IR 05000250/1981001
| ML17341A440 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1981 |
| From: | Robert Lewis, Marsh W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17341A438 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-250-81-01, 50-250-81-1, 50-251-81-01, 50-251-81-1, NUDOCS 8108180299 | |
| Download: ML17341A440 (18) | |
Text
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303
!
~g RS0y
Cy 0O
+n
~O
++*++
Report Nos. 50-250/81-1 and 50-251/81-1 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33101 Facility Name:
Turkey Point Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 License Nos.
DPR-31 and DPR-41 Inspection at the Inspector:
W.
C.
M Approved by:
Turkey Point site near Homestead, Florida Date Signed o /
R.
C. Lewis, Acting Chief, RONS Branch Date Signed'UMMARY Inspection on January 29, 1981 Areas Inspected This special inspection involved two resident inspector-hours onsite in the area of plant operations to assure NRC requirements relating to the manning 'of the control room were being complied with.
Turkey Point Units 3-and 4 were operating at a power level of 100 percent.
Results In the area inspected, one violation was found (Violation - Failure of an oper-ator to be present at the Unit 3 controls while operating at 100 percent power paragraph 5).
( saosasoss9 sio4so
'DR ADOCK 05000250 i
E, 8 PDR"
DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees-H. Yaeger, Site Manager J.
Hays, Plant Manager - Nuclear J.
Moore, Operations Superintendent
- Nuclear G. Jones, Nuclear Watch Supervisor Two Nuclear Control Center Operators-Attended exit inteview 2.
Exit Interview
,
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on January 29, 1981 with the site manager.
The inspector discussed the Unit 3 controls being unat-tended for a short period of time while the Unit 3 Nuclear Control Center Operator left the surveillance area of the control room to obtain a cup of coffee.
The site manager acknowledged the violation and stated that cor-rective action would be taken.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Plant Operations During a routine tour of the facility, the inspector entered the control room for Units 3 and 4 at about ll:45 a.m.
on January 29, 1981.
Unit 3 and 4 were operating at 100 percent power.
Only a single Nuclear Control Center Operator (NCCO)
was on watch at the Unit 4 console.
Neither the Unit 3 NCCO nor the third NCCO were visible; The third NCCO is required to be on duty by the Technical Specifications when both plants are operating, but he is not required to remain in the control room.
Within about two seconds, the Unit
NCCO returned from the kitchen area with a cup of coffee.
The Nuclear Watch Supervisor and Watch Engineer, both licensed senior reactor operators, were in their offices immediately adjacent to the control room defined surveillance area, with their doors open.
Surveillance of the Unit 3 control console is not possible from these offices due to the location of instrumentation racks between the offices and the console.
(Enclosure 1) The kitchen area is also outside of the defined surveillance area and observation of the Unit 3 instruments and controls is not possible from the kitchen.
Annunciator alarms are differentiable in that Unit 3 has buzzers and Unit 4 utilizes bells.
The annunciators can be heard in the kitchen are A
The inspector interviewed the Unit 3 NCCO and the Nuclear Watch Supervisor and determined that the third NCCO on shift had been sent to the cable spreading room to troubleshoot a problem with the power supply breaker to a 3A battery charger.
The inspector estimated that the Unit 3 controls were totally unattended for a short period of time, probably less than one minute.
A diagram of the control room surveillance area and surrounding environs with the locations of all licensed personnel in the area at the time of the inspector's arrival is shown in Enclosure 1.
Both units were operating at 100$ power and stable, no evolutions or surveillance tests were observed to be in progress.
CFR 50.54(k) states,
"an operator or senior operator licensed pursuant to Part 55 of this chapter shall be present at the controls at all times during the operation of the facility."
Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires that "written procedures and administrative policies shall be established, implemented, and maintained that meet or exceed the require-ments and recommendations of section 5.1 and 5.3 of ANSI N18.7-1972..."
Plant Operating Procedure 0103.2 "Responsibilities Of Operators On Shift and Maintenance Of Operating I,ogs and Records" states in section 5.3.3 that the NCCO shall have an unobstructed view of and access to the control panels, including instrumentation displays and alarms.
Also, that the NCCO shall not leave the surveillance area (Enclosure 1) for any non-emergency reason, without obtaining a qualified relief.
Section 5.3.4 of the procedure states. that a single operator shall not assume the nuclear control center operator responsibility for both units at the same time, unless so directed and such action is in compliance with Technical Specification 6.2.2 or is necessitated by emergency conditions.
The procedure meets the guidance provided'n Regulatory Guide 1.114, entitled Guidance on Being Operator at the Controls of a Nuclear Power Plant.
The Unit 3 nuclear control console was observed to be. unattended at ll:45 a.m.,
on January 29, 1981, in that a licensed operator or senior operator was not within the surveillance area, had left without obtaining a qualified relief and there was no facility emergency at the time that required the Unit 3 operator to leave the surveillance area.
Ieaving the Unit 3 control console unattended, even briefly, is in violation with
CFR 50.54(k)
and Technical Specification 6.8.1, which specifies that procedures shall be developed and implemented.
Sections 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 of operating procedure 0103.2 were not followe COlfNOL IIIIIX't-I'Ill)1'
rlllrl'
CIAfjtI)t.
l rut)r.
I I<<m.
Cl)tfrtlnl.
I'III)T. CUAIIIIA
~A
~
~
~
I Irlthfl)I:II'III)l PA)'ffIIII'I.
l I'Pt)T ~
~ W I
O II) '
0I OIi)
~ ~
DrÃ
'r L
BTAI IIS 1'C l)r'I g
Cl))~Ill.t'.
tlI8
)rKtl
[
'Ural OI-FICF.
t)l') )CII hlI I.I f VI'A CO tl!r'llUU KlTIDII-Z
'0
~ ~
1ftl
)C
~t'IIIltiI'h I rI Il)IIN:I; I)
~ H C)
C 2 Pg O fU)R
~ ~ 4 W~
4A M~ tU)
Q C) C) v teal ~cn rD C. MC)
M CV IU1
~-e tJ W I C.
m-Ifn AJ ow MW1~~
-I~ ~"
~ ~M M VI rUI I) ~
I Q)e
-
gr R~ A
<n>
C>
I/I II)
AI m
CD Irr)
Q)
IC)
4pcA TlolVrf OP CJC&LMID RQOWEC BUUUUIIJ*Ill:UllllrA
<<I)lcm Alnras I'IInc'I (~g~ P'gcpg YlDAJg g)
(Q QRC huJPECZb8
~~6<~ 4 g~g~ Q PJcc&
(~<+)
u
~'
L ~
C C
l
~
P
~
~<1
~p,S REgyC Wp0 ic
+n 'o
+>>*++
t UNITEO STATES t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 FEB L 9 t98f Florida Power and Light Company ATTN:
R. E. Uhrig, Vice President P. 0; Box 529100 Miami, FL 33152 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
Report Nos. 50-250/81-01 and 50-251/81-01 This refers to the inspection conducted by W.
C.
Marsh of this office on January 29, 1981, of activities authorized by NRC Operating License Nos.
DPR-31 and DPR-41 for the Turkey Point facility.
Our preliminary findings were discussed with H. E. Yaeger at the conclusion of the inspection.
This inspection was an examination of the activities conducted under your license as they related to manning of the control room and to compliance with the Commissions's rules and regulations and th'e conditions of your license.
The inspection consisted of observations of Turkey Point Unit 3 and 4 control room manning during power operation.
During the inspection, it was found that certain activities under your license appear to violate NRC requirments.
This item is addressed in enforcement corre-spondence to you from Victor Stello, Jr., Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, dated February 18, 1981.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC "Rules, of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. If this report contains any information that you believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you make a written application within 20 days to this office to withhold such infor-mation from public disclosure.
Any such application must include the basis for claiming that the information is proprietary and the proprietary information should be contained in a separate part of the document. If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in the Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning'his letter; we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, g.C Richard C. Lewis, Acting Director Resident 6 Reactor Project Inspection
Enclosure:
Inspection Report Nos.
50-250/81-01 and 50-251/81-01
Florida Power and Light
~~8 L 9 f98)
REGION II==
101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-250/81-1 and 50-251/81-1 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33101 Facility Name:
Turkey Point Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 License Nos.
DPR-31 and DPR-41 Inspection at the Inspector:
W.
C.
M Approved by:
R.
C.
Turkey Point site near Homestead, Florida
~
E I,ewis, Acting Chief, RONS Branch Date Signed l o
/
Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on January'9, 1981 Areas Inspected This special inspection involved two resident inspector-hours onsite in the area of plant operations to assure NRC requirements relating to the manning of the control room were being complied with.
Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 were operating at a power level'f 100 percent.
Results In the area inspected, one'violation was found (Violation - Failure of an oper-ator to be present at the Unit 3 controls while operating at 100 percent power-paragraph 5).
e DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees-H. Yaeger, Site Manager J. Hays, Plant Manager - Nuclear J. Moore, Operations Superintendent
- Nuclear G. Jones, Nuclear Watch Supervisor Two Nuclear Control Center Operators-Attended exit inteview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on January 29, 1981 with the site manager.
The.inspector discussed the Unit 3 controls being unat-tended for a short period of time while the Unit 3 Nuclear Control Center Operator left the surveillance area of the control room to obtain a cup of coffee.
The site manager acknowledged the violation and stated that cor-rective action would be taken.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Plant Operations During a xoutine tour of the facility, the inspector entered the control room for Units 3 and 4 at about 11:45 a.m.
on January 29, 1981.
Unit 3 and 4 were operating at 100 percent power.
Only a single Nucleax Control Center Operator (NCCO)
was on watch at the Unit 4 console.
Neither the Unit 3 NCCO nor the third NCCO were visible.
The third NCCO is required to be on duty by the Technical Specifications when both plants are operating, but he is not required to remain in the control room.
Within about two seconds, the Unit
NCCO returned from the kitchen area with a cup of coffee.
The Nuclear Watch Supervisor and Watch Engineer, both licensed senior reactor operators, were in their offices immediately adjacent to the control room defined surveillance area, with their doors open.
Surveillance of the Unit 3 control console is not possible from these offices due to the location of instrumentation racks between the offices and the console.
(Enclosure 1) The kitchen area is also outside of the defined surveillance area and observation of the Unit 3 instruments and contxols is not possible from the kitchen.
Annunciator alarms are differentiable in that Unit 3 has buzzexs and Unit 4 utilizes bells.
The annunciators can be heard in the kitchen are The inspector interviewed the Unit 3 NCCO and the Nuclear Watch Supervisor and determined that the third NCCO on shift had been sent to the cable spreading room to troubleshoot a problem with the power supply breaker to a 3A battery charger.
The inspector estimated that the Unit 3 controls were totally unattended for a short period of time, probably less than one minute.
A diagram of the control room surveillance area and surrounding environs with the locations of all licensed personnel in the area at the time of the inspector's arrival is shown in Enclosure 1.
Both units were operating at 100$ power and stable, no evolutions or surveillance tests wer'e observed to be in progress.
CFR 50.54(k) states,
"an operator or senior operator licensed pursuant to Part 55 of this chapter shall be present at the controls at all times during the operation of the facility." Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires that "written procedures and administrative policies shall be established, implemented, and maintained that meet or exceed the require-ments and recommendations of section 5.1'nd 5.3 of ANSI N18.7-1972..."
Plant Operating Procedure 0103.2 "Responsibilities Of Operators On Shift and Maintenance Of Operating Logs and Records" states in section 5.3.3 that the NCCO shall have an unobstructed view of and access to the control panels, including instrumentation displays and alarms.
Also, that the NCCO shall not leave the surveillance area (Enclosure 1) for any non-emergency reason, without obtaining a qualified relief.
Section 5.3.4 of the procedure states that a single operator shall not assume the nuclear control center operator responsibility for both units at the same time, unless so directed and such action is in compliance with Technical Specification 6.2.2 or is necessitated by emergency conditions.
The procedure meets the guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 1.114, entitled Guidance on Being Operator at the Controls of a Nuclear Power Plant.
The Unit 3 nuclear control console was observed to be unattended at 11:45 a.m.,
on January 29, 1981, in that a licensed operator or senior operator was not within the surveillance area, had left without obtaining a qualified relief and there was no facility emergency at the time that required the Unit 3 operator to leave the surveillance area.'eaving the Unit 3 control console unattended, even briefly, is in violation with
CFR 50.54(k)
and Technical Specification 6.8.1, which specifies that procedures shall be developed and implemented.
Sections 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 of operating procedure 0103.2 were not followe CaflfAAl fffttlff i'fttITu rCIXTIICIf.
i'ftCTT.
I I:tfsrnnf.
j rifflr.
I I fter.
CCIYrftflf.
I'fttIT. C:LfhttIIII I
Plk'ITIIIII vvr, ~
Clif.tff.f:
~ ~
Ootu'f I5
'I'ftff
. J Of'YfCr.
III'IrSC:I; YC~lltl f'Au
'
hllf.f;V VI'A CftflhOfl'i IfInal wf
~Vlltlfffhluf I
FAIL IhVIg
~ ~
'll
~ W Cl>
Pl
+u C7 JIM LA
< 'Q na~
C>l ~
CI CQ I>1 Cy M~ Vl r,s~
~t4 I
C)>>
Qg~ ~
1>> +g C$
CA tO AP Cl Vl LgCATIOAld'P/<CG'NCED FKGS~tVEC-suavnuMea auua-
<<fcf cu hlnraa I'inc I Q Cpu An Fry ~0Mb (Std)
(Q vRc inuPE~<
~~~ (zoo)
ON'~ Q PJcc& (st)
uuiy-q C
C
t
/