IR 05000302/1973004
| ML19319D060 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1973 |
| From: | Crossman W, Vallish E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319D044 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-73-04, 50-302-73-4, NUDOCS 8003040975 | |
| Download: ML19319D060 (12) | |
Text
.
O
~
a
<
.
i v" #
-
UNITED STATES
)o
%,#g,
'
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION I!c7,e ' g
~ DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS
-
!
,
g'$[Ilaril REoioN n - sueTE ais
...
' ',
p 230 P E ACHT R E E ST RE ET. NORT HwEST
,
L,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,A,,3 AT L. A NT A GEORGI A 30303 i
RO Inspection Report No. 50-302/73-4
,
Licensee: Florida Power Corporation 3201 34th Street, South P. O. Box 14042
'
St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Facility Name: Crystal River 3 Docket No.:
50-302 License No.:
CPPR-51 Category:
A2
Location: Crystal River, Florida Type of License: B&W, PWR, 855 Mwe
Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced,-Construction Dates of Inspection: April 24-27, 1973 Dates of Previous Inspection: April 17-19, 1973 Performing Inspector:
W. B. Swan, Reactor Inspector Engineering Section j
Facilitles Construction Branch Accompanying Inspectors : None Other Accompanying Personnel:
e Principal Inspector:
[
$ 'Y~ 73
,
E. J#Vallish, Reactor Inspector Date
'
i Facilities Section l
Facilities Construction Branch Reviewed By:
A
D W. A. Crossman, Senior Inspector Date Facilities Section Facilities Construction Branch i
N 80030_40f/f
'
f 4. n y_..
,..,,
,.
..,.,
., - - -,, -. -,,,.,
,,,,.
.,__,n._-
,., - -,
,,..-.n-.
,, - -,
,
.
.
_
_.
.
_
____ ___ _ --_---- - _ -- _--
t
.
..
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-302/73-4-2-SUMMARY OF PINDINGS i
I.
Enforcement ~ Action A.
Violations None i
B.
Safety Items None II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters a.
Violations 73-1/Al Decay Heat and Makeup and Purification Systems Welding Welding performed on the makeup and purification systems
-
was not in accordance with the qualified welding procedure.
,
The licensee has conducted a review and additional NDr.
His evaluation is not yet complete. This item remains open.
73-1/A2 Decay Heat and Makeup and Purification Systems Radiography
,
!
Radiography of welds on the decay heat removal system was not in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
The licensee's program is not yet complete. This item remains open.
B.
Safety Items None
.
III. New Unresolw i Items None
-
IV.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items j
73-3/1 Radiography of Piping There has been no change _in the status. This item remains open.
71-5/5 Cleanliness Procedures in Piping and Components
,
There has been no change in status. This-item remains
,
open.
.
.
,_
.. _. _
,
.
.
- _.,..
.,_..._,,
_
- _.,
_
_
_. _.., _,.
,, _.. _ _.., -. _,
..
.__.___
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
m
.
.
,
D
-
.
.)
R0 Rpt. No. 50-302/73-4-3-724/5 Procedures for Final Inspection of Piping There has been no change in status. This item remains open.
72-5/3 Valve Wall Thickness Requirements There has been no change in status. This item remains open.
73-1/2 Suspect Lack of Material Control - Weld Filler Material Investigation of this item continues. This item remains open.
,
V.
Design Changes None
-
VI.
Unusual Occurrences None i
VII. Other Significant Findings I
A.
Project Status Construction completion is forecast to occur about November 1975.
,
Placement of concrete in the contsinment ring girder was ready to start.
Excavation of the condenser cooling water outlet canal was underway and appeared to be about 10% complete.
.
The site work force was, t.portedly, 1,830 people.
B.
Personnel Changes No significant changes observed.
O
_
.
.
.-
_
_
. _.
.-
m
.
.
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-302/73-4-4-
.
VIII. Manasement Interview I
' Attendees,
Florida Power Corporation j
i H. L. Bennett - Director, Generation Construction i
j C. E. Jackson - Construction Superintendent E. E. Froats - Supervisor, Quality and Standards D. W. Pedrick - Quality Engineer R. S. Dorrie - Engineer, Civil and Structurn.
,
J. E. Barrett - Q. C. Engineer, Mechanical
G. P. Beatty - Power Production
!
Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories (PTL)
)
G. B. Browne - Chief Inspector I
}
j Babcock & Wilcox Construction Company (B&W)
i L. M. Watson - Site Manager J. R. McGill - Q. C. Supervisor
!
i A.
Inspector Swan said that he inspected their preparations for
'
the placement of concrete in the containment ring girder and reviewed the materials qualifications and QA/QC procedures and records. He also inspected the QA/QC records for the steam
,
generators and the control rod drive mechanisms and the suppliers'
i installation procedures for the control rod drive mechanisms.
'
(Details I, paragraphs 3, 4 and 6)
B.
The failure of several reinforcing steel bars below specified i
tensile strength was discussed. The licensee said that additional information would be sent to the inspector for
,
his review. After receipt of this information and telecon
'
!
discussions,.the inspector had no further questions.
!
(Details I, paragraph 2)
l
!
C.
Somewhat erratic performance of the compression and tensile testing nachine in the concrete laboratory was discussed.
,
The licensee reiterated that it would be corrected very soon.
(Details I, paragraph 3e)
.
,
.
.
-
.
- ~,
~
.
.
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-302/73-4-5-D.
The inspector questioned 'the fact that QC procedures had not been developed for installation of the control rod drive mechanism. The licensee said that procedure preparation is paced to meet the construction schedule.
(Details I, paragraph 6)
j E.
The inspector asked when FPC would have a management level i
audit of B&W. The licensee gave no schedule but said that audit requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, would be met.
(Detcils I, paragraph 5)
'
!
<
f
..
. -.
. -.
..
...
.. -... -.
.. -.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
m
,
.
a RO Rpt. No. 50-302/73-4-II-1
,
s ?
/
DETAILS II Prepared by:
'M M M-1 _
I/.M73 _'
W. B. Swan,' Reactor Inspector Date Engineering Section, Facilities Construction Branch Dates of Inspection: April 24-27, 1973 Reviewed by:
Nyh JISMJT
,
gj r. Bryanf, Senior Inspector Dafs
'
'
A gineering Section, Facilities Construction Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted Florida Power Corporation (FPC,)_
a.
H. L. Dennett - Director, Generation Construction C. E. Jackson - Construction Superintendent E. E. Froats - Supervisor, Quality and Standards O
D. W. Pedrick - Quality Engineer R. S. Dorrie - Engineer (Civil Structural)
J. E. Barrett - Engineer (Mechanical)
.
b.
Contractor Organizations (1) United Engineers & Constructors (UE&C)
Assigned to FPC Quality Surveillance Group, reporting to D. W. Pedrick.
L. R. Wada - Mechanical Engineer R. A. Jorgensen - Electrical Engineer (2) Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL)
G. B. Browne - Chief Inspector (3) Babcock and Wilcox Construction Company (B&W)
L. M. Watson - Site Manager J. R. McGill - QC Supervisor (4) Gilbert Associates, Inc. (GAI)
S. R. Buckingham - Site Coordinator, QA
.
.
-
..
-
_
-. _
_, _.
.
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-302/73-4 II-2 t
2.
Reinforcing Steel Failures Below Specified Strength On April 20, 1973, the licensee informed ~a Region II inspector that
during several Cadweld sister splice tests, the rebar had broken i
below specified strength and that.the matter was under investigation.
Concrete placement in the containment wall was suspended.
During and subsequent to the. current inspection, the licensee pre-sented data and evaluations to support his conclusion that there
,
was no problem with the reinforcing steel or Cadwelds.
-
The question was raised on April 16 when twc sister splices of 18S rebar broke at about 90% of specified tensile strength.
Subsequently, three additional test splices of steel from the same manufacturer broke.
,
i at about 90%. Four of these failed three to four inches from the splice
-
and the fifth by shearing deformations.
,
l The licensee then conducted 28 additional test; if 18S rebar from
{
the same manufacturer.
Some of the samples were cut from the con-tainment wall, some were from yard steel and some were splices from j
yard steel. All of these broke above specified tensile strength.
j Data were reviewed from test breaks of the six heats of 18S rebar
accepted from this manufacturer and were found to be acceptable.
,
The licensee reviewed all data from Cadweld tests and the particular
Cadweld operator's history.
Evaluations of concrete integrity under
various assumptions of rebar strength were made by FP&L and GAI.
The licensee decided that there was no problem with the steel or Cadwelds. His conclusion was that the problem originated from the testing technique and from difficulties being experienced with the testing machine (See paragraph 3.e of these details). The inspectors feel that the data reviewed support the licensee's conclusion, and have no further questions at this time.
,
!
3.
Inspection of Containment Ring Girder Concrete Operations l
l a.
General Placement of concrete in the ring girder was halted on April 16
i due to questions concerning reinforcing steel discussed in paragraph
'
2 of these details.
The inspector examined forms, reinforcing j
steel and completed' placements in the ring girder area, special precautions taken for ring girder placement, the batch' plant,
.the testing laboratory and quality control records.
)
..
.,,
_
-. _., -
_, -
. _ _.. -.... - -. _.,, _ _
_ _ _ _ _. - _ _ _,.
..._ _. _._ -,,. -
.
..
.
-.
-.
N
'
'
.
O
~
-
,
}
RO Rpt. No. 50-302/73-4 II-3 Within these areas, no discrepancies were noted except as
'
discussed in the paragraphs below on the testing laboratory.
!
and batch plant.
!
j b.
Record Review i
Records reviewed included qualification of concrete ingredients,
~
Cadweld splices, calibration of batch plant equipment and labora-i tory equipment, authorizations for concrete placement, QC inspec-tions, rebar testing, concrete cylinder tests, vendor documents, receiving reports and GAI audit reports Nos. 46 and 49.
c.
Concrete Batch Plant The quality control record file on the batch plant was reviewed.
Toledo Scales Company is scheduled to inspect and retag the scales every three months.
Their letter in the files reporting
'
their latest visit gave no details of the calibrations but stated "found to be without rust... suitable for use."
The FPC quality engineer referred the inspector to GAI Audit Report
No. 52, which had reported shortage of information and demanded better records from Toledo Scales Company.
More definition has already been requested by the licensee.
Review of records and inspection of the batch plant and aggregate storage brought forth no further questions by the inspector.
d.
Special Precautions Taken For Ring Girder Concrete Placement At an earlier date, an RO team composed of specialists from Headquarters and Region I had briefed Crystal River personnel on the unacceptable results of ring girder concrete placement at a site in the northeast and the procedural mistakes which
,
!
had contributed.
Later, despite extra precautions taken because of this briefing, a large void occurred in the concrete placed under
the equipment hatch in the Crystal River containment.
To prevent similar results in the complex girder concrete placement, the licensee took these actions:
(1) Had GAI prepare fifty-six sheets of a special drawing detailing the maze of embedment and the planned increments of placement
(Ref: Drawing SC-421-335, " Reactor Building Ring Girder Reinforcement Sequence").
i
!
.
.
- _ - -
. -
.
.. _,. - -,
.
.. -.
.
.. _-.
-
...- -, -.-
._.
-
-. -
..
.,
_.
.
.
-
.
t i
'
.
a RO Rpt. No. 50-302/73-4 II-4
<
.
(2) Had a multicolored scaled mockup built of a section of
)
the wall transition (ring girder) and blown up sections j
of details of tendon stressing plate reenforcements, each
'
such plate being on an individual slope to minimize bending of tendons near trumpets.
!
(3) Briefed workmen and others involved using models, drawing.
details and revised installation and control procedures.
i For example, concrete mix is to be placed in shallow lifts with the surface of the mix always being in sight and.
,
facilities are to be provided for wash removal of a rejected
!
section.
!
After review of these preparations, the inspectors had no further questions.
i e.
Malfunction of Loading Mechanism on Olsen Super L 100888-1 Testing Machine in Testing Laborato n On succeeding days, the inspector observed tensile testing to destruction of Cadwelds made for weldor qualification, followed by compressive testing of concrete cylinders. On both days, it was noticed that as the loading approached the higher ranges, there were interrupcions in the indicated rate
,
of load rise.
These pauses, during which there was no apparent j
increase of load, varied from a few seconds up to five minutes.
i
!
The laboratory supervisor said that the manufacturer's repre-i sentative had been told of the problem during a recent visit and had left believing it had been cured. The record showed that the machine had been calibrated on March 27, 1973, and certified to indicate loading at 80,000 psi to w1 thin 0.6% accuracy.
Since the licensee had recently had the machine adjusted and agreed
i to have the malfunction eliminated, no violation was cited.
It is-I probable that the malfunction was due to trapped air in the hydraulic l
system supplying the oil injector. Under the terms of the use agreement, the PTL technician is not permitted to open and purge
the system.
i
,
...
-
- -.
.
-...
- -..-
.. - ---....-
-- -
-
--. -
.
.-
'
.
.
I
.
'
RO Rpt. No. 50-302/73-4 II-5
,
_
]
4.
Inspection of Steam Generators Both steem generators had been sat in place. A review of records and procedures revealed the following:
FPC installed the generator sole plates in conformance with B&W procedure B G-009-Rev. 1, " Installation and Alignment of Steam Generator Sole Plates." B&W made inspections, demanded some changes, and approved the final alignment.
B&W had qualified
'
the equipment to unload, store and hoist the two generators,
'
then had unloaded, stored, transported and installed them in the containment.
B&W and FPC had then approved the place-ment and orientation of the generators.
The following B&W procedures were used:
Unioading Steam Generators Using 800 Ton Lifting Frame a.
and Hydraulic Jacks.
b.
Erection of Steam Generators.
c.
Leveling and Aligning Steam Generators.
i d.
Ioad Testing 600 Ton Guy Derrick e.
Installation Inspection:
SG-3A, 11/23/71; 12/1/71; 12/14/71 SG-3B, 11/20/71; 12/1/71; 12/14/71 Audit by Licensee: FPC audited the records pertaining to the generators and the inspector reviewed the
,
!
report dated December 22, 1971, " Audit of Documentation of B&W Steam Generators #1 and #2"
,
,
5.
Licensee Audit of B&W B&W is responsible for providing the NSSS, installing the equipment and systems and providing the principal QA/QC. They have provided copies of all quality control documents to the FPC quality and standards group. Most of the NSSS equipment has been received onsite, the steam
'
generators and reactor vessel have been placed in the containment, and start of a substantial part of the system installation is imminent.
The inspector found that a licensee management audit of B&W had not yet been conducted. When questioned, the licensee stated that auditing O
requirements o' 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, will be met, but he did not make conunitments regarding schedules.
.
-
. -.
.
. _ _ -
- _ -. - _
-
-
. -
-.
"
.
i q
s
.
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-302/73-4 II-6 i
6.
Control Rod Drives - Initial Review of Quality Control System B&W is providing and installing the CRIM and retains responsibility until installation acceptance.
B&W specification FS-III-1d, " Receipt, Inspection, Handling, Storage and Installation of the Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM)," has fifty-six pages including sixteen attachments.
In addition, the inspector saw a file copy of a Diamond Power Corporation
,
document giving instructions on receiving, inspection and storage of
'
control system items.
B&W has made the receipt and storage inspection.
The component hard-ware is stored in a B&W warehouse erected on FPC grounds. Except for the matter of accountability of transferred items discussed below, the documents examined reflect effective control.
B&W storage inspection report No.11057 noted "Leadscrews and motor tubes returned July 7, 1972, for NDT."
The inspector attempted to find an enumeration of the items shipped out.
This could not be determined from copies of B&W documents in the FPC files.
The FPC quality engineer contacted the B&W QC supervisor who brought over a copy of the shipping document.
This was nondefinitive in that it mentioned only " boxes" and did not address the shipment to the attention of a particular person at the vendor's factory.
B&W site files did not contain the information.
It was stated that the information would have to be obtained from the records in Lynchburg, Virginia.
The B&W site manager stated his intention to obtain documentation on the contents of the questioned shipment and to tighten document control and item accountability.
The installation procedure for the CRDH was reviewed.
QC procedures and acceptance criteria were not covered in the procedure.
Through the licensee, inquiry was made of B&W about plans for preparation of the QC procedure. At the exit interview, B&W representatives explained that a procedure is in planning but a year or more will elapse before
'
it is needed to monitor installation so its preparation has been deferred for other effort. No problem was encountered during review of the procedures for receiving, storing and installation.
l l
.
-
-.
. - _
__
_
_.,
~. - - -
.-
- - - -
-
-
-
%
.
.
.
.
Ltr to Florida Power Corporation dtd JUN 61973 cc w/ encl:
. D. Thornburg, RO
.
RO:HQ (4)
Directorate of Licensing (4)
'
DR Central Files ce v/o enc 1:
PDR Local PDR NSIC DTIE, OR State l
i
>
i