IR 05000335/1981029
| ML17212B250 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 12/02/1981 |
| From: | Fiedler R, Jape F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17212B249 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-335-81-29, 50-389-81-23, NUDOCS 8112230288 | |
| Download: ML17212B250 (6) | |
Text
~S REgy
~4
~
O C
O lt o
a~$
o-,
/~
o~
+a*++
t UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report No. 50-335/81-29, 50-389/81-23 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company P. 0.
Box 529100 Miami, FL 33152 Facility Name:
St-Lucie Docket No. 50-335, 50-389 License Nos.
DPR-67, CPPR-144 Inspection at St. Lucie site near Ft. Pierce, FL.
Inspector:
R. L. Fiedler Approved by:
F. Jape, Section Chief Engineering Inspection anc Engineering and Technical Inspection Division Date Signed Date Soigne SUMMARY Inspection on November 16-20, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced i nspection involved 32 inspector-hours on site in the areas of the review of the preoperational test program and a tour of the Unit 2 control room, auxiliary building, containment building and the Unit 1 control room.
Results Of the two areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
PDR ADQCK 05000335
A
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees C.
M. Wethy, Plant Manager
"G. J. Boissy, Startup Superintendent
- L. A. Rogers, Mechanical Startup
-.*H. S. Ruff, QC M. Clemens, Mechanical Startup B. W. Kelsey, chemistry J.
K. Luchka, Chemistry K. E. Beichel, Chemistry NRC Resident Inspector S. A. Elrod, Senior Resident Inspector H. E. Bibb, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection sgope and findings were summarized on November 20, 1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The licensee acknowledged the findings and made no significant comment.
3.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Unit 2 Preoperational Test'rogram The following documents were reviewed QI 5-PR/PSL-1 rev.
Preparation, Revision, Review/Approval of Procedures b.
QI 11-PR/PSL-2 c.
QI ll-PR/PSL-3 d.
QI 11-PR/PSL-4 Mechanical Test Control Electrical Test Control Instrumentation and control Test Control
e.
QI 11-PR/PSL-5 QI 12-PR/PSL-1 Mechanical Startup Test Control Calibration of Measuring and Testing Equipment g.
QI 12-PR/PSL-2 Ca 1 ibrati on of Instrument and Control Department Measuring and Test Equipment h.
QI 12-PR/PSL-3 i.
QI 12-PR/PSL-4 Electrical Measuring and Test Equipment Instructions for Mechanical Maintenance Measuring and Test Equipment j.
QI 13-PR/PSL-2 k.
LOI MSU-3 rev 2 l.
Letter from G. J. Boissy, Cleanliness Control Methods St. Lucie Plant Unit 2 Equipment Lubrica-tion Manual n
Startup, to B. J.
Escue, Construction, Subject:
Preventive Maintenance, dated May 28, 1981
/
The above documents were reviewed by the inspector in order to verify the following:
a.
That maintenance is to be performed in accordance with defined admin-istrative controls.
b.
That a formal program for housekeeping activities during preoperational testing has been established.
c.
That a program for maintaining the appropriate degree of cleanliness of nuclear plant components and piping during preoperational testing has been established.
d.
That water chemistry controls have been established for fluid systems undergoing testing.
e.
That administrative procedures have been established for,control of test equipment.
f.
That training requirements have been established in writing for all personnel involved in the test programs.
The above areas of the Preoperational Test program appear adequate with the following exceptions:
a.
Administrative controls for maintaining water chemistry requirements for fluid systems undergoing preoperational and functional testing have not been established.
This is an inspector followup item (IFI 389/81-23-01).
b.
Durin'g the review of training records, it was discovered that peri odic training in the area of administrative controls, for personnel involved in the test program had not been performed.
Test personnel had received new employee indoctrination training on administrative procedures, however the time span since this initial training was several years in some cases.
This is an inspector follow-up item (IFI 389/81-23-02).
6.
Tour of the Unit 2 control room, auxiliary building, contai nment building and the Unit I control room.
A tour of the accessible areas was conducted to determine by observation that plant conditions and activities were in accordance with applicable requirements.
During the tour through the Unit 2 containment the inspector witnessed the insertion of the lower internals into the reactor vessel.
Mithin the areas inspected there were no violations or deviations identi-fie J A