ML20210P130
| ML20210P130 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie, Turkey Point, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1980 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210P090 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-31 NUDOCS 8702130305 | |
| Download: ML20210P130 (9) | |
Text
.~ J fjj * *
~
,p
/.
.f
, %;/].
i
'?
- 1 gn
, j.
e *
.giyy p h* -
3 (y,
7 L
r.
g
~ sj :
y er I:'
\\
x r
m,f t
'/
- aclosure 1 I
,J' 1' '
o.
=>p p,. e,
f
\\
N
(.; tr.l } vt
\\;
(
-/
3 I
s,1 f.
b
\\ll 1 L p:
1 w r, i.,
./.
r r
'I
/ j,-
.t.
r s
l' I. J c,:
s r
(
r<-
11,
_ py.
j f ;
i ;
p i,
c
.,<>t 1
t
(
r'e,
-l I
i
,a
/
~
j.
,(,.
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE a
J.
I,*
t' FOR i,
. FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPAhT 1
I i
f it.
r,,,, r
=
1 s
4 1
1 y
'L' i
r 1
b
)
4 i
i 1
- -- - - - - - - ~ ---
I
... ~ -
. ~
j j i.
i 0702130305 8702064 PDR FOIA ORABER87-31 P DR
I
r 1-1
\\.*
?
{
y Region II
(
UTILITY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Utility: Florida Power and Light Company Units: Turkey Point 3, 4 St. Lucie 1, 2 Appraisal Period: Turkey Point 3, 4, St. Lucie 1 - May 1,1979 through April 30, 1980 St. Lucie 2 - September 1, 1979 through August 31, 1980 Review Board Members:
R. C. Lewis, Acting Chief, RONS Branch _
C. E. Murphy, Chief, RC&ES Branch R. Martin, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2 J. C. Bryant, Chief, Projects Section 1, T. E. Conlon, Chief, Engineering Support Section 1 M. Grotenhuis, LPM, NRR C. Nelson, LPM, NRR
===.
Background===
SALP evaluations for each site were generated as prerequisites to the NRC identi-fying the general performance level of each utility with an NRC license. These evaluations are forwarded to an interoffice review board formed of senior members from all Offices of the NRC involved in licensed activities. The board will, by virtue of receiving all SALP evaluations, form & national perspective of licensee performance. Additionally, the evaluations will provide a means for. highlighting areas of NRC programs that may require changes or redirection.
In developing the site evaluations it was determined that an overall evaluation of the utility's performance in its nuclear activities was desirable. Additional i
enclosures document the individual site evaluations.
The utility and site evaluations were presented in a meeting with senior corporate management in order to provide the decision makers of each utility with the NRC's evaluation of its overall performance in nuclear activities'.
\\
_ -. _..... ~. -. - ~. - - -. - - - - - -.. -
- ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - - --
- - " ~ ~ ~ - ' ~ ' ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ^ ~ '
~~~'
94
~.
i 1-2 p
-(.
A.
Areas of Good Performance Florida Power and Light (FP&L) is generally responsive to NRC regulations and findings of noncompliance. Reassignment of personnel at the site level has improved management effectiveness. Licensed operator performance is above average.
Non-licensed operator performance warrants continued attention by the licensee.
B.
Areas Where Improved Performance is Warranted Substantive differences have been observed in performance between the two sites. This s'uggests there is minimal corporate involvement in day-to-day operations. FP&L exhibits a rigid view of their regulatory obligations and strives to meet the letter rather than the spirit of their commitments.
This is counterproductive in dealing with the NRC. A poor attitude toward regulatory efforts exists on the part of certain individuals at the St. Lucie site. This has been brought to the attention of the corporate of fice.
C.
Overall Evaluation As a result of this evaluation, FP&L is considered an average performer in
~
the Region. It should be noted that this appraisal contains the results of two team inspections. The results of the noncompliance items cannot be directly compared to other facilities which have not received these inspections.
Future inspection results in these areas, compared with these results will be more indicative of both relative and absolute performance.
- -,.. =,,--.~ -- --
.. - - - ~ -.
--= -
a+----
. - - = = = - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - -
e * ' " " * *~
-*e.
= = = = -
- ,...S..
v :.
- a 4
/
1 SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE FOR TURKEY POINT UNITS 3 AND 4 m
0
... _._.... - - -. -... - - - - ~ --
~ - - - - -
'~~~
~~~ ' ' ^ ' ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~~~~~~~
^^ '
s..
= = - -
(~
2-1 Region II
\\..
Licensee Performance Evaluation (Operations)
Facility: Turkey Point Licensee: Florida Power and Light Company Unit Identification:
Docket No.
License No./Date of Issuance Unit No.
50-250 DPR-31/7-19-72 3
50-251 DPR-41/4-10-73 4
Reactor Information Unit 3 Unit 4 NSSS Westinghouse Westinghouse MWT 2220 2220 Appraisal Period: May 1, 1979 through April 30, 1980 The c d:tc: vcrs used ta prcvide a ccaparable basis for all operating reactors in Regica II. Significant events or enforcement items occurring af ter these dates were considered in arriving at the indicated conclusions.
Appraisal Completion Date: October 9, 1980 Review Board Members:
R. C. Lewis, Acting Chief, RONS Branch R. Martin, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2 F. Jape, Acting Project Coordinator M. Grotenhuis, LPM, NRR (contacted by telephone on 10/8/80)
A. Ignatonis, Senior Resident Inspector (contacted by telephone on 10/8/80)
W. Marsh, Resident Inspector (contacted by telephone on_10/8/80)
A.
Number and Nature of Noncompliance Items Noncompliance Category:
Unit 3 Unit 4 Violations 0
0 Infractions 13 9
Deficiencies 2
2 l
.! J
+
2-2 Areas of Noncompliance Unit 3 Unit 4 1
(List Areas As Required)
(Points)
(Points)
Security 0
0 Radiation Protection 40 30 Environmental 2
2 Quality Assurance 20 20 Admin /0PS/ Maintenance 72 42 TOTAL POINTS 134 94 (1) The Quality Assurance and Radiation Protection areas vere addressed during enforcement conferences held June 6,1979 and October 5,1979, respectively. Subsequent re-inspection in the QA area has closed the large majority of the noncompliances in that area.
(2) Noncompliances in the administrative area were primarily failure to provide adequate procedures and failure to follow procedures in the operation and maintenance areas. The licensee has committed to a program of procedure compliance and to upgrade the quality of pr'ocedures; This is viewed as a major step by management in improving management control of plant activities.
(3) Recent inspections have indicated signs of weakness in the area of identification, tracking; and completion of commitments to the NRC, such as corrective action to items of noncompliance or programmatic commitments. This area also remains open from the QA team visit of March 1979.
(4) Evaluation of the Health Physics program was conducted May 5-16, 1980, by a team of radiation specialists including Health Physics Inspectors from Region II. Several items remain open.
B.
Number and Nature of Licensee Event Reports Type of Events:
Unit 3 Unit 4 (By Cause Codes)
Personnel Error 7
2 Design 4
2 Installation 2
2 Component Failure 12 8
Other 9
2 Not Reviewed 6
2 TOTAL 40 18 Licensee Event Reports reviewed included 250-79-01 through 250-79-40, 251 1 - th rou gh 251-79-18,-with exceptions noted.
2-3
,e Y'
Licensee Event Reports (LERs) showed no clear trends. Several LERs mentioned long-term corrective actions as being " scheduled". The Resident Inspector will review these actions to determine whether or not cosaitments are being properly tracked and managed.
C.
Escalated Enforcement Actions Civil Penalties:
None Orders:
TMI Lessons Learned License Order issued and resolved.
Immediate Action Letters:
August 31, 1979 - Issued to confirm the operational, procedural and instru '
~
mentation actions to be taken by the licensee to avoid a future spent fuel pool overflow.
September 5,1979 - Issued to confirm the additional steps to be taken by r
the licensee to account for unmonitored radioactive liquid discharges, i
remove or evaluate the contaminated dry well, and identify the source of activity in the stora drain system.
4 D.
Management Conferences Held During the Twelve Months (1) A meeting was held with FP&L management and corporate personnel in the Region II office on June 6, 1979.
The meeting was to express our concerns about the effectiveness of the FP&L's Operational Quality Assurance Program and Management Control System related to Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.
The meeting was held as a result of our identifying 15 items and 13 items of noncompliance on Units 3 and 4, respectively, during a QA Inspection in March 1979. A followup inspection conducted in December 1979 to determine the licensee responsiveness to our concerns closed the majority of noncompliances.
(2) A meeting was held with FP&L mangement and corporate personnel in the Region II office on October 5,1979. The meeting resulted from two j
Icnediate Action Letters (Paragraph C.) concerning unplanned release of radioactive water. The licensee committed to improve procedures, train personnel and to follow procedures. The Senior Resident Inspector reports a major improvement in the licensee's adherence to procedures.
The HP program was inspected during the Health Physics team visit, May 5-16.
E.
Justification of Evaluations of Functional Areas Categorized as Requiring an Increase in Inspection Emphasis (1) A large number of design changes are underway as a result of TMI Iessons Learned Task Force activities and Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report.
....e.
....._._ _ _ ~
2-4 s
7 (2) Noncompliances in the areas of management control and review of design and maintenance activities indicate that weakness may exist in these areas.
(3) The QA program for fire protection activities has not been fully implemented.
(4) In.1980, the normal 0ealth Physics Inspection program was modified to include only one visit by a team of radiation specialists responsible for inspection of all phases of the licensee's HP program. The team concluded that the licensee's HP program was above average.
Increased emphasis in the above four areas is planned, but no change in inspection frequency is warranted.
F.
Comparison of Unit 3 With Unit 4 A comparison of Unit 3 with Unit 4 did not indicate that appreciable differ-- - - - - - - -
ences exist between the units.
G.
Overall Evaluation Licensee performance is acceptable and is judged to be average for the Region. The routine inspection program will place increased emphasis in the areas of design changes, plant modifications, fire protection and health physics. No increase in inspection scope or frequency is needed.
Appendix A - Functional Areas Appendix B - Action Plan (Internal Use Only)
~
{__
. - ~ ~ - ~ ' - - - -
~
i
..... - ~ ~ - -
._._m
e-
.o APPENDIX A
- (.-
2-A-1 FUNCTIONAL AREAS (Operations)
Inspection Frequency and/or Scope FUNCTIONAL AREA Increase No Change Decrease 1.
Management Control X
2.
Plant Operations X
3.
Refueling Operations and Activities X
4.
Maintenance X
... _ _. 5.. Surveillance and Preoperational Testing X
6.
Training X
7.
Radiation Protection X
8.
Environmental Protection X
9.
Emergency Planning X
10.
Fire Protection X
11.
Security and Safeguards X
12.
Design Changes and Modifications X
13.
Reporting X
- 14. QA Audits X
15.
Committee Activities X
16.
Quality Control X
17.
Procurement X
(BRANCH THIEF)
///z /f/
(DATE)
i
-h_
APPENDIX B 2-B-1 REGION II ACTION PI.AN Facility: Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 Appraisal Date: October 9,.1980 1.
Escalated Enforcement Action No escalated enforcement action is warranted at this time.
2.
Inspection Program Changes (include increased or decreased frequency),--- --- ---
Reinspection of the QA program will be conducted.
a.
b.
Additional inspections of management controls in the HP areas to g-correct problems relating to unmonitored radioactive liquid releases
(
vill be conducted.
3.
Management Meetings Planned A management meeting was held on October 29, 1980 to discuss the results of this assessment.
No additional meetings outside those required by the routine inspection program are planned.
4..
Status of Action From Previous Appraisals Satisfactory. No 'open issues remaining.
mb&&
J mes P. O'Reilly Re ional Director M
s'? O
.,, - =.A s.C, A.er Mit 3t a *; 6. f e g w =*. = s,
t
.e e -e w
,...e
..m.
_