L-76-321, Letter Regarding Review of Turkey Point Inspection Report Noncompliance

Letter Regarding Review of Turkey Point Inspection Report Noncompliance

ML18227A559
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	09/01/1976
From:	Robert E. Uhrig Florida Power & Light Co
To:	Long F NRC/RGN-II
References
L-76-321 IR 1976010
Download: ML18227A559 (9)

Text

4(iI/g A

0ilK f'LomoA pow[ij 5 u(:!i3 September 1, 1976 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. ~A., Suite 818 Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Mr. Long:

Re: IE:II:AKH 50-250/76-10 50-251/76-10 Florida Power 6 Light Company has reviewed the subject. inspection report in which no items of noncompliance were disclosed. No proprietary information has been identified in the subject report.

ery truly yours, Robert E. Uhrig Vice President REU/J1AS/cpc cc: Jack R. Newman, Esquire

r 8P,R RE00 UNITEO STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION II 230 PEACHTREE STREET, N. W. SUITE 818 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303

++*++

In Reply Refer To: RUG 1i I876 XE:XX:AKH 50-250/76-10 50-251/76-10 Florida Power and Light Company ATTN: Dr. R. E. Uhrig, Vice President of Nucleax'nd General Engineering P. 0. Box 013100 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33101 Gentlemen:

This refers 'to the inspection conducted by Mr. A. K. Hardin of this office on July 20-23, 1976, of activities authorized by NRC Opexating License Nos.

DPR-31 and DPR-41 for the Turkey Point 3 and 4 facility, and to the discussion of our findings held with Mr. H. E. Yaeger at the co'nclusion of the inspection.

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

Within the scope of this inspection, no items of noncompliance were disclosed.

We have also examined actions you have taken with regard to previously identified enforcement matters and unresolved items. The status of these items is identified in Sections XX and IV of the summary of the enclosed report.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"

Part 2, Title l0, 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 fxom public disclosure. Xf 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

Florida Power and Light Company 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.

Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with you.

Very truly yours,

+u ~~~~

Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch

Enclosure:

IE Inspection Report Nos.

50-250/76-10 and 50-251/76-10

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION II 230 PEACHTREE STREET, N. W. SUITE 818 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 IE Inspection Repox't Nos. 50-250/76-10 and 50-251/76-10 Licensee: Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street P. O. 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/C Location: Dade County, Florida Type of License: W PWR-760 Hwe, 2200 Mwt Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: July 20-23, 1976 Dates of Previous Inspection: June 22-25, 1976 Principal Inspectox': A. K. Hardin, Reactor Inspector Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Accompanying Inspector: None Other Accompanying Personnel: None Principal Inspector: E~ C v X/ti/7~

A. K. Hardin, Reactor Inspector Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Revieved by: j~

R. C. Lewis, Chief Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support BrancII

IE Rpt. Nos. 50-250/76-10 and 50-251/76-10

SUMMARY

OF FINDINGS I. Enforcement Action None II. Licensee Action on Previousl Identified Enforcement Matters A noncompliance item, failure to follow procedure, was cited in IE Report No. 50-251/76-7. The licensee has completed the commitments made relative to this citation. The item is closed. (Details I, paragraph 4)

III. New Unresolved Items None IV. Status of Previousl Re orted Unresolved Items The status of previously reported unresolved items remain unchanged from that reported in IE Report Nos. 50-250/76-8 and 50-251/76-9 dated June 23, 1976.

V. Unusual Occurrences None VI. Other Si nificant Findin s Both Units 3 and 4 were base loaded and operating at 100 percent power during the inspection.

VII. Mana ement Interview The results of the inspection were discussed with H. E. Yaeger, Plant Manager and members of his staff on July 23, 1976. The following items were discussed:

A. Findings relative to inspection of Plant 'Changes and Modifi-cation.

B. Findings relative to inspection of compliance with Safety Limits, Limiting Safety System Settings, and Limiting Con-ditions for Operation.

C. Previous item of rioncompliance.

D. Fuel transfer between Unit 3 and 4.

IE Rpt. Nos. 50-250/76-10 and 50-251/76-10 DETAILS I Prepared by: ~ri/7C A. K. Hardin, Reactor nspector . Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection: July 20-23, 1976 Reviewed by:

I gr/zc.

Date R. C. Lewis, Chief Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch All information in the details applies equally to Turkey Point (TP) 3 and 4 except where information is identified with a specific reactor.

l. Individuals Contacted H. E. Yaeger Plant Manager J. E. Moore Superintendent, Nuclear Operations D. W. Jones Quality Control Supervisor D. 0. Nichols I&C Maintenance A. E. Siebe Assistant Manager, QA Operations R. J. Spooner Quality Assurance, Operations G. D. Whittier Nuclear Licensing

2. Plant Chan es and Modifications (PC/M's)

Several plant changes and modifications were reviewed to verify the licensee' compliance with his quality assurance procedures and applicable regulatory requirements. The following areas were reviewed for each modification:

ae Safet Evaluation Each change or modification'selected was reviewed to ascertain that an evaluation had been made to determine if the change would result in an unreviewed safety question or require a Technical Specification change. The inspector verified that an evaluation had been made for each change.

b. Re

/

uired Reviews The Technical Specification require that all plant changes and modifications must be reviewed by the Plant Nuclear Safety

IE Rpe. Nos. 50 250/76-10 and 50-251/76-10 I-2 Committee (PNSC) and those modifications which the PNSC feels may involve a Technical Specification change or unreviewed safety question must be reviewed by the Company Nuclear Review Board (CNRB). The inspector verified that the Technical Specification had been met for the modifications reviewed.

C~ S ecifications Codes Xns ection and Acce tance Tests Selected plant modifications and changes were reviewed to determine if a definition of specifications governing work, inspections, and acceptance tests had been included in the documentation. At the exit interview the inspector stated there were no areas of noncompliance observed, but there were some documentation packages which should be reviewed by the licensee to remove duplicate material and identify other material. Specific examples of the documentation package deficiencies were cited by the inspector. The licensee agreed

~

to review all plant changes and modifications completed in 1976 to assure completeness by September 1, 1976.

d. Overall Status of Plant Modification S stem The licensee had completed a review of the status of all PC/M's on July 16, 1976. The status report indicated more than 100 PC/M's had been issued which were in various stages of com-pletion. Several of the uncompleted PC/M's were more than three years old. Licensee management agreed at the exit interview to review the PC/M status and finalized, delete, or otherwise complete as appropriate all PC/M's. The review, to determine what disposition to make of existing incomplete PC/M's, was to be completed by October 1, 1976, according to the licensee.'.

Safet Limits Limitin Safet S stem Settin s and Limitin Conditions For 0 eration Several control systems were reviewed to ascertain that valve alignments, tank levels and pressure, and instrument trip settings were as specified in the Technical Specifications. Observation of instrumentation in the control rooms, instrument trip checks, and other records did not reveal any areas of noncompliance. There were some areas observed in the records which the inspector con-sidered weaknesses in quality control. These were discussed at the exit interview as indicated below.

IE Rpt. Nos. 50-250/76-10 and 50-251/76-10 I-3 a ~ Boric Acid Tank Levels The records for boric acid tank levels show on June 5, 1976, that a Plant Work Order (PWO) was issued to correct a wide variation between two level measuring instruments. The inspector observed that the wide variation between level instruments still existed on June 12, 1976. The licensee was asked for a copy of the PWO issued on June 5, 1976.

The licensee stated that the PWO issued on June 5, 1976, could not be found and the notation in the records might be in error. The licensee agreed to review these records and correct the records as necessary. A plant work order to repair the Boric Acid Tank level instruments was issued on June 19, 1976.

The inspector verified by review, analysis, and discussion of the data with the licensee, that regulatory requirements on tank levels were met.

b. Diesel Fuel Oil Tank Level In reviewing the Emergency Diesel Checklist, the inspector observed that the fuel oil tank level was recorded in feet and inches without reference to the limiting condition for operation.

i.e. 40,000 gallon minimum. At the exit interview the licensee agreed to review the emergency diesel checklist to add acceptance criteria.

4. Previous Item of Noncom liance In IE Report No. 50-251/76-7, the licensee was cited for failure to have objective evidence, i.e. a signed procedure, that all refueling acceptance criteria had been met prior to starting refueling. On the current inspection the inspector discussed with licensee repre-sentative the corrective actions stated in the licensee's written response. At the exit interview, the inspector stated the item would be closed.

5. Status of Plant Drawin s The licensee submitted by letter, dated June 30, 1976, the status of the Turkey Point drawing update'program. The licensee stated that:

a. Seventy-Nine (79) new drawings were received during the month.

b; A total of 329 drawings have been updated in the field of which 187 have received final approval.

r ~ ~

IE Rpt. Nos. 50-250/76-10 and 50-251/76-10 I-4

c. A total of 338 new drawings were released into the system.

d. Altogether a total of 667 new or updated drawings have been released into the system as a result of the program.

6. S ent Fuel Transfer The licensee is transferring about 100 spent fuel assemblies from Unit 4 spent fuel pit (SFP) to the Unit 3 SFP. NRR authorized license amendments and Technical Specification changes for the fuel movement on July 9, 1976. The licensee estimates 3 fuel assemblies can be transferred per 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period. During the inspection several fuel assemblies were moved without incident. The inspector observed a part of one movement i.e. from removal of the empty cask from Unit 3 SFP to lowering of the cask and disengaging .of the cask crane in SFP No. 4. No quantitative measurements or observations were made by the inspector. From a qualitative standpoint the licensee's procedures, precautions and techniques for assuring safety and controlling contamination were evaluated by the inspector. No items of noncompliance were identified.