L-87-341, Responds to Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-250/87-27 & 50-251/87-27.Corrective Actions:Surveillance Procedures Which Address Tech Spec Required Surveillances Reviewed & No Other Similar Cases Found.Test Schedule Changed
| ML17342A863 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/17/1987 |
| From: | Woody C FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| L-87-341, NUDOCS 8708200202 | |
| Download: ML17342A863 (5) | |
Text
ACCESSION NBR FAC IL: 50-250 50-251 AUTH. NAME
~idOQDY> C. O.
REC IP. NAME REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (R IDS) 8708200202 DOC. DATE: 87/08/17 NOTARIZED:
NO DOCKET Turkey Point Plant>
Unit 3> Florida Poeer and Light C
05000250 Tur keg Point Plant>
Unit 4> Florida Pacer and Light C
05000251 AUTHOR AFFILIATION Florida Poeer 5 Light Co.
RECIPIENT AFFILIATIQN Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)
SUBJECT:
Respond
. to NRC ltr re noncompliances noted in Insp Repts 50-250/87-27 5 50-251/87-27. Corrective actions: surveillance procedures ehich address Tech Spec required surveillances revieeed 8c rio other similar cases Found.
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
IEOID COPIES RECEIVED: LTR /
ENCL g SIZE:
TITLE: General (50 Dkt)-Insp Rept/Notice oP Violation Response NOTES:
RLC IP IENT ID CQDF/NAME PD2-2 PD INTERNAL:
AEOD NPR I!QRISSEAU> D NRR/DPEP/EPB NRR/DR IS DIR
+BFRMiAN> J L
REG FIL LE 01 EXTERNAL:
LPDR NSIC CQP IES LTTR ENCL 1
RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME McDONALD> D DEDRO NRR/DOEA DIR NRR/DREP/RPB NRR/PMAS/ ILRB QGC/HDS2 RES DEPY GI NRC PDR COPIES LTTR ENCL 2
2 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 20 ENCL 20
P. O. BOX 14000, JUNO BEACH, FL 33408 042i" AUGUST, 1 7 1987 L-87-34 I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 Gent lemen:
Re:
Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-25 I Ins ection Re ort 87-27 Florida Power & Light Company has reviewed the subject inspection report and a response is attached.
There is no proprietary information in the report.
Very truly yours,
. Woody oup Vice President Nuclear Energy Department CO W/SDF /gp Attachment cc:
J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator, Region II, USNRC Senior Resident Inspector, USNRC, Turkey Point Plant 8708200202 870817 PDR ADOCK 05000250 6
PDR SDF I /056/I
~go(
\\
ATTACHMENT RE:
TURKEY POINT UNITS 3 AND 4 DOCKET NO. 50-250, 50-251 IE INSPECTION REPORT 250-87-27 6 251-87-27 FINDING:
Technical specification (TS) 4.1, Table 4.1-1, sheet 4, Channel Description Item 38.b, requires a monthly channel functional surveillance test be performed for the Unit 3 spent fuel exhaust monitor.
Contrary to the above, on May 14,
- 1987, the licensee discovered that the monthly TS required surveillance test of the Unit 3 spent fuel pit exhaust monitors had not been performed in the month of April.
The surveillance was last performed on March ll, 1987 and was required to be performed by April 18, 1987
'ESPONSE:
1)
~
z)
FPL concurs with the finding.
The reason for the finding was personnel error as discussed in Licensee Event Report (LER) 250-87-013 which reported this TS non-compliance to the NRC.
The person responsible for scheduling this surveillance, and the Quality Control (QC) surveillance technician were aware that this surveillance was to be performed on a monthly basis, and the next grace period expired on April 18, 1987.
The Quality Control personnel alerted the Instrumentation and Control Department that the surveillance grace period ended on April 18, 1987.
On, April 18,
- 1987, the surveillance had not been performed and this concern was brought to the attention of the on shift operations personnel.
The procedure that governs the scheduling of TS surveillances was reviewed and a
footnote was misinterpreted to mean that the surveillance procedure was not required with both units in mode 6 (refueling).
In actuality, the footnote meant that only the portion of the surveillance procedure testing the condenser air ejector and main steam line monitors were not required, the spent fuel pit exhaust monitor was still required to be surveillance tested.
This misinterpretation resulted in the surveillance not being performed and the monitor not being declared out of service when the surveillance was not performed.
3) a)
The monthly surveillance was performed and the Unit 3 Spent Fuel Pit monitor passed satisfactorily.
b) The other surveillance procedures which address TS required surveillances have been reviewed to determine if they are also subject to similar misinterpretations and no other similar cases were found.
J 0
a)
The surveillance test schedule will be changed to list each SPING monitor separately since the present one only lists them as a group.
This will eliminate any confusion as to whether, the surveillance applies to a specific unit in any given plant mode.
b) The Plant Training Department will review this item to determine appropriate training methods to emphasize the importance of performing surveillances as required and the actions to be taken when a surveillance cannot be performed to the appropriate plant personnel.
5) a) Full compliance for item 3.a above was achieved on May 15, 1987.
b) Full compliance for item 3.b above was achieved on July 29, 1987.
c) Full compliance for item 4.a above will be achieved by September 25, 1987.
d) Full compliance for item 4.b above will be achieved by December 31, 1987.