IR 05000302/1973011
| ML19308D682 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 11/14/1973 |
| From: | Crossman W, Vallish E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19308D679 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-73-11, NUDOCS 8003120793 | |
| Download: ML19308D682 (10) | |
Text
_ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
-
-
,
<
O
'
'
- ' <,
UNITED STATES
'[
,, _
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION L.) <[, e. ) -
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS
r t
REGloH 16 - SUIT E 818 g
,,
2M P E AC *4T R E E ST R E ET, NoRT HwEST
,
, e [/
$
'/
%us ATtaur4.cEoRcia ao aos l
RO Inspection Report No. 50-302/73-11 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 j
License No.:
CPPR-51 Category:
A3/B1 Location: Cryctal River, Florida Type of License:
B&U, PWR, 2560 Mut, 885 Mwe Nv)
Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced, Construction Dates of Inspection: October 24-26, 1973 Dates of Previous Inspection: October 10-12, 1973 Inspector-in-Charge:
W. B. Swan, Reactor Inspector Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch Accompanying Inspector:
L. L. Beratan, Sr.
Structural Engineer Technical Assistance Branch DRO-HQ Other Accompanying Personnel: None
/
//~/V-7d Principal Inspector:
E. J/ Vallish, Reactor Inspector Date Facilities Section Facilities Constructis Branch l
e 2. -
-
// - /4-Il Reviewed by:
//
'i -,
'
!
W. A. Crossman, Senior Inspector Date Facilities Section 80OS12077]
,
Facilities Construction Branch m
-
,
,-
~.
..R0 Ikp t. No. 50-302/73-11-2-
,
Suit!ARY OF FINDINGS I.
Enforcement Action A.
Violations None B.
Safety li
<
None II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters A. Violations
,
73-1/A2 Decay Heat and Makeup and Purification Systems i
Radiography The licensee has identified the deficiencies in radiographic inspection. A corrective action program hs.s been approved and is starting to be implemented.
%--
This item remains open.
B.
Safety Items None III. New Unresolved Items 73-11/1 Sea-Water Discharge Pipe Joints
-
The architect engineer is performing an engineering analysis on the design of these joints to determine if
..
an omitted weld bead will effect safety. The licensee reported this situation as a possible 10 CFR 50.55 (e)
reportable deficiency.
(Details I, paragraph 5)
IV.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items 73-5/2 Safety Valve Piping Assurance is required that safety valve piping design criteria did include dynamic force reactions. The
-
licensee is obtaining an engineering evaluation.
This item remains open.
.
O f
m
=wr w
w
-
-
R0 Apt. No. 50-302/73-11-3-
.
.
.,
.
'
73-5/5 Control Rod Drive (CRD) Undervoltage Trip Assembly Deficiency The generic problem identified with these assembilies is continuing in review.
This item remains open.
73-5/12 FPC Audit of B&W This remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 8)
73-5/14 Reactor Internals Modification Modification to these internals is being accomplished in the vendor shops prior to delivery to the site. This item remains open.
73-5/3 Valve Wall Thickness Requirements In response to the R0:II letter;s of June 30, 1971, and F2bruary 16, 1973, the licensee has developed a valve wall thickness verification program. This item remains open.
I,/ sh V.
Design Changes i
!
t.-
None VI.
Unusual Occurrences None VII.
Other Significant Findings A.
Project Status Negative report.
B.
Personnel Changes A new QA/QC organization chart, dated October 24, 1973, indicating realignment of certain subcontractors was reviewed.
g-i i
\\
/
.......
- -.. _ - _ - -... _
. - ~
.
_ -. _ -.
...
.. -......
.-......_ -..
.
I.
t
-
.
t
}
'
,
y-t i
f
,-RO 5tpt. No. 50-302/73-11-4-
,
!
VIII. Management Interview t
!
The inspectors met with H.
I..
Bennett, Director, Generation i
Construction, and others of the staff, and discussed the scope
'
i and results of the inspection. No violations or significant j
deficiencies were identified.
t
.
-
h t
,
>.
f i
!
t i
1,
-,
1
i i
!
,
l
-
,
i
.
}
r l
,
I k
e t
I
-
'
A 1j i
e
.
...
l'
l.
t
!
!
..
-.
..-.
.
_ _ - -.
-.
.
,
.,
'~'g RO Rpt. No. 50-302/73-11 1-1
'J DETAILS I Prepared by:
'
' '&
S
// /3/ 3
'W. B. Swah, Reactor Inspector Date
'
Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch Dates of Inspection: October 24-26, 1973 Reviewed by:
W+]
'
// J J.,jC. Bryant', Senior Inspector Date Engineering Section
,
Facilities Construction Branch 1.
Personnel Contacted Florida Power Corporation (FPC)
H. L. Bennett - Director, Generation Construction C. 2. Jackson - Superintendent, Site Construction
.
E. E. Froats - Manager, Generation Quality and Standards (Nuclear)
i R. W. Slater - Quality Engineer R. S. Dorrie - Engineer, Structural
\\s_-
J. E. Barrett - Engineer, Mechanical D. W. Pedrick, IV - Operations Compliance Engineer T. L. Baker - Supervisor, Quality Records Gilbert Associates, Incorpc iated (GAI)
S. R. Buckingham - Site QA Coordinating Engineer B.' Hurst - QA Engineer, Structural Babcock and Wilcox Construction Company (R&W)
L. M. Watson - Site Superintendent R. Shope - Site QA Representttive
'
J. R. McGill - QC Supervisor J. A. Jones Construction Company (JAJ)
.E..P. Shows - Project Manager
,
Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL)
G. P. Browne - Chief Inspector 2.
Personnel Changes-("'sJ
!
N None significant to this inspection.
t l
r-
_.... - _ _,
. -.
-.
- _..
.. - _,,. _
-
. __--;
-
-.
.-
- -
- -
- - --
.
- L
-
,
- -
RO Rpt. No. 50-302/73-11 I-2
>
,
.
.
-
.
.
3.
Insp. etion of Decay Heat Removal Pumps - High Pressure and Low
'
-
Pres:,ure - Injection Pumps f
The ins'pector found that these pumps had been installed and the main' connecting piping had'been attached.
The bases had been
-
grouted to the concrete bases. Power had been connected to keep
the fields warm. The permanent electrical connects had not been
,
made.
Measures had been taken to prevent internal contamination of the pumps and connected piping.
The records of periodic inspections of the pumps was reviewed..The inspector found it somewhat cumbersome to determine the disposition
,.
!
-
of various deficiencies found in March 1972, aid incorporated in an
'
audit report in June 1972, on the motors of the HPI pumps. This
tracing problem was discussed with licensee representatives during the inspection and at the management interview.
The licensee acknowledged that the present system is awkward although workable
and agreed to revise procedures to make traceability of NCR dis-
,
position easier.
No violation was cited.
- Final-cleaning and flushing of the pumps will be accomplished during systems cleaning end flushing.
No deficiency was noted in the quality control of the pumps and l
[
their installation.
.
4.
Letdown Coolers The two letdown coolers were found installed and painted, with connecting piping installed. The QC records demonstrate that measures had been ta' ken to maintain cleanliness during fabrication,
~
l receipt, storage and installation and periodic inspectior.a had been I
made since installation. A black liquid substance discovered in l
July 1973 in the shell side drain nozzle of cooler 1B had been i
sent to a laboratory for analysis but could not be identified, so the l
. shell side had been recleaned.
(
No deficiency was found in the procedures, workmanship or QC records.
5.
Onission' of Welds on Nuclear Service Sea-Water D'scharge Pipe On October 10, 1973, the licensee notifief DRO-II that external welds co'nnecting successive joints of thia 48" discharge pipe had been omitted inadvertently (although shown on the construc-
~
tion drawing) from sections installed and covered by the plant n
,
.s__-. -
,
,
-
-
.a,_.-
.w..~..
- _ - _.,.. _, _.. -.. - -.. _, -
_. ~, _.. -... - - -.
-.
,eng u
,
/N RO Rpt. No. 50-302/73-11 I-3 t
)
'
%J,
-
.
berm and construction roads.
Each joint has a rechanical seal.
The purpose of the external weld was to prevent slippage of the joint during earth settlement or during a pcssible earthquake.
The licensee stated that the discharge pipe is apparently not critical to safe shutdown of the plant, even though the system was shown as Class I in the FSAR.
The licensee has asked the architect-engineer for an evaluation of the classification of the discharge line and of the need for removing 10 to 30 feet of overburden to weld joints already buried. No determination has been made as to the reportability of this occurrence under para-graph 50.55(e) of 10 CFR 50.
The inspector inspected the portion of the discharge line not yet backfilled. Uelds had not been made on these exposed joints.
A followup report will be made after the licensee has received the requested evaluation from the architect-engineer.
6.
Reactor Vessel - Post Construction Cleaning
-
(N Major pipe attachments were observed being welded. Wooden scaffolding
'
-)
had been installed in the vessel to aid this work.
A cover had been i
g provided to prevent workmen and foreign objects fron falling into
'
- the vessel but no provisions had been made for security access control or for " clean room conditions."
The inspector asked the B&W site superintendent concerning procedures for the controls. He was told that installation of the R. V. in-ternals would not be started for six months. Any detailed procedures needed will be provided before start of installation of internals.
7.
Observation of Placement of Concrete in Containment Rinn Girder On Friday morning, October 26, 1973, the inspector observed the place-ment of a 42-inch lift of concrete in a 60 degre8 sector of the ring girder and observed testing cf delivered concrete batches and quality I
control of the placement.
Adequate placement and quality control personnel were present. Two pumps and enough vibrators were in use.
Because of the complexity of forms and the crowding of rebar and other embedments, placement of bonding epoxy, grout and concrete was very difficult; but no deficiency in placement or quality control procedures was noted.
(s -
.
.
-.,,
-
__,
.
-
a
['~N RO Rpt. No. 50-302/73-11 I-4
,
,
,
\\._/,
.
The inspection of preparations for the placenent were covered by a DRO:llQ structural specialist.
His findings were discussed in detail with this inspector and were as follows:
The objective of this inspection was to confirm that appropriate construction practices were used to prevent the formation of voids in the concrete in crucial areas of the ring girder; i.e.,
behind the bearing plates and in other areas congested by a large number of reinforcing bars.
The ring girder is 17'-6" high and is being poured in six lifts and in sixty degree segments. At the time of the ine.pection, the three bottom lifts had been poured (the bottom ten feet). Pre-paration for the fourth lift was underway during the inspection.
To facilitate the placing of concrete in the constricted spaces of the ring girder, a special concrete mix was being used. The maximum aggregate size was limited to 1/2 inch and the concrete slump to four inches. Plexiglass windows were inserted in the steel forms at the location of the bearing plates to allow the Quality Control (QC) people to observe the placement of the concrete in critical areas.
O)
The Quality Assurance (QA) records for the first three lif ts were (N-
'
audited and the following items were noted as being outstanding:
1.
The specification requires that epoxy be placed on the surface of the older concrete before a lif t of fresh concrete is placed upon it.
The required 28 day strength of the concrete is 5000 psi and the cube strength of the epoxy is required to be 8000 psi. The QA records reveal that it was difficult to obtain the 8000 psi required by the specifications. Mos t o f the test results were in the range of 7500 psi.
A resolution of this problem delayed the pouring of additional concrete until Friday October 26, 1973, as described above.
The inspectors were informed that an engineering disposition of this problem had been made by Gilbert Associates. The disposition was reported to say that the epoxy was not re-quired to be any stronger than the concrete being bonded.
Supporting documentation will be available for the inspector to review at the next regular inspection of this facility.
2.
It was found that NCR 511 dated September 18,1973, had n 3t been closed out.
During the management interview, QA personnel at t! a site confirmed that un engineering dis-position had been made and the documentation received.
,.
f-~
s
_
___
, _ _
~w
=' '
-
__
_
_
~
&
/
'~'
, RD Rpt. No. 50-302/73-11 I-5
,
U.
.
8.
Unresolved Item 73-5/12, FPC Audit of B&W The licensee, assisted by an outside agency, had completed an audit of the NSSS supplier.
This reportedly included review of a report by B&W of an audit made of their subsidiary, Babcock and Wilcox Construction Company.
The audit report had not been reviewed by the licensee's upper manage-ment.
In report 73-5, Details II, Item 7, this unresolved item was titled,
"Lt' eness of Licensee (Management Level) Audit of B&W Construction Company (B&W)."
In discussion during this inspection, the licensee's position was stated to be that the constant surveillance of B&W Construction Company site activities by FPC's QA group should make unnecessary a separate audit by a team with a management menber not directly involved with the work accomplishment or quality assurance and ranking above the level of the manager of generation quality and standards (nuclear).
It appeared to be the licensee's position also that the recent B&W parent company audit of their subsidiary,
-~s)
B&W Construction Company, should be accepted as meeting the intent x-
/
of Criterion XVIII of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
The inspector stated that audits should be performed by persons not having direct responsi-bilities in the areas being audited and that corrective actions found necessary during an audit should be directed by a management member at a level adequate to achieve compliance with the directive. The in-spector further said that it is the responsibility of the licensee to regularly review the performance of the entire QA program in accordance with the requirements of Criterion II of Appendix B to,10 CFR 50.
The inspector stated that the report of FPC's audit of B&W parent company and that of the B&W internal audit of B&W Construction Company would be reviewed by DRO during a later inspection. The timeliness and effectiveness of corrective actions will be of particular importance.
v
.
. _.... _.. _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _... _ _ _ _ _. _. _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. -. -
. _.. _. _ _. _. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _. _..... _ _ ~ _
i i
?.
1.
- i. -
,-
)
'
!
..
-
t
,
Letter to Florida Power Corporation
I10V 161973 50-302n3-11 dated i
!
i
!
,
DISTRIBUTION:
,
-"",JP.
D. Thornburg, RO
,
l RO:HQ (4)
}
Directorate of Licensing (h)
t DR Central Files i
J. R. Lundy, L l
- PDR
.
!
" Local PDR
'
- NSIC
{
- DTIE, OR j
' State
- To be dispatched at a later date.
@
.
t
,.
.
- - _
!
,
.
!
.
l
l l^
@
.
!
,-
., Jm -,,_, z ;,.-,.-..
-,,m4,.-,-----_---,.--
__.
- -., - -..._......-,-.. -..,,. -- -.- -._ _...,_,,.._ _ -,,.. - -,. -
_ - -,.