L-82-292, Forwards Addl Response to NRC Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Repts 50-250/82-21 & 50-251/82-21.Corrective Actions:Proposal for Method of Tracking Plant Work Order Will Be Incorporated Into Applicable Plant Procedures

From kanterella
Revision as of 07:28, 1 June 2023 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Addl Response to NRC Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Repts 50-250/82-21 & 50-251/82-21.Corrective Actions:Proposal for Method of Tracking Plant Work Order Will Be Incorporated Into Applicable Plant Procedures
ML20062J429
Person / Time
Site: Turkey Point  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 07/15/1982
From: Robert E. Uhrig
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To: James O'Reilly
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML20062J400 List:
References
L-82-292, NUDOCS 8208160365
Download: ML20062J429 (2)


Text

.

P. O. BOX 14000, JUNO BE ACH, F L 33408 1: -'180 PER 29 [ . c.y b o J , '.% . U - g n jidt 20 A8 FLORIDA POWEFs & LIGHT COMPANY July 15,1982 L-82-292 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator, Region 11 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

Re: Turkey Point units'3 & 4 Docket Nos. 50-250, 50-251 IE Inspection Report 82-21 Our response to Finding B of the subject Inspection Report is attached. Our initial response to this Report was in our letter (L-82-241) dated June 18, 1982.

Very truly yours,

.v W U

~

Robert E. Uhrig Vice President Advanced Systems & Technology REU/PLP/myt Attachment cc: Harold F. Reis, Esquire 8208160365 820803 PDR ADOCK 05000250 0 PDR PEOPLE. . SERVING PEOPLE

ATTACHMENT RE: Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 Docket Nos. 50-240 and 50-251 IE Inspection Report 82-21 FINDING B 10 CFR 50, Appendix 8, Criterion XV, as implemented, in part, by Quality Procedure QP 15.2 of the Turkey Point Topical Quality Assurance Report (FPLTQAR) 1-76A, requires that all nonconformance reporting methods be documented and the reports dispositioned in accordance with written instructions.

Contrary to the above, written instructions for documenting and dispositioning of the plant work order (PWO) method of nonconfor-mance reporting are nonexistent.

RESPONSE

1. FPL concurs with the finding.
2. The finding was caused by FPL not considering plant work orders to be a method of reporting nonconformance.
3. As corrective action, a proposal for a method of tracking PW0's and ensuring their traceability was prepared and circulated for review and comment. The comments were discussed and incorporated as appropriate.
4. In order to prevent recurrence, the proposal will be incorporated into changes to applicable plant procedures. The procedures will be reviewed by the PNSC and approved by August 5,1982 and then issued by September 5, 1982.
5. Full compliance will be achieved by September 5,1982.

u