L-76-258, Review of Turkey Point Inspection Report, Found to Contain No Proprietary Information

Review of Turkey Point Inspection Report, Found to Contain No Proprietary Information

ML18227A563
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	07/13/1976
From:	Robert E. Uhrig Florida Power & Light Co
To:	Long F NRC/RGN-II
References
L-76-258 IR 1976008
Download: ML18227A563 (17)

Text

<i9Ilri iC'i'd&

/,

FLORIDA POWER 5 LIGHT COMPANY July 13, 1976 L-76-258 go-8$ /

Region II Office of Inspection and Enforcement Attention: Mr. F.J. Long, Chief

~

Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 230 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 818 Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Mr. Long:

Re: IE:II:AKH 50-250/76-8 50-251/76-8 Florida Power and Light Company has reviewed the subject inspection report and found that information.

it contains no proprietary Very truly yours, Robert E. Uhrig Vice President.

REU/bfp CC: Jack R. Newman, Esctuire

<~0 II~0u UNITED STATES Wp NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I I 230 PEACHTREE STREET> N. W. SUITE 8 IS ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303

+>>*++

In Reply Refer To:

IE: II:AKH 50-250/7 6-8 "50-251/7 6-8 Florida Power and Light Company Attn: Dr. R. E. Uhrig, Vice President of Nuclear Affairs P. 0. Box 013100 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33101 Gentlemen: 0 This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. A. K. Hardin of this office on May 25-27, 1976, of activities authorized by NRC Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41 fox'he Turkey Point 3 and 4 facilities, and to the discussion of oux'indings held with Messrs. J. K. Hays on May 26 and J. E. Vessely on May 27, 1976.

Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examination of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.

We have examined actions you have taken with regard to previously reported unresolved items. These are identified in Section IV of the summary of the enclosed report.

During the inspection, it was found that certain activities under your license appear to be in noncompliance with NRC requirements. This item and references to pertinent requirements are listed in Section I of the summary of the enclosed report. Corrective actions to prevent recurrence were completed prior to the conclusion of this inspection; therefore, a reply to this item of noncompliance is not requested.

Other infractions identified through your internal audit program are shown in the details of the enclosed inspection report. In each case appropriate reports were made and corrective actions initiated or completed and no additional information is needed for these items at this time.

Florida Power and Light Company In acc'ordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "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's Public Document Room. If this report contains any information that you believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you submit a written application to this office requesting that such information be withheld from public disclosure. If no proprietary information is identified, a written statement to that effect should be submitted. If an application is submitted, it must fully identify the bases for which information is claimed to be proprietary. The application should be prepared so that information sought to be withheld is incorporated in a separate paper and referenced in the application since the application will be placed in the Public Document Room. Your application, or written statement, should be submitted to us within 20 days. If we are not contacted as specified, the enclosed report and this letter may then be placed in the Public Document Room. 4 Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with you.

Very truly yours, gF. ~ C ~

J. Long, Chief

~

Reactor Operations and

~

Nuclear Support Branch

Enclosure:

IE Inspection Report Nos.

50-250/76-8 and 50-251/76-8

~PA RECC, UNITED STATES C+ f).

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION II 230 PEACHTREE STREET, N. W. SUITE 8 IS ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 kP*kk IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-250/76-8 and 50-251/76-8 Licensee: Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street P. 0. Box 013100 Miami, Florida 33101 Facility Name: Turkey Point 3 and 4 Docket Nos.: 50-250 and 50-251 License Nos.: DPR-31 and DPR-41 Category: '/C Location: Dade County, Florida Type of License: W PWR-760 Mwe, 2200 Mwt Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: May 25-27, 1976 Dates of Previous Inspection: May 4-7, 1976 Principal Inspector: A. K. Hardin, Reactor Inspector Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Accompanying Inspector: None Other Accompanying Personnel: No e Principal Inspector: 6//J'/74 A. K. Hardin, Reactor Inspector Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and NuClear Support Branch Reviewed by: W, C.

R. C.

/.(.<

Lewis, Chief i~ Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch

IE Rpt. Nos. 50-250/76-8 and 50-251/76-8 Slk&fARY OF FINDINGS I. Enforcement Action Deficienc Contrary to Appendix 3, of Technical Specification 5.1.g.,

documentation that the required review of noncompliance identified in June 1975 with the environmental Technical Specifications was not accomplished in accordance with the company Environmental Review Group's charter dated August 6, 1975 (Rev. 3) . Corrective Actions have been completed.

(Details I, paragraph c)

II. Licensee Action on Previousl Identified Enforcement Matters Not inspected.

III. New Unresolved Items None IV. Status of Previousl Re orted Unresolved Items 75-17/2 Containment Air System Equipment 75-10/3 Valve Replacement 75-17/6 Non Shift Licensee On-Watch Duty Inspection of the status of the above listed previously reported unresolved items was not within the scope of this inspection.

V. Unusual Occurrences None VI. Other Si nificant Findin s The inspector visited the Public Document Room located in the library of the Florida International University. Documentation relative to FP&L Nuclear Plants and Nuclear Regulatory Commission correspondence was found to be filed in the Environmental and Urban Affairs Section of the library.

IR Rps. Nos. 50-250/76-8 and 50-251/76-8 VII. %fang ement Interview The results of the inspection were discussed on May 26 with J. K. Hays and members of his staff. A second meeting was held with the Corporate QA l4nager on Hay 27, 1976. The following items were discussed:

A. Findings relative to review and audit functions of the licensee B. Review of Semi-Annual Report C. Onsite QA Activities D. Plant Tour E. Noncompliance detected and reported by FPL management F. Inspection and Enforcement Bulletin 76-2

IE Rpt. Nos. 50-250/76-8 and 50-251/76-8

'ETAILS I Prepared by:

A. K. Hardin, Reactor Inspector Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection: May 25-27, 1976 Reviewed by: Z C.Lewis, R. C, Chief Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch All information in the details applies equa'ily to Turkey Point (TP) 3

, and 4, except where information is identified with a specific reactor.

1. Individuals Contacted J. K. Hays Plant Superintendent, Nuclear D. W. Jones Quality Control Supervisor V. B. Wager Operations Supervisor, Nuclear W. W. Williams Assistant Plant Superintendent, Electrical R., J. Spooner Quality Assurance Engineer C. D. Henderson Manager, Environmental Engineering J. P. Fernandez Senior Environmental Engineer J. E. Vessely Manager, Quality Assurance T. Essinger Assistant Manager, Quality Assurance B. Parks QA Engineer J. E. Moore Operations Superintendent, Nuclear

2. Review and Audit Functions The inspector xeviewed the licensee's adherence to the Technical Specification requirements on review and audit functions. The items and findings are discussed below:

a. Onsite Safet Committee (1) Meetin Fre uenc The onsite safety committee, known as the Plant Nuclear Safety Committee met approximately 83 times in 1975 and

IE Rpt. Nos. 50-280/87-8 and 50-251/76-8 I-2 15 times during the period of January 1 through April 30, 1976, thus meeting the Technical Specification require-ment on meeting frequency.

(2) uorum Re uirements Members of the Plant Nuclear Safety Committee pre'sent at each meeting held in 1976 were compared to quorum require-ments. The following information was derived:

Member by T.S. Number of Percent or (15)

Position Title Meetin s Attended Mt s. Attended Plant Superintendent, Nuclear 13 86 Operations Superintendent Technical Department Supervisor ll5 73 33 Assistant Superintendent, 3 20 Nuclear Maintenance Instrument and Control Supervisor 14 93 Health Physics Supervisor 10 66 Reactor Supexvisor 12 80 Quorum requirements of the Technical Specifications were met for each meeting by the use of alternates. At the exit interview the inspector asked the licensee the reason for the low attendence record of the Maintenance and Technical representative. The licensee stated in some cases they were not invited if the content of the meeting was outside of their disciplines and in others they may not be available to attend. The licensee stated that when anything of significance relative to the Technical or Maintenance Department was on the'Plant Nuclear Safety Committee Meeting Agenda, the two members in question would be present, if available.

b. Offsite Safet Committee (1) Meetin Pre uenc The offsite Company Nuclear Review Board (CNRB) met seven (7) times, for Turkey Point 3 and 4, from January 15 through April 15, 1976. The Technical Specification requirements on CNRB meeting frequency were met.

/

(2) uorum Re uirements Members of the CNRB, as specified in Technical Specifi-cations, who were present at each of the seven meetings

IE Rp t. Nos. 50-280/76-8 and 50-281/76-8 I-3 held in 1976 were compared to quorum requirements. The following information was derived:

Percent of Member by T. S. Number of Seven Mtgs.

Position Title Mt s. Attended Attended Vice President, Nuclear Affairs 6 86 Chief Engineer, Power Plants 3 43 Vice President, Power Resources 4 57 Manager, Power Resources, Nuclear 7 100 Manager, Quality Assurance 57 Supervisor, Power Plant Engineering 71 Supervisor, Power Plant Engineering 6 86 Quorum requirements were met for each of the 1976 meetings by the use of alternates. No items of noncompliance were identified concerning the frequency of meetings or quorum requirements of the CNRB.

c ~ Technical S ecification Noncom liance Review The Technical Specifications (TS) require both on and offsite safety committees to review TS violations, proposed changes to TS and proposed tests and experiments. The inspector selected several items of noncompliance with TS and checked these against the meeting minutes of the two committees. No record of review of the noncompliance items cited in IE Report No.

50-250/75-9 was found in either the PNSC or CNRB minutes. The noncompliance items in question were specified in Appendix B of the Technical Specification, which are the environmental Technical Specifications. The licensee has appointed a committee called the Company Environmental Review Group (CERG) with the responsibility, among others, for review of non-compliance with environmental rules and regulations. Repre-sentatives of the CERG stated the noncompliance items cited in IE Report No. 50-250/75-9 had been reviewed by the CERG; however, the CERG review had not been documented in the meeting minutes. The licensee subsequently stated in a phone conversation on June 15, 1976, that the deficiency had been corrected, i.e.

A meeting of the CERG was convened on May 28, 1976, and the noncompliance items reviewed and documented. The licensee further stated that since July of 1975 an agenda has been issued for the CERG meetings which will include items requir-ing review by the committee. The licensee believes the agenda will assist in the review and documenting functions of the CERG.

XE Rpt. Nos. 50-280/76-8 and 50-281/76-8 I-4 The inspector raised a further question regarding timeliness of reviews. The licensee was requested to commit to a time period for review of noncompliance items. The licensee stated that items of noncompliance would be reviewed by the CERG within 60 days. No further areas of concern were identified by the inspector regarding the review functions of the company review committees.

d. Audit Pro rams and Audit Records The inspector verified by inspection of records and discussions with licensee personnel at the site and corporate headquarters that audits are done in accordance with written checklists and procedures and that audits are done by trained personnel.

Several audits were reviewed to ascertain that local nd corporate management had xeviewed the audit results. The inspector observed that the licensee utilizes a system for followup action on audit results.

3. Semi-Annual Re orts The licensee issued a semi-annual report for the last six months of 1975. Future reports will be on an annual basis. The inspector reviewed the semi-annual report in IE:II Office of Compliance with those Technical Specifications issued prior to September 5, 1976.

No discrepancies were observed. At the site, ten forced outages were reviewed from shift logs in the licensee's document storage.

No questions were raised by the inspector at the exit interview on the review.

4. Plant Tour The inspector toured selected portions of the plant. The major purpose of the tour was to view electrical cable trays and fire stops at wall penetrations. Since the last inspection of these items in May 1975, XE Report 50-250/75-7, several new cable entries have been made into the Unit 3 4160 V switchgear room. The inspector verified that the fire stop had been repaired.

5. Re ortable Occurrence 250-76-2 The subject reportable occurrence was a failure of a 4160 V breaker charging spring to function correctly. The failure was determined to be due to a plastic bushing in the charging spring system. The licensee stated their intent to replace the pawl with one which has a bronze bushing. The licensee stated the pawl would be replaced

IH Rpt. Nos. 50-280/76-8 and 50>>281/76-8 I-5 during preventative maintenance on the breakers. Approximately 88 4160 V breakers are involved. The licensee estimates the replace-ment program will be complete by June 1977.

6. IE Bulletin No. 76-02 The subject bulletin dealt with replacement of nylon coil bobbins with Lexan coil bobbins. At the exit interview, the licensee stated that the old style nylon coil bobbin had been replaced as necessary. (See IH Report 50-250/76-7)

7. Noncom liance Re orted b the Licensee Unit 4 The licensee reported three noncompliance items which were failure to perform surveillance tests on the required monthly interyal.

a. Contrary to Technical Specification 4.6.2 the containment spray pumps were not tested duxing May 1976.

b. Contrary to Technical Specification 4.5.2 the safety injection pumps were not tested during May 1976.

c. Contrary to Technical Specification 4.10 the auxiliary feedwater system was not tested during May 1976.

The licensee stated they were unable to perform the routine sur-veillance tests because the reactor was in cold shutdown status for refueling. The licensee has submitted a request to Nuclear Reactor Regulation to revise theix Technical Specifications. The licensee intends to have all surveillance test performed prior to returning the reactor (Unit 4) to critical.

8. Turke Point Drawin U date Pro ram The licensee reported the status of the Turkey Point drawing update program as follows:

a. A total of 18 new dxawings have been xeceived during May 1976 from the licensee's contractors and other vendors.

b; A total of 206 drawings have been updated in the field. Of this total, 75 are in drafting, 83 are undergoing final review, and 48 have received final approval.

'I ~

0 1!

XH Rpt. Nos. 50-280/76-8 and 50-281/76-8 I-6 The inspector questioned the licensee regarding whether the drawing update progress was considered satisfactory. The licensee stated that although there had been some problems in getting the update program started, they believed they were now making satisfactory progress.

9. XE Bulletin 76-05 The subject bulletin required the licensee to make certain measure-ments related to M BPD type relays. The licensee has responded to the bulletin in letters dated Hay 6, 1976 and May 28, 1976. The inspector had no further questions relative to the bulletin.

~ ~

DA ~