L-76-413, Letter Regarding Review of Inspection Report 05000250/1976014 and 05000250/1976014

Letter Regarding Review of Inspection Report 05000250/1976014 and 05000250/1976014

ML18227A555
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	12/03/1976
From:	Robert E. Uhrig Florida Power & Light Co
To:	Moseley N NRC/RGN-II
References
L-76-413 IR 1976014
Download: ML18227A555 (10)

Text

P. O. BOX 013100. MIAMI, FL 33101 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY December 3, 1976 L-76-413 Mr. Norman C. Moseley, Director, Region II Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 230 Peachtree Street, N. W., Suite 818 Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Mr.'Moseley:

Re: IE:II:MVS 50-250/76-14 50-251/76-14 Florida Power 6 Light Company has reviewed the subject inspection report which disclosed no items of noncompliance.

There is no proprietary information in the report.

Very truly yours, P Robert E. Uhrig Vice President REU/MAS/cpc cc: Robert Lowenstein, Esquire A

PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE

P. O. OOX 013100, MIAMI, FL 33101 h

FLORIDA POWER 8( LIGHT COMPANY December 3, 1976 Mr. Norman C. Moseley, Director, Region Office of Inspection and Enforcement II U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 230 Peachtree Street, N. W., Suite 818 Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Mr.'oseley:

Re: IE:II:MVS 50-250/76-14 50-251/76-14 Florida Power 6 Light Company has reviewed the 'subject inspection report which disclosed no items of noncompliance.

There is no proprietary inform'ation in the report.

Very truly yours, IP Robert E. Uhrig Vice President REU/MAS/cpc cc: Robert Lowenstein, Esquire PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE

f

'k L,

~8 HK0g UNITED STATES Wp i ~

0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~<

0 REGION II 230 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W. SUITE 818

.'4" dJI)llag - ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303

+**++ NOV i " I~76 I'n Reply Refer To:

TE'II'I'IVS 50-250/76-14 and 50-251/76-14 Florida Power and Light Company Attn: Dr. R. E. Uhrig, Vice President of Nuclear and General Engineering P. O. Box 013100 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33101 Gentlemen:

This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. J. W. Hufham of this office on September 30 - October 1, 1976, of activities authorized by NRC Operating License Nos. DPR 31 and 41 for the Turkey Point 3 and 4 facilities, and to the discussion of our findings held with Mr. H. E. Yaeger at the conclusion of the inspection.

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.

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

In accordance 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.

Florida Power and Light Company Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with you.

Very truly yours,

-v--(=

F. J. Long, Chief Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch

Enclosure:

IE Inspection Report Nos.

50-250/76-14 and 50-251/76-14

qEg>

(4<qq UNITED STATES 0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O

REGION II 230 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W. SUITE 818 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303

+a*++

IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-250/76-14 and 50-251/76-14 Licensee: Florida Power and Light Company 9250 Nest 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/C Location: Dade County, Florida Type of License: N PMR-2200 Mwt Type of Inspection: Routine, Announced Dates of Inspection: September 30 October 1, 1976 Dates of Previous Inspection: September 7-10, 1976 Performing Inspector: J. M. Hufham, Radiation Specialist Environmental and Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Other Inspectors: None Other Accompanying Personnel: None Principal Inspector: ~' I<.I~,. >lccLc

~

M. V. Sinkule, Reactor Inspector 'ate Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Reviewed by: //u R. C. Lewis, Chief Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch

IE Rpt. Nos. 50-250/76-14 and 50-251/76-14 SENARY OF FINDINGS I. Enforcement Action None II. Licensee Action on Previousl Identified Enforcement Matters Not within the scope of this inspection.

III. New Unresolved Items None IV. Status'of'Pr'eviousl 'Re orted'Unresolved"Items Not within the scope of this inspection, V. Unusual Occurrences None VI. Other Si nificant'Findin s None VII. Mana ement Interview The scope and results of the emergency planning inspection were discussed on September 30, 1976, with H. E. Yaeger, Plant Manager.

IE Rpt. Nos. 50-250/76-14 and 50-251/76-14 DETAILS Prepared by:

J. W. Hu ham Radiation Specialist Date En 'ronmenta and Special Projects Section Fue Facility and Materials Safety Branch Dates of Inspection: September 30-October 1, 1976 Reviewed by:

'R. L. Bangart, lief Date Environmental a d Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch

1. Sco e of Ins ection An emergency planning inspection to observe and evaluate the Turkey Point emergency organization under simulated emergency conditions. The inspection consisted of a review of drill docu-ments, meeting with offsite agencies, and observations by the inspector.

2. Individuals Contacted Florida Power and Li ht Com an

a. Cor orate Office S. A. Kingsbury Administrative Assistant for Nuclear Emergency Planning

b. Turke Point Nuclear Plant H. E. Yeager Plant Manager J. K. Hayes Nuclear Plant Superintendent J. Moore Operations Supervisor J. A. Olsonoski Quality Control Compliance Engineer

3. Emer enc Exercise Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, Section IV, paragraph I, requires that provisions be established for testing, by periodic drills, of radiation emergency plans to assure that employees of the licensee are familiar with their specific duties and provisions for participation

~

'E

~

Rp t. Nos. 50-250/76-14 and 50-251/76-14 in the drills by other persons whose assistance may be needed in the event of a radiation emergency. Section 9.1 of the Turkey Point Emergency Plan requires that emergency drills be conducted periodically to evaluate the Turkey Point emergency organization.

An emergency exercise was sponsored by the plant on September 30, 1976. The drill included simulated conditions that required the evacuation of the plant except for the individuals essential for the operation of the plant. The exercise also involved participation of offsite support agencies. During the emergency exercise the inspector moved throughout the plant in an attempt to observe as many events as possible. Through the inspection effort, the inspector was able to observe t'e implementation of portions of the following procedures:

(1) Pire alarm (2) Communication (3) Evacuation (4) Accountability (5) Security (6) Emergency Team Responses The implementation of the procedures appeared to be adequate.

During the evacuation of the plant, a selected group of PPL employees assembled at the site boundary station to be monitored for contamination. Also, during the exercise the Emergency Coordinator activated the fire team because of a simulated fire in diesel generator building and activated the radiation team and first aid team because of two injured (burned and broken leg) individuals.

To transport the injured individuals to the offsite medical facility, a request was made for two helicopters from the Homestead APB. The helicopters were deployed and the individuals were airlifted to the medical facility at Miami Beach, Plorida. The drill scenario required that a mobile security unit sweep adjacent camps and beaches as well as assist with the landing of the helicopter. To assist with the simulated fire in the diesel generating room, the emergency coordinator notified the Dade County Pire Department who responded to the site. After t'e fire team had extinguished the simulated fire, the Emergency Coordinator simulated deployment of the restoration and recovery team to secure the area and prevent further hazards to plant personnel.

IE Rpt. Nos. 50-250/76-14 and 50-251/76-14 Prior to the drill the inspector thoroughly reviewed minutes of the Plant Nuclear Safety Committee (PNSC) dated January 6, 1976, and April 21, 1976. The minutes verified that the PNSC had reviewed recommendations and implemented corrective action for deficiencies defined by the 1975 emergency exercise. The 1976 emergency exercise will be thoroughly reviewed during the annual emergency planning inspection. The inspection will verify that weaknesses defined by the drill are provided the necessary corrective action.

The emergency exercise for 1976 appeared to satisfy the requirements in the regulations and the emergency plan.

3. Partici ation b Offsite Su ort A encies The inspector attended a meeting prior to the drill where each offsite support agency reviewed their involvement. On the day following the drill the inspector met again with the offsite agencies to evaluate each agency's participation. The following agencies participated in the Turkey Point Emergency Exercise.

a. State of Florida (1) Division of Disaster Preparedness (2) Highway Patrol (3) Marine Patrol (4) Department of Transportation (1) Health Department (2) Fire Department

c. Homestead Air Force Base In addition to the offsite agencies, the Federal Regional Cadre was involved in evaluating the capabilities of the offsite agencies.

Representatives of the following federal agencies attended to exercise:

0) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2) U. S. Defense Civil Preparedness Agency (3) U. S. GSA - Federal Preparedness Agency (4) U. ST NRC NRR (5) U. S. NRC - OSP