IR 05000302/1974009
| ML19319C809 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 07/26/1974 |
| From: | Jape F, Seidle W, Whitt K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319C800 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-74-09, 50-302-74-9, NUDOCS 8003040777 | |
| Download: ML19319C809 (18) | |
Text
. - _. _ _ - _ _ _
- _. - - _ - _ _
-
-
V M/ ;.... c...- )
-
UNITi'D STATCS W{.,}.'/u. f t. i.Y:.'.
'
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION i
i'au :' Wu TP: O F.~ d' p L N' O M G P E T R 'fL
-
-.. 1.
I
.
n r u.o.. n s.n e t =
e g( g-\\ I N ' M
i n u r u.. it a s c st a'.t t- '"* '" " $'
t asi c * " **' '
eq,
>
.
u.. ~,. en. <, u c.. - wm
,
-
RO Inspection Report No. 50-302/74-9
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:
B1 Location: Crystal River, Florida Type of License:
}
Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced.
o Dates of Inspection: June 18-21, 1974 Dates of Previous Inspection: March 26-29, 1974 Principal Inspector:
K. W. Whitt, Reactor Inspector Facilities Test and Startup Branch Accompanying Inspector:
F. Jape, Reactor Inspector Facilities Test and Startup Branch Other Accompanying Personnel:
A. L. Cunningham, Environmental Scientist Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch PrincipalInspector:['
-[A 7[24/7p k. W. Whitt, Reactor Inspector Date Facilities Test and Startup Branch Revieye3 Bi:
Q
'7fZ4'./
W. C. Seidle, thief Datd Facilities Test and Startup Branch l
l N.)
'
8003040
.
..
....
.
< ~T
/
J
\\
.
s
'
x-<
RD Rpt. No. 50-302/74-9 2-
-
,
.
,
SU) MARY OF FINDINGS I.
Enforcement Matters
.
A.
Violations
,a r
,
.
.
None
,
B.
Safety Items
.
None
.
II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters None identified.
.
III. New Unresolved Items None
.
(
IV.
Status of Previnusly Identified Unresolved Iters 73-10/1 Preoperational Environmental Monitoring Program The preoperational environmental monitoring program was discussed with licensee representatives and recent amendments to the FSAR
.
were reviewed. Previous questions concerning the program have
,
been resolved. This item is considered closed.
(Details II,
'
paragraph 2)
73-12/1 Preoperational Test Program Controls
The Transition Control Procedure and the Temporary Test Device procedure are being revised by Florida Power Corporation (FPC)
l This item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 2)
V.
Unusual Occurrences
.1
'
None
-
VI.
Other significant Findings A.
R0B No. 74-6, Defective Westinghouse Type W-2 Control Switch Component
,
g Information concerning the use of the Westinghouse type W-2 control switch component in CR-3 cafety systems was requested by ROB No.
'-
74-6..The requested information has been prov'.ded by FPC. This item is considered closed.
(Details I, paragtaph 3)
j
.
6 m.
..
e-..
-.
-m-r---
we -.
w
e
.-
c
+,-,,rg-
- . -
e,,,
,,, _
--.y
-...-w ee,my,e apuy r
---w-yrm--rwas*w
.
.. -
,
~h.
-
.k0Rpt.No.50-302/74-9-3-
B.
Bomb Threats at Reactor Facilities
'
'
The licensee bomb threat procedure was reviewed and the inspector had no comments.
This item is considered closed.
(Details II,
'
paragraph 3)
<
t C.
Project Status 1.
General
'
,
There has been no significant change in the status of testing
[
since the last inspection. No safety related systems have been turned over to and accepted by the power testing group in their entirety and no preoperational testing has been performed.
2.
Transition Status
Quality Assurance records indicate that construction has completed the transition form (Q-66) for about 35% of the plant mechanical equipment and 23% of the plant electrical equipment. Only a
,
es small part of this equipment has been accepted by the power (
)
test group.
3.
Procedure Status Class No. Identified No. in Final Draft No. Approved
.
I 101
1 II
19
D.
Personnel Changes The following personnel changes have been made since the last Facilities Test and Startup inspection:
1.
FPC Mr. P. F. McKee has been promoted from Operations Engineer a.
to Assistant Plant Superintendent.
The reassignment of
,
Mr. W. P. Stewart who formerly held this position was reported in RO Report No. 50-302/74-2.
b.
The position of Nuclear Engineer was abolished and a new position entitled Reactor Engineer was created.
Mr. J. L.
Curtis has been assigned this new position.
He will report ss to the technical support engineer.
.
o
'
- - -
<
<N
-
/~~'N RO Rpt. No. 50-302/74-9-4-
'
k _,) '
-
-
.
c.
The position of operations engineer remained vacant at the
'
time of this inspection.
2.
Gilbert Associates Incorporated (GAI)
.
Mr. T. J. Arney has replaced Mr. J. D. Green as Quality Assurance (QA) Coordinator with GAI.
,
VII. Management Interview
,
,
A management interview was held at the conclusion of the inspection on June 21, 1974. The following licensee personnel participated.
,
.
P. G. Davis - Manager, Power Testing J. C. Hobbs - Superintendent, Mechanical and Electrical Systems C. E. Jackson - Construction Superintendent P. F. McKee - Assistant Plant Superintendent R. W. Slater - Quality Engineer A.
Previously identified unresolved items 73-10/1 and 73-12/1 were discussed.
(Details II, paragraph 2 and Details I, paragraph 2)
\\
B.
Discussed revision of the corporate QA manual.
(Details I, paragraph 4)
C.
The inspectors stated that they had reviewed six test procedures and had discussed their comments with a management member of power
'
'
testing. They explained that the comments had been resolved and that t' hey understood that the procedures would be revised.
A licensee representative replied that this understanding was correct.
(Details I, paragraphs 5 and Details II, paragraph 4)
D.
The inspector stated that he had reviewed the licensee's procedure for bomb threats at the site and had no questions.
(Details II, paragraph 3)
E.
Discussed the status of equipment turnover and test procedure preparation.
(Section VI.C)
F.
Discussed the method of making changes to test procedures.
l (Details I, paragraph 6)
G.
The environmental scientist defined the scope of his inspection and discussed this finding.
He stated that he had no questions at this time.
(Details III, paradraphs 2 through 6)
O)
\\v
. - - -..
m._,
.-,
- -
_
...
- RO Rpt. No. 50-302/74-9 I-l
.
h.
I, 95y'
DETAILS I Prepared By: v K. W. Whitt, Reactor Inspector
' Date Facilities Test and Startup Branch
,
Dates of Inspectio : Juneyl8-21, 1974 Reviewed By:
.
7 b // [ -
W.C.SeidlbjChief
' / ats D
Facilities Test and Startup Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted I
Florida Power Corporation (FPC).
J. Alberdi - Plant Superintendent P. G. Davis - Manager, Power Testing
.
E. E. Froats - Manager, Nuclear Site Surveillance C. E. Jackson - Crystal River Construction Superintendent M. H. Klineman - Director, Quality Programs Department P. F. McKee - Assistant Plant Superintendent O
D. W. Pedrick - Compliance Engineer J. T. Rogers - Assistant Vice President Generation Engineering j
R. W. Slater - Quality Engineer Gilbert Associates, Inc. (GAI)
.
T. J. Arney - Quality Assurance (QA) Coordinator 2.
Preoperational Test Program Controls This unresolved item (73-12/1) was initially reported in RO Report No.
50-302/73-12, Details I, paragraph 3, and subsequently discussed in RO Report Nos. 74-2 and 74-6.
The " Transition Control Procedure" and the " Temporary Test Device Procedure" were approved on March 26, 1974.
However, all comments that resulted from the review of the draf t I
procedures were not incorporated in the approved procedures.
Consequently, the procedures are currently being revised. This item will remain open until the revised procedures have been reviewed.
3.
Defective Westinghouse Type W-2 Control Switch Component The information requested on this subject by Regulatory Operations letter RO:II:NCM, 50-302, dated May 31, 1974, has been received.
None of these control switch components will be used in Crystal River 3 safety systems. No further inspection effort is planned for this
'
item.
V
.
f
,. '.
um a
-*..
a-
- -
-.
-,. - -
,oy
,
,----w
- -
m
---,+-e
-<g+
._
...
.
.
.__
..
_
.. _ _ _.. _ _ _ _
. _ _ _
. _ _.
_
,
.r.
e m-3 i
'
.
,
i
.
.
.
- RO Rpt. No. 50-302/74-9 I-2
[
.
r
.
.
4.
Corporate QA Manual The corporate QA manual was discussed with members of the QA staff.
i The manual is still under revision, but it is expected to be issued
,
'
in its revised form within sixty days according to a licensee representative.
The umbrella corporate policy statement has
'
been issued and will become a part of the QA manual.
In addition to this statement, the manual will,, consist of QA requirements and
-
requirement implementing instructions. The implementing instructions which will be contained in the QA manual will implement only the
_
requirements imposed on the 'QA organization.
Requirements imposed
&
by the QA manual upon other organizations such as power testing -
,
and operations must be implemented 'by the affected organization.
i The inspector was assured by a licensee representative that the QA program for preoperational testing would not be altered by th,e manual revision.
5.
Procedure Review
'
The inspector reviewed the " Controlling Procedure 'for Flushing and Cleaning Water Filled and Gas Filled Systems" (CC-1). The requirements and general content of the procedure were compared with the
'
requirements of Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W) specification i
FS-II-2, "On-Site Cleaning and Cleanliness Controls During Construction and Installation of NSS Components and Auxiliary
,
'
Equipment" and B&W Standard Specification 109S/0170, " Cleanliness
,
' of Nuclear React'or Systems and Components." The following comments were discussed with a licensee representative:
Comment 1: The cleaning and flushing procedure (CC-1) does not require cleaning and flushing procedures and changes to these procedures to be reviewed and approved in accordance with the instructions
'provided by the Test Program Guide.
l Licensee response: The proceuure will be revised to include this requirement.
,
,
.
Comments 2: The controlling procedure for flushing and cleaning does
'
not require that manual cleaning of components be performed in
accordance with written, approved procedures.
.
Licensee response: The procedure will be revised to include this
- requirement. -
,
~l
.
'
I
-
.
.
,
-,
,
- - -
-
--
-
.
.
--
.
-,
,.
'
'R0 Rpt. No. 50-302/74-9 I-3 t,
i Licensee actions regarding the above comment responses will' be reviewed during subsequent inspections.
6.
Test Procedure Changes
-
'
'
This subject was initially discussed in RO Report No. 50-302/74-6.
'
~
Amendment 39 to the FSAR provided a description of the controls to be followed in making changes to test procedures. These control
'
measures are presently being implethented by the power test group.
'
This item is considered closed.
b o ~
O l
.
.
.
l I
i
'
i
-
.
.
.
O
>
.
l
.-
. -.
_.
. __, _ _.. _ _ _, _, _ _.,
.
.. _.. _,. _ _ _ _ _. _ _..,. _ _ _,,, _, _.,
_
_
.
.
- - -
-
, - ~,
,
s RO Rpt. No. 50-302/74-9 II-l
'
7 ~23 2 Y DETAILS II Prepared By:
1d44-a. M
'
F. Jape, Reactor Inspe'etor Date Facilities Test and Startup Branch
.
Dates of Inspection: June 18-21, 1974 Reviewed By:.
_
I W2
+-
W. C. Seidle,M hief Date
,
Facilities Test and Startup Branch
1.
Individuals Contacted
.
Florida Power Corporation UTC)
R. W. Slater - Quality Engineer D. W. West - Chemistry and Radiation Protection Engineer
'
P. G. Davis - Manager, Power Testing 2.
Preoperational Environmental Monitoring Program
\\
Section 2.6.2 of the FSAR, concerning "On-Site Pre-Operational d
Radiological Monitoring Program," requires the preoperational aampling program to be continued until the operational program begins. This requirement applies to terrestrial areas and marshland sites as indicated in Figure 2-49 in the FSAR. The stenple frequency is specified in Table 2-18 of the FSAR.
This item was discussed with licensee representatives and it was concluded that this previously identified unresolved item (73-10/1)
is closed.
3.
Bomb Threats at Reactor Facilities FPC has provided a " Site Emergency Control Procedure" which covers emergency evacuations, fire evacuations, and bomb threats.
The inspector reviewed the portion of the plan for coping with bomb threats and had no questions.
4.
Review of Class I and Class II Test Procedures Five draft preoperational test procedures were reviewed and comments discussed with licensee representatives.
The inspector's comments and licensee's responses are summarized below:
V r
-
,,.
--
-
-
-
. -.,
.,-. - -,,,
.
.- -- --., -
_
-
-
m
- '
.
~
RO Rpt. No. 50-302/74-9 II-2
'
a.
The following comments apply to:
'
TP 210 1, " Core Flooding System Hydrostaic System" TP 267 2, " Nuclear Services Closed Cycle Cooling System
'
Hydrostatic Systems" TP 268 1, " Decay Heat Closed Cycle Cooling System
,
Hydrostatic Test" TP 265 3, " Nuclear Service Seawater System Hydrostatic
.
Test"
-
(1)
Inspector's Comment
[
Section 2.3 presents a list of items that will becoma a part cf the test record.
Not listed in this list is the chronologica] log.
Will a log be maintained during the conduct of a test and where will this record be filed?-
Licensee's Response Considerations will be given to maintaining a log while a O
test is conducted.
If a log is kept, it will become a part of the test record.
(2)
Inspector's Comment The list of items in Section 2.3 does not include calibra-tion records of test equipment such as p,ressure gages and
-
relief valves. Where will these records be maintained?
Licensee's Response The serial number of all test equipment used in performing a test will be recorded in Section 6 of the test procedure.
All test equipment is calibrated on a specified frequency and the records of calibration are maintained in a central file j
(3)
Inspector's Comment In two of the test procedures listed, it is stated that a preliminary flush will precede the hydro test, in another
,
test, a final flush is a prerequisite and the fourth test does not require any flushing before the hydro test.
A precautionary statement is included in all of the test procedures concerning cleanliness of the piping system m
i
_
.
__
-
-.
%
,f s3
.
.
,
(,,,/
RD Rpt. No. 50-302/74-9 II-3
.
when making or breaking connections.
Also in piping
.
systems, other than those using seawater, water chemistry limits are presented.
.
It would appear that if the piping system final flush has not been completed prior to the hydro, the precaution
'
concerning cleanliness and the water chemistry limits woul'd not apply.
But if the final flush is a prerequisite test then these two items are meaningful.
I2 it the intention of FPC to conduct hydro tests before
or after the final system flush?
i
_
Licensee's Response This item will be reviewed and test procedures will be, revised to reflect the chosen plan.
(4)
Inspector's Comment A statement is given in Section 7 admonishing the test
)
operator against over torquing valves and mechanical s_-
fasteners. What are the allowable torque limits?
Licensee's Response This statement will be reviewed and if limits are required
.
they will be added to the procedure.
(5)
Inspector's Comment A statement in Section 7 requires adjacent, connected, untested piping to be vented, but no list of vent valves is given.
,
Licensee's Response Appropriate vent valves will be specified in the procedure.
(6)
Inspector's Comment In Section 7 the Test Supervisor is requested to ensure
,
l that the hydro pump relief valve will lift at 106% of the i
l test pressure and that the capacity of the relief valve
'
exceeds or equals the hydro to done. Will a test be run
' 'g for each hydro or will the equipment be bench-tested?
D l
_
-
....
a
-
'
R0 Rpt. No. 50-302/74-9 II-4
.
Licensee's Response
'
'
'
The original intention was to conduct a test on this equipment for each hydro test, but consideration is being
-
given to bench-testing the relief valve on a periodic schedule like other special test equipment is handled.
,
This item will be cleared-up in the approved test procedures.
,
'
l (7)
Inspector's Comment
-
Several action items appear in Section 7, " Limitations
.
"
and Precautions," that do not have a space for initialing and dating.
Examples are as follows:
(a) Close instrumentation valves before filling the system.
(b)
ensure system is vented during fill.
(c)
open differential transmitter equalizing valves.
(
Shouldn't these item be covered in Section 9.0, " Test Method and Procedure?"
Licensee's Response
.
All action items will be signed-off and dated.
Some
-
items will be found in Sections 7 and 8 as well as 9.
b.
The following comments apply to TP 367 2:
j (1)
Inspector's Comment j
Step 8.2.9 requires bolting of expansion joints as a preparatory step for the hydro test.
There is no step in the proceduro that requires these bolts to be removed and to return the system to normal.
Licensee's Response A step will be added to part 9.4, " Cleanup and Restoration,"
'
to remove the bolts.
(2)
Inspector's Comment Step 9.2.1.12 states that there be zero leakage at the i
test pressure.
Shouldn't this state that there be no leakage through piping or weldments?
--
,
,
-.-
..
-- -
-.
.
.
.. -
..
., _
_,.... 1
_..
. _ _
_a
.
- 'N
,
(
RO Rpt. No. 50-302/74-9 II-5
'
'
.
Licensee's Response s
It is the intention to meet the requirements of USAS B 31.1-1967, and the statement will be revised to reflect
-
the code requirement.
"
(3)
Inspector's Comment Step 9.2.2.1 requires a jumper line to be installed.
The
-
accompanying note requests the test supervisor to ensure the line is of such a quality as to withstand test pressure.
How will the test supervisor accomplish this?
,,
Licensee's Response
.
The procedure will be revised to state the design require-ments of the jumper line.
c.
The following comment applies to TP 265 3 and TP 268 1:
/
Inspector's Comment
"
t
-
%
Section 9.2, " Test Precedure," contains a step which requires the fill water to reach equilibrium temperature with the system. How will this item be monitored?
Licensee's Response
-
This item will be reviewed and the procedure revi.ned as needed.
'
d.
The following comment applies to TP 265 3:
Inspector's Comment Step 9.2.1.8 requires proping two check valves open, but the details are not stated as to how this is to be accomplished.
Licensee's Resnonse This item will be revieued smi the necessary details will be added to the procedurc.
.:
e.
The following comment v/ piles ':e TP 201 1; Inspector's Cc:=eng i
': core flood tank shall not exceed 65 s_,/ '
Step 7.14 states the:.
-
8'2r during de hyccc-e.
Shouldn't a minimum temperature for nil ductility r ca. e ii ?.cn temperature consideration be stated?
-
-
-
.- _ _ _ _ _
-
-
.
- %
~
. R0 Rpt. No. 50-302/74-9 Il--6
.
Licensee's Response
.
.
A minimum temperature consistent with brittle fracture consi-deration will be added to the test procedure.
.
f.
The following comment applies to TP 171 2, " Auxiliary Building Supply and Exhaust Functional Test."
,
Inspector's Comment
,
+
.
In section 6.1 and 6.2 a heating and cooling source is specified
-
as special test equipment, and in at least six steps the
'
setpoint of a sensing element of a temperature switch is checked with the heating or cooling source. What is the
,
nature of the source and how is the temperature controlled?
Licensee's Response The heating and cooling source will be identified or de:aribed in the test procedure.
~
Followup review of the above licensee responses will be conducted by the inspector on subsequent inspections.
.
- l i
'
e I
(
,
su i
i
!
. _ _ _. _ _.
.
_. - -._ _. _ _
_
_
e w
(q
.
\\-
-
.,
sf RO Report No. 50-302/74-9 III-l
.
DETAILS III Prepared by: /
g/&os
// /////
'
"
>
A. L. CunEingham, J,mfironmental
' Dat'e Scientist, Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch
'
Dates of Inspectio :
Jun 20-21, 1974
-
7/2t/ !7L/-
.
Reviewed by:
-
% W1 J. T. $u'therland, Chief
' Date
.ldt Radiological and Environmental
.
)
Protection Branch
.
.
1.
Individuals Contacted R. W. Slater - Quality Control Engineer
,
J. Johnson - Environmental Scientist D. W. West - Chemical and Radiological Protection Engineer 2.
Scope of Inspection j
The inspection was limited to a detailed review of the following
,
j items, viz.; (1) current and projected plant construction and its impact on the terrestrial and aquatic environment of the site and its environs; (2) current status of required baseline preoperational nonrad environmental surveillance programs and studies; (3) the
, status of draft environmental technical specifications and the development of detailed written procedures required to assure their implementation.
3.
Construc' tion Phase Environmental Program At time of inspection, construction of the facility was considered to be 86% complete. Inspection revealed that all major construction activity which could generate an adverse impact on either the terrestrial or aquatic environments of the site and its environs was completed. A licensee representative stated that excavation and removal of the earth plugs from the plant cooling water intake and discharge canals was initiated on February 2, 1974, and completed on April 9, 1974. During this operation, a protective apron was used to confine excessive turbidity and siltation to the construction area. A water quality monitoring program was also conducted to assess the impact on the canals beyond the limited construction areas involved.
Inspection of resultant analytical data and records confirmed that the above construction activity generated no apparent adverse effects on the canals. The only major construction activity v
'
_
_
_. _ _ _
_
.
.
-_
_
-
%
s
.
f%
^
)
'RO Report No. 50-302/74-9 III-2 v
.
.
external to the reactor building is erection of reinforced concrete -
armor at the reactor building protective embankment (hurricane berm).
Based on location and the level of effort of construction, no en-vironmental effects were evident which required either corrective
-
action or special monitoring programs.
'
4.
Preoperational Environmental Baseline Programs A review and audit of the current status of required preoperational
-
nonrad environmental baseline surveillance programs and special studies was conducted. This inspection revealed that all such
-
'
programs as detailed in the Environmental Progress Reports, are being conducted as scheduled by Florida Power Company in conjunction with the Universities of Florida and South Florida.
,
5.
Environmental Technical Specifications
.
The current status of the draft Environmental Technical Specifications was reviewed. A licensee representative stated that response to the AEC comments on the draft has-been finalized. He also stated that f-detailed written procedures required to implement the specifications (g)
as defined in Section 5.0 - Administrative Controls, of the draft
-
specifications have not yet been formulated. He added however, that such procedures are scheduled to be developed and written during the forthcoming quarter and that emphasis would be placed upon strict adherence to procedural requirements as defined in the above referenced section of the draft specifications.
.
o O
m
.-
.
.
.
-