provided.in the report.
This was the replacement of the. detector. associated. with. channel. N-43.
Testing of the N-43 channel following, cable replacement (stated corrective action in the LER) revealed unsatisfactory response" characteristics.
Consequently, the detector was replaced as well.
This placed the system in an acceptable operating condi-tion..
No violations or deviations. were identified within the areas inspected.
Licensee Action on IE Bulletins (Open)
IE Bulletin 80-20 Failures of Westinghouse Type W-2 Spring Return to Neutral, Control Switches The-inspector. reviewed. the licensee's, response to the subject bulletin dated Septembex." 16~ 1980..
Response to item 2 of the bulletin was a commitment by the Licensee-to. perform continuity testing of the. affected control switches.
used. in. safety-related applications at least every 92. days after the initial test.
These continuity tests are planned to be'discontinued after imple-mentation of. a longer term corrective. action.
The inspector followed up on. the licensee's adherence to the surveillance frequency of the control switches by talking to the Assistant Electrical Superintendent, and found that the quarterly inspection has been performed on Unit 3, but missed on Unit 4.
Subsequently the licensee took prompt
DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees-H.
D.
V.
J.
G.
J.
C.
T.
L.
J.
D.
C.
W.
B.
B.
~J D.
W.
S.
E. Yaeger,'Site Manager K. Hays, Plant Manager-Nuclear E. Moore, Operations Superintendent-Nuclear W. Haase, Technical Department Supervisor B. Wager, Operations Supervisor Wade, Chemistry Supervisor G. Jones, Nuclear Plant Supervisor E. Crockford, Nuclear Plant Supervisor A. Coker, Nuclear Plant Supervisor A. Finn, Nuclear Plant Supervisor C. Huenniger, Nuclear Plant Supervisor I. Whitehead, Nuclear Plant Supervisor C. Bradford, Refueling Coordinator Baker, Construction Coordinator.
A. Klein, Li'censing Engineer Abrishami, Systems Test Engineer C. Kilpatrick, Asst. Superintendent Nuclear Maintenance-Secondary P. Mendietta, Maintenance Superintendent W. Jones, QC. Supervisor Williamson, Asst. Superintendent Electrical Maintenance Feith, QA Supervisor'perations Other licensee employees contacted included operators, craftsmen, technicians-,
security personnel, QC personnel, and engineering personnel.
NRC.Resident..Inspector-A. J. Ignatonis-W. C. Marsh-Attended monthly exit interview 2.
Monthly Exit Interview An interview was conducted on. December 5,.
1980 with the plant management personnel The inspectors summarized. the-scope and findings, of the month of November inspection activities to the persons indicated in Paragraph.
~
above.
The site and. plant'anagers acknowledged the. stated violation and.
agreed to take corrective action.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected during this inspection report perio ~
'
/
action in conducting. the inspection.
This item will be-carried as an unre-solved item (50-251/80-34-02)
pending NRC's acceptance of the licensee's proposed surveillance interval in response to the subject bulletin.
Surveillance Test Observation During this inspection period a portion of the monthly surveillance test of the High Head Safety Injection System was witnessed by the inspector.
This test was performed on November 12, 1980 in accordance to Operating Procedure 4104.1, "High Head Safety Injection System-Periodic Test".
The following items were verified:
a.
Testing is scheduled in accordance with technical specification require-ments.
b.
Procedures.are:being followed.
c.
Testing is by qualified personnel.
d.
LCOs are being met.
e.
System restoration is correctly accomplished following testing.
No violations. or deviations, were identified. for the areas inspected above.
Plant. Operations The-inspector: kept informed. on. a daily basis of. the overall plant status and. any-significant safety matters related to plant operations..
Discussions were* held: with plant management and" various members of the operations staff on a regular basis.
Selected portions of daily. operating logs and operating data; sheets.
were. reviewed on. at least a weekly basis during the report.
period.,
The inspector conducted, various plant tours and made frequent visits 'to the controL room.
Observations included witnessing. work activities in progress, status of'perating and standby safety systems, confirming valve positions, instrument, readings and recordings, annunciator alarms, housekeeping, radiation area controls, and vital area controls.
Informal. discussions were held with operators.
and other personnel.
on work.
activities: in; progress. and'tatus: of'afety-related'quipment or systems.
During. the routine plant, operations, inspection conducted on November 19, 1980, the resident inspector. was present in the control room when Unit 3 experienced a, feedwater, control problem.
The transient. resulted in a reactor trip due to low steam generator (S/G) "A" level, conincident with a. steam flow/feed flow mismatch and the shearing of a 2" non-safety-related tertiary S/G filland chemical recirculation lin The line broke at the weld which connected it to the S/G "B" bypass feed line.
Hot feedwater flowing from the break resulted in the loss of several hundred gallons per minute for. approximately 30 minutes.
Licensee per-sonnel using air eductors and water hoses cleared the area of steam vapor, pinpointed the leak, and manually isolated the break.
The auxiliary feedwater system functioned normally and maintained S/G levels without difficulty. All safety systems functioned normally fol-lowing the trip.
The inspector attended licensee management meetings which discussed their recovery plans.
Action items conducted during this period included:
disassembly and repair of the "B" bypass feed regulating valve calibration of all feed regulating bypass valves Plant Change Memorandum (PCM) issued to remove and capweld the other 2" filland chemical recirculating lines connected to the bypass feed-lines visual inspections of. all condensate and feedwater systems inside and outside containment.
I The inspector observed the reactor startup following the repair conducted by the licensee.
The startup to 25/ reactor power was normal at which time.
problems were noted with the "A" main feed regulating valve.
The unit's turbine generator was taken off. line and the reactor was maintained criti-cal while the valve was inspected.
'The inspection revealed that the valve plug had broken off the stem.
The valve was repaired and tested, then the unit. was* returned. to service.
The inspector will evaluate the LER'o be submitted by the licensee related to this occurrence.
For, Unit 4-the.. inspector's observed refueling evolutions including such activities. as the removal of the reactor vessel upper internal component and fuel shuffle operations.
No violations or deviations were identified within the areas inspected.'ours During tours. of the Auxiliary Building, the inspector noted three instances in,which;mino~ portions. of safety related systems had not been fully'restored to normal= operating condition. after maintenance..
The. information. which, follows. further describes-the violation".
Plant Administrative-procedure A.P 103.11,.
"Housekeeping" assigns certain post maintenance responsibilities to maintenance supervisors for verification of restoration of the work area after work is complete.
In the procedure housekeeping is defined as:
"Housekeeping
-. the control of work activities, conditions and environments that affect the overall cleanliness of the facility, and material and equipment located in or near nuclear safety-related areas."
During inspector tours it was noted that this procedure was not followed in that:
r
The Unit 4 Blender Station pipe support was not replaced and a temporary support removed following completion of the maintenance.
<<
The Unit 3 Boron Injection Tank insulated manway cover was not rein-stalled following maintenance completed in January 1978.
Unit 3 and Unit 4 heat tracing systems spray tight covers for the heat tracing circuit thermostats were routinely left not installed.
Failure of the supervisors involved, to implement the requirements of AP 103.11 constitute three examples of a single violation. of Technical Specification 6.8.1 which requires wiitten procedures and administrative policies that meet or exceed the reqirements and recommendations of ANSI 18.7-1972 paragraphs 5.1 and 5.3 be implemented (50-250/80-36-01, 50-251/80-34-01).
~
I I