IR 05000302/1979052
| ML19305B449 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 12/28/1979 |
| From: | Elrod S, Kellogg P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19305B439 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-79-52, NUDOCS 8003190672 | |
| Download: ML19305B449 (3) | |
Text
-
.
-
.
(~~s /
'o,,
UNITED STATES v8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
$
E REGION 11
,
o 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SGITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 g,.....
o Report No. 50-302/79,a Licensee: Florida Power Corporation 3201 34th Street, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Facility Name: Crystal River 3 Docket No. 50-302 License No. DPR-72 Inspection at Crystal R ver Site, Crystal River, Florida Inspected by:
[
f}(C 27 [92
/
S. A. f,} rod Date Signed Approved by:
L th 1 do
/}/28 7'l P. J. Kellogg, Acting Chi f, RONS Branch Dat'e Si'gned SUMMARY Inspected on November 26-29, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 28 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of portable fire extinguisher surveillance and compliance with limiting conditions for operation.
Results Of the two areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in one area; one apparent deviation was found in one area (deviation portable fire extinguisher surveillance procedures do not follow NFPA-10 paragraph 5).
-
l 8003190h I
,
-
.
,
e
%
,
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- D. C. Poole, Nuclear Plant Manager
- W. E. Kemper Technical Specification Coordinator
- G. R. Westafer, Maintenance Superintendent
- G. L. Boldt, Technical Support Engineer
- H. B. Lucas, Administration Superintendent
- P. F. McKee, Operations Superintendent
- G. M. Williams, QC Supervisor
- R. A. Webb, Plant Engineer, Assistant Fire Brigade Chief Other licensee employees contacted included operators, and security force members.
.
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on November 29, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above. The inspector idenditifed the deviation identified in paragraph 5.
The licensee agreed to review procedures SP-800 and SP-801 against NFPA-10 and will establish acceptance criteria based on NFPA-10 but not necessarily adopt all NFPA-10 acceptance criteria. The inspector stated that the revised program would be inspected in the future.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
.
Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
)
5.
Portable Fire Extinguisher Surveil'..ince During a review of portable fire extinguisher surveillance it was noted that Surveillance Procedures SP-800 " Monthly Portable Fire Extinguisher Inspection" and SP-301 " Portable Fire Extinguisher Yearly Maintenance
'
Inspection" did not directly reference NFPA-10 and did not contain all of the information necessary to comply with NFPA-10.
SP-800 inspection attributes did not include all of those shown in NFPA-10 section 4-3.2.
The checklist did not include the initials and date when
,
o
,
e-2-
,,
each extinguisher was inspected, rather one signsture/date block was provided at the end of a five page checklist. No column was provided for disposition of extinguishers requiring corrective action.
The SP-801 check list for each extinguisher has inadequate acceptance.
criteria to stand alone, yet appropriate sections from NFPA 10 were not referenced.
In fact, SP-801, section 3.0 indicates that no references are needed.
The licensee agreed to review these procedures against NFPA-10 but could not make definite statements of action that would be taken until the review was complete. The lack of procedure conformance to NFPA-10 requirements is a deviation from applicable codes and standards (302/79-52-01).
6.
Compliance With Limiting Conditions of Operation (LCO)
The inspector reviewed the out-of-service log of equipment related to technical specification requirements from October 17, 1979 to November 28, 1979. Eight components were listed.
In each case the appropt_ ate technical specification and records of compliance were reviewed by the inspector.
In all cases the licensee appeared to be complying with the LCO.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this area.
.
l o
r
%
e