IR 05000250/1986014
| ML17216A495 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie, Turkey Point, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1986 |
| From: | Belisle A, Runyan M, Michael Scott NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17216A494 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-250-86-14, 50-251-86-14, 50-335-86-06, 50-335-86-6, 50-389-86-05, 50-389-86-5, NUDOCS 8604210233 | |
| Download: ML17216A495 (18) | |
Text
~
~p,Q IlEQ(1~
(4
~
(qpo~i UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323 Report Nos.:
50-335/86-06, 50-389/86-05, 50-250/86-14, and 50-251/86-14 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33102 Docket Nos.:
50-335, 50-389, 50-250, and 50-251 License Nos.:
DPR-67, NPF-16, DPR-31, and DPR-41 M. A. Scott c
Approved by A. Belisle, Acting ection Chief Division of Reactor Safety Facility Name:
St.
Lucie 1'nd 2; and Turkey Point 1 and
Inspection Conducted:
M rch 3-7, 1986 i
Inspectors:
M. F.
Ru'nyan ll D te ISigned
D te'S'igned Da e Signed SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, announced inspection involved 64 inspector-hours at FP5L Corporate offices in Juno Beach and the St.
Lucie plant in the areas of licensee action on previous enforcement matters, offsite support staff, offsite review committee, and tests and experiments.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
8b00210233 8b0414 PDR ADOCg 05000250
~G
I'
f'J h
N rl ll
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
"J. Brannin, Chairman, Corporate Nuclear Review Board (CNRB S. Collard, Supervisor, Materials, Codes, and Inspections W. Coutier, Senior Quality Assurance Engineer H. Dager, Vice President J.
Danek, Section Supervisor, Health Physics J.
DeMastry, Manager, Nuclear Licensing
"B. Escue, Director of Construction C. Faraday, Nuclear Licensing J.
Helms, Director of Projects O. Karch, Quality Assurance (QA) Staff
"C. Kent, Manager, Plant Mechanical/Nuclear Engineering W. Kline, Supervisor, Plant Support J. Maisler, Supervisor, Emergency Planning D. Mantz, Project Genera'I Manager (Nuclear)
"R. Marsh, Manager, QA Procurement
"K. Needham, CNRB Executive Administrator
"E. O'Neal, Assistant Chief Engineer H.
Paduano, Manager, Nuclear Energy Services
"F. Panzani, Stafi'oordinator J.
Parker, Manager, Construction Quality Control (QC) and
"R. Pawlyk, Manager, Plant Construction A. Pearson, QA Engineer J ~ Powell, Engineer, St.
Lucie D. Sager, Plant Manager, St.
Lucie
"R. Spooner, QA Supervisor J;
Swaggart, Project Construction Supervisor
"S. Verduci, Engineer, Nuclear Licensing T. Vogan, Project Manager, Engineering J. Walls, Operations QC, St.
Lucie K. Wisniewski, Senior QA Engineer W. Woodard, Senior QA Engineer
) Subcommittee Welding Other licensee employees contacted included office personnel.
"Attended exit interview Exit interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 7, 1986, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings.
No dissenting comments were received from the license k Al
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors, during this inspection.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (Closed)
Unresolved Item 335,389/85-16-02:
Torque Wrench Acceptance Criteria This item is closed based on a licensee inter-office letter dated August 2, 1985, entitled
"Torque Wrench Cal ibrati on,"
whi ch stated that torque wrenches will be recalibrated when found outside
+4 percent tolerance and maintenance will be rechecked when +10 percent tolerance is exceeded.
This closure does not preclude reinspection in this area and a possible finding if torque specifications for safety related equipment are found to require more limiting tolerances.
The licensee is encouraged to review this issue to assure that
percent tolerance is acceptable for reactor plant applications.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during the inspection.
t 5.
Offsite Support Staff (40703)
References:
(a)
CFR 50.54(a)(l),.Conditions of Licenses (b)
FP&L Topical Quality Assurance Report (FPLTQAR 1-76A),
Revision
(c)
CFR 50, Appendix B, Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants (d)
Regulatory Guide 1.33, Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Operations)
(e)
ANSI N18.7-1976, Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants (f)
Technical Specifications, Section 6,
Administrative Controls The inspector visited the corporate office to determine whether the offsite support staff functions are performed by qualified personnel in accordance with licensee approved administrative controls, regulatory requirements, and industry guides and standards.
The following criteria were used during this review to assess the adequacy of the offsite staff:
Administrative controls were established to assign departmental responsibilities, authorities, and lines of communication in conformance with the requirements of
CFR 50, Appendix B, and the licensee's approved QA progra E, Managers, group leaders, and staff members understood their responsibilities and authorities.
The above personnel were qualified for their related work.
Quality assurance audits of offsite support staff activities were conducted satisfactorily and corrective actions for identified deficiencies were completed in a timely manner.
The documents listed below were reviewed to determine if the previously listed criteria had been incorporated into the licensee's offsite support staff operation.
QI-2-QAD-1 QI-3-PS L-1 QI-PUR-1-1 Recording of Personnel Training, Revision
Design Control (After Fuel Load), Revision
Instruction for Implementing the Purchasing Department Quality Assurance Program, Revision
QI-PUR"2-1 QI-PUR-'16-4 QP 2.9 Instruction for the Indoctrination and Training of Purchasing Personnel for Nuclear Material and Services Procurement, Revision
k Instruction for the Review Transmittal of Notification,'f Substantial Safety Hazards in Accordance with 10 CFRg Part 21, Revision
Qualification of QA Audit, QC Inspection, and Construction Test Personnel J PE-AP" 1. 9 JPE-QI-1. 1 Technical Training, Revision
General Requirements
-
JPE Quality Assurance Program (JPE-QAP),
Revision
J PE-QI"1. 2 Design Activities Delegated by Power Plant Engineering, Revision
JP E-QI-1. 3 ASP-10 DQI 1.1 DQI 2.1 QA Indoctrination and Training, Revision
Indoctrination and Training, Revision
Construction Quality Control Organization, Revision
Certi ficati on of JPC Qual ity Control Inspecti on Personnel, Revision
DQI 2.2 Request for Assistance From Other FPL Organizations, Revision
FPKL Approved Suppliers List The inspectors interviewed the following FP&L personnel:
Quality Assurance R.
R.
0.
W.
Marsh, Manager, Quality Assurance Procurement Spooner, QA Supervisor Karch, QA Staff Woodard, Senior Engineer Project J.
D.
General Management Helms, Director'f Projects Mantz, Project General Manager - Nuclear Engineering C. Kent, Manager, Plant Mechanical/Nuclear Engineering T. Vogan, Project Manager, St.
Lucie Purchasing F. Panzani, Staff Coordinator Constr ucti on B.
J.
R.
J.
Escue, Director of Construction Parker, Manager, Construction QC and Welding Pawlyk, Manager, Plant Construction Swaggart, Project Construction Supervisor Quality Assurance Procurement R.
W.
A.
K.
Marsh, Manager, QA Procurement Coutier, Senior QA Engineer Pear son, QA Engineer Wisniewski, Senior QA Engineer Nuclear Energy Services H.
J.
S.
W.
J.
Paduano, Manager, Nuclear Energy Services Danek, Supervisor, Health Physics Collard, Supervisor, Materials, Codes, and Inspections Kline, Supervisor, Plant Support Maisler, Supervisor, Emergency Planning
The interviews referenced above were conducted to assess the administration, indoctrination, and corporate staff training.
All employees appeared to understand their responsibilities and authorities and could identify procedures which delineate this information.
These procedures provided an acceptable degree of detail pertaining to organizational and administrative affairs.
All employees had received some form of training, though a large emphasis is placed on hiring individuals with a high experience level.
This training consisted of classroom instruction, technical school and simulator training, required reading lists, and on-the-job training.
Training for several groups was formalized procedurally though it remained informal for other groups.
Overall, the training provided to offsite support staffs a'ppeared adequate to ensure technical competence.
The majority of the technical staff are degreed engineers.
A small percentage are registered as professional engineers.
The offsite support staff appeared to interface adequately with the onsite groups.
A certain percentage of the offsite organization is actually based on site to promote greater efficiency in providing support servicqs:
An effort is made to rotate personnel between onsite and offsite work locations.
Corporate personnel located off site often visited the sites in the normal course of their work.
Various departments and divisions within the corporate offices appeared to communicate adequately and deliver a coordinated work effort.
An elaborate teleconference link has been established between the Juno Beach office and the General Office in Miami.
The inspectors reviewed a Joint Utilities Management Association (JUMA)
audit (QAS-QAD-85-1) of the offsite organizations conducted March 25-29, 1985.
A representative finding involving Quality Assurance noted that training and certification was being provided only to principal auditors.
Also, several audits were not being included on the quarterly audit schedule.
These and other findings were apparently addressed sati s-factori ly.
The inspectors questioned various members of the offsite staff concerning several technical issues recently addressed in Corporate Nuclear Review Board (CNRB) meetings.
The corporate managers and supervisors appeared conversant and informed in these technical matters.
Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.
Offsite Review Committee (40701)
References:
(a)
CFR 50. 54(a)(1),'onditions of Licenses (b)
FP&L Topical Quality Assurance Report (FPLTQAR 1-76A),
Part 1.0, Organization
(c)
CFR 50, Appendix B, guality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants (d)
CFR 50.59, Changes, Tests and Experiments (e)
Regulatory Guide 1.33, equality Assurance Program Requirements (Operation)
(f)
ANS 3.2/ANSI N18.7-1976, guality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants (g)
Technical Specifications Section 6.5 (h)
NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan The inspectors reviewed the licensee offsite review committee, Company Nuclear Review Board (CNRB),
activities and determined the board's compliance with regulatory requirements and utility commitments in references (a)
through (g).
Additionally, the inspectors inspected the activities of the standing CNRB subcommittee.
The inspector reviewed the referenced documents to determine the following aspects of CNRB activities:
Board membership and qualifications are as required by Technical Specifications.
Board meetings were held at the frequency required by Technical Specifications.
Nembers participating in reviews constituted a
quorum and possessed expertise in areas reviewed.
Activities being reviewed were in accordance with the Technical Specifications.
The inspectors reviewed meeting minutes for the CNRB and its standing subcommittee.
The meeting minutes were from January 9,
1985 to January 30, 1986, and April 30, 1985, to December 1985, respectively.
The inspectors tracked several issues and CNRB open items to ensure appropriate corporate action was taken.
The inspectors interviewed several CNRB members, the standing subcommittee chairman, and the CNRB executive administrator.
The inspectors discussed issues that had been before the CNRB, what material the standing subcommittee reviewed, site interfaces with the committees, and reference (g) differences with regard to reference (h).
The inspectors did not talk with site personnel who provide material to these committee I
'
Both the CNRB and it's subcommittee operate based on their charters and guidelines.
The inspectors reviewed and discussed these documents.
This recent, permanent subcommittee was formed in the summer of 1985 as indicated by it's charter.
Previous subcommittees had been part time in nature.
Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Test and Experiments Program (37703)
St.
Lucie Only References:
(a)
CFR 50.54(a)( 1), Conditions of Licenses I
(b)
FP&L Topical Quality Assurance Report (FPLTQAR 1-76A),
Test Controls, Section
(c)
CFR 50, Appendix B, Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Processing Plants (d)
CFR 50.59 Changes, Tests, and Experiments (e)
Regulatory Guide 1.33, Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Operations)
(f)
ANSI N18.7-1976, Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Plants (g)
Quality Assurance Manual, QP 11.2, Test Control Operations (h)
Quality Assurance Manual, QP 11.3, Test Control-Pre-operational and Startup Test The inspectors reviewed aspects of the licensee'
test and experiments program required by references (a) through (h).
The licensee programs did not specifically address special tests and experiments outside of the scope of the FSAR although these were being properly reviewed and evaluated in the past under generic test control requirements.
During the past three years, the utility had not done any tests and experiments but had performed some evaluations of abnormal and temporary conditions; the inspectors reviewed these evaluations and the parameters surrounding the said conditions.,
The inspectors did not review post modification, post maintenance, or functional tests.
The inspector reviewed the following abnormal or temporary. conditions:
Facility Review Grou Number Descri tion 85-128 85-143 Penetration No.
E-,4, Temporary Cover (ISI-85-73)
Penetration No. 54, Temporary Cable Access Flange (F-CE-8808)85-154 85-184 85-188 Modified Upper Guide Structure Lifting Ri g Con figur at i on ( I E Informati on Not ice No. 86-06)
Penetrations No.
56 and 54, Configuration for Steam Generator Sludge Lancing Reconstitution of St.
Lucie
C-E Fuel Assemblies ( FI-CE-R-006)
The inspectors reviewed the safety evaluations, discussed the evaluations with the technical staff, and reviewed selected documentation associated with the above conditions.
Within this area.
no violations or deviations were identified.