IR 05000302/1975008
| ML19308D572 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1978 |
| From: | Robert Lewis, Troup G, Whitt K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19308D570 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-75-08, 50-302-75-8, NUDOCS 8003030748 | |
| Download: ML19308D572 (25) | |
Text
s
,.
.
. _ _.., _. _.. _
, _.
.....
/3 UNITED STATES
J]
..
.
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
REGloN ll 230 PEACHTR EE STR EET. N. W. SUITE stb ATLANTA. GEO RGI A 30303
.
r IE Inspection Report No. 50-302/75-8
-
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 Rivar, Florida
Type of License:
B&W, PWR, 2452 Hwt Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced a
Dates of Inspection: June 17-20 and 24-26, 1975 d
Dates of Previous Inspection:
June 3-6,1975 (Construction)
Principal Inspector:
K. W. Whitt, Reactor Inspector Facilities Section Facilities Test and Startup Branch I
Accompanying Inspector:
G. L. Troup, Radiation Specialist
'
Facilities Section Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch Other Accompanying Personnel:
J. A. Dyer, Reactor Inspection Specialist Technical Assistance Branch-Headquarters 2^
Principal Inspector:
//CR W
/
,
K. W. Whitt, Reacgfr pftspector U
Date Facilities Secti66 acilities Test and Startup Branch Reviewed by:
/I&<d JW
/,n )
) ~ h**b
,
R. C. Lewis, Senior Reptor/ Inspector
-
Date Facilities Section 0tuTio&
Facilities Test and Startup Branch p
Td,+
l', c.
.
n
,
e'
m tt
%
\\
%,,,./
8 o os'o a o 7VP
,
I (
,.
,,
_,. _
~
.
..
-
_.~. _ _.. _ _
_. _ _ _,
.
,
.
-
q q
.
Q
,'
'
.
\\s_,)
IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-8-2-
-
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-
<
,
I.
. Enforcement Matters
,
A.
Violations
.
,
No violations were identified during the inspection.
l L.
Infractions
,
.
No infractions were identified during the inspection.
,
-
C.
Deficiencies
,
.
Documents were not posted or made available to workers as required'by 10 CFR 19, paragraph 19.11.
(Details III, i
paragraph 2)
.
!
II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters L
There were no previously identified enforcement matters requiring
resolution.
III.
New Unresolved Items I
'75-8/1 Preoperational Test Results
'
Comments resulting from the review of the results of two tests have not been resolved.
(Details I, paragraph 2)
,
75-8/2 Preoperational Test Procedure Review-Comments resulting from the review of three preoperational
-
test procedures have not been resolved.
(Details II, paragraph 2)
l 75-8/3 Operability of Category I Hydraulic Shock and Sway Suppressors (IEB 75-05)
Information requested by IEB 75-05 has been provided by the i
licensee.
The action planned by the licensee will be performed over an extended period of time.
The actions taken and the evaluations made by the licensee will-be reviewed by the inspector.
(Details II, paragraph 3)
'
75-8/4 Contamination Control in the Hot Machine Shop I
I-The-ventilation system in the hot machine shop appears to f
,/
be inadequate for good contamination control practices.
s (Details III, paragraph 3)
l
p
-
-
a
+,,
- -..
,., - - -,,., - - - - - - - - -,., - - - -,., - - - -
, - - -,,
-
,-.w
.
,
.
,
-
-
.--____a
_ _ _
D
'
'
y-e i
(s_,/
IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-8-3-
.
75-8/5 Floor Surfaces in the Radiochemistry Laboratory and Countine Room The floor surfaces appear to be inconsistent for good contamination control.
.(Details III, paragraph 4)
-
.
75-8/6 Instrumentation Inside of Shielded Cubicles The location of instruments inside of shielded cubicles appears
,
'
to be inconsistent with the program for minimizing personnel exposures.
(Details III, paragraph 5)
-
75-8/7 Installation of Primary Sample Coolers
.
,
The present installation of the primary sample coolers ' appears to be inconsistent'with the program for minimizing personnel exposures.
(Details III, paragraph 6)
~
75-8/8 Boundary for the Radiation Control Area A physical boundary defining the Radiation Control Area outside of the health physics office is required.
(Details III, paragraph 7)
k IV.
Status of Previously Identified Unresolved Items 75-1/3 Te'st Results Review
~
Comments resulting from the review of preoperational test results have been resolved. This item is closed.
(Details I, paragraph 3)
75-2/1 Audits of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Contractors The audits of the contractors have not been completed.
This item remains open.
(Details III, paragraph 8)
,
75-2/2 Initial Calibration of Meteorology Facility The procedures and results of the initial calibration have been reviewed and accepted by Florida Power Corporation.
This item is closed.
75-2/3 Periodic Calibration of Meteorology Facility Procedures for the periodic calibration of the meteorology facility have not been prepared and issued. This item t
remains open.
(Details III, paragraph 9)
l
.
--
.
.
, - -
.
-
,
,-
"'
.
.
-
. - -., - ~... -. -
_-
.
j ~\\
.,
.
~)
)
_
g IE Rpt. No. SC-302/75-8-4-
.
75-4/1 Design Change Control Corrective action has not been completed for discrepancies identified in the program for handling design changes during the test phase.
This item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 4),
73-4/2 Improper Machining of Pistons in Colt Industries (Fairbanks-Morse)~
.
Diesel Generators (ROB 74-16)
- -
An inspection and evaluation of a potential problem'in
-
the machining of the diesel generator pistons has been res.cheduled.
This item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 5)
75-4/3 Incorrect Lower Disc Spring and Clearance Dimension Series 8300'
and 8302 ASCO Soleroid Valves (IEB 75-03)
The licensee has determined that the subject valve types are
,
not used in safety related systems at Crystal River 3.
This item is closed.
(Details I, paragraph 6)
75-4/4 P
- m tional Test Procedure Review
. aments resulting from the review of preoperational test procedures have not been resolved.
This item remains open.
v (Details I, paragraph 7)
75-6/1 Record Management An identified discrepancy concerning administrative controls
governing the access to and accountability for preoperational test QA records has been corrected.
This item is closed.
l.
,
(Details I, paragraph 8)
V.
Unusual Occurrences
.
None VI.
Other Significant Findings l
A.
Project Status Construction was reported to be 95% complete and approximately
30% of-the overall test program has been completed.
The results of several tests have gone through the test working group review and have been approved by that body.
The present testing schedule has been prepared to support a.May, 1976 fuel load date. Testing i
was reported to be progressing on or near schedule.
U
1
.
'
.,
., -
.
,,,
.
__
-.. -,. ~ _... -
.
..
- _,.
-
-.. - _.
.
,
..;
,
,
- s,
.
a
>
au4
' aw s. L i.
_ _, _
.,
-e
.
.
<
'
...
,
'at
,'
J '\\
l Ib.
IERpt.No.'50-302/*/d8~
-5.
-
!
'
.
.
,
d
B.
Organizational Changes e
,
I FPC.has established a project manager organization for CR-3.; o l
'
t Mr. 'J. ' Alberdi has been appointed project manager'and has assumed responsibility for' all activities at the CR-3 plant.. In this capacity,
,
.
j Mr. Alberdi reports to the Senior Vice President, Systems Engineering.
i
and Operations.. All ramifications of the organizational ~ changes
had not been finalized at the. conclusion of th'a inspection. A
~
j
'more complete report will be provided in the report documenting
,
4'
. the results.of the next inspection.
,'
j~
VII.
Management Interviews
...
s
.
-'
.
j A management interview was held on June 20, 1975~. The findings of
~
the. inspection conducted June 17-20, 1975, were discussed. The'
-
,
,
i following licensee personnel attended.
.;
<
i J. Alberdi - Project Manager
.
.
,
'
l G. P. Beatty - Plant Superintendent j
R. C.-Bonner - Electrical Construction Supervisor
,
l J..C. Clapp - Manager, Site Quality Surveillance
,
!'
J. C. Hobbs, Jr. - Manager, Generation Testing j'
D. W. Pedrick - Compliance Engineer
.
R. W.-Slater - Quality Engineer
,
j; K. O. Vogel - Manager, Test Procedures
!
G. J. Walker - Manager, Field Testing
~
!.
A second management interview was. held on June 27, 1975, to discuss l'
the findings of the ' inspection conducted June 24-26, 1975. The
~~
j following licensee personnel attended:
'
i
)
G. P. Beatty, Jr. - Plant Superintendent i
R. C. Bonner - Electrical Construction. Supervisor i
J. C. Clapp - Manager, Site Quality Surveillance
,
'
i E. E. Froats - Manager - Site Quality Assurance r
=J. C. Hicks - Quality Engineer
'J. C. Hobbs, Jr. - Manager, Generation Testing
'
D. W. Pedrick,.IV - Compliance Engineer
,
G. D. Perkins - Health Physics Supervisor y
p
R. W. Slater - Quality Engineer i
a
_
- (
I'
'
'
.
'
,
b
!
F
'
b
a
-
~
.
.
,
,,,..- 2
'
,.. c.. :. _ ; ; ~.
.._.;,._,. _,
,,, _, -,.
_..c.,_,a__.-_--._.-.__,..-.-
, _,
,
~,,
-
-
.
he
,-
.
.
.
,-
-
(
)
L,/
.
.
IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-8 I-1
.
DETAILS 1 Prepared By:
A M 2/
- /M-pd
] ~,
K. W. Whitt, Reac6er / Inspector Date Facilities Section Facilities Test and Startup Branch r
Dates of Inspection:
June 17-20,1975
.
Reviewed By:
M(M
.c p-4 d
7'
'
.
r Date R. C. Lewis, Seniog/jRegitor Inspec
.
Facilities Section Facilities Test and Startup Branch 1.
Individuals contacted Florida Power Corporation (FPC)
J. Alberdi - Project Manager C3 ( ')
J. C. Clapp - Manager, Site Ouality Surveillance E. E. Froats - Manager, Site Quality Asaurance J. C. Hobbs, Jr. - Manager, Generation Testing J. Kelly - Mechanical Testing Superintendent R. W. Slater - Quality Engineer K. O. Vogel - Manager, Test Procedures G. J. Walker - Manager, Field Testing 2.
Preoperational Test Results Review The inspector reviewed the results of two preoperational tests. The tests were:
TP 7 1 172 3, Control Complex Control Air Systen Electrical and Instru-mentation preoperational Calibration Test.
TP 7 1 172 5, Chilled Water System Hydrostatic Test.
The following general comments resulted from the review:
Minor Changes to test procedures are sequentially numbered, but several a.
changes may be processed on one change sheet without specifying the date that each ch..nge was initiated. This was discussed with a licensee representative who agreed to evaluate the desirability of dating each change.
Just prior to the management interview, the licensee represen-
,_[s; tative stated that all changes made to test procedures were initialed ( _,/
.
.-
.
- __
_
__
.
m_.
__ _. _.... - _... -. _ _ _ _ _
~.
__ _ _
t'~,
.g a.
~,
,
?
'
- ._
,;
,
_-
. _.. m. %. _ _
,
,
l, * p. '.~ * ~
g*i
.,.
,
(
'
i IE Rpt.'No. 50-302/75-8 I-2
.
.
'
i,:
'
f and dated in the textiof.the procedures. The inspector wi11'further.
,
[
evaluate this response during the next inspection.
[
-
]
b'.
Section 13.2.7'l.2 of the FSAR states that Class I and II minor
.
,,
j revisions require test working group (TUG) and Manager, Generation
- -
f
, '
. Testing, approvals. This section also states that minor changes
I may be implemented upon approval of the responsibl e testing superin-
[
tendent with formal revision sheet (GK-41) conpleting the review '
l l
cycle as soon as practical. This indicates that minor changes to ; test
'
L l
procedures may be implemented with the approval of the responsible-testing superintendent, but the changes must he subsequently reviewed.
l
-!
and approved by the TWG and the ManaFer, Generation Testing, as soo. as i
i practical following initiation of the changes. Several changes.had i
been nade to the procedures reviewed. The average time between
j ~
initiation and approval of the changes by.the TWG was approximately *
i three months. Approval by the Manager, Generation Testing,. has taken
,
!
even longer. The inspector stated that he did not think the "As soon l
as practical" criteria for approval of changes was being satisfied as
,
~
specified by the FSAR., A licensee representative stated that J.
.
a method would be developed to assure that test procedure changes were
l:
reviewed in a timely manner.
i l
c.
Section 13.2.7.1'.1 of the FSAR provides a definition of major changes.
.
I.
and Section 13.2.7.1.1 defines minor changes.
The method for reviewing and approving each type of change is also described. The'
,
'
definition of minor changes is such that a wide variety of changes
~
are permitted without' management approval prior to implementation of
!
!
the chang. 4.
The inspector stated that, based on his review of i
the results of the two above listed tests, he felt that some of the
,
-
j procedur,. changes which had been treated as minor changes should, i
!:
more properly,- have been handled as major changes. The primary
!
purpose of the management review of minor changes subsequent to l
implementation is to detect.a trend toward improper use of the minor l
change process. Since the change 9 we c not reviewed until the tests
!
j
'
were completed, such a trend was not identified.
A licensee
!
!
representative stated that the method of implementing changes would i
l be evaluated.
f This subject was discussed further during the management interview, at.
'
..
.
which time. a : licensee management representative stated that FPC would-
,
take steps to assure that the minor' change concept-as described. in the
,
'
FSAR was notL abused.
i t
These comments have been designated unresolved. item 75-8/1.
i f.
.
}
d
.
.
4.
+
_
>
,
,
t
-. -.
.A m--
.., -, -, -.. - - -,,.,, -,
..&,v.
. r
.,,,,-.,e
,,- - -
,.m-
.,,,....,
,,m_.,%
,.,.a-w
,,<-4w.m.
v,
-wwp,,,,9.-
'
s
.
_
.~
. - -.....
.... _ _ _
.. _,,
,. _,
.
/T
')
'
-
,
-
\\s_-
,
IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-8 I-3
.
.
3.
Test Results Review This unresolved iten (75-1/3) was identified in IF Report No. 50-302/75-1,
-
Details I, paragraph 8, and Details II, paragraph 4.
The comments which resulted from the review of the results of two tests have been resolved
,.
as follows:
-
a.
Details I, Paranraph 8
.
Comment 1: System flow diagrans that have been marked up to indicate
the specific sections of piping and the conponent that were. hydro.
statically tested are being maintained.
The marked up drawings become a part of the test data package. -The' inspector has no further questions regarding this item.
.
Comment 2:
All' major and minor procedure changes are now numbered sequentially. The inspector has no further questions regarding this item.
'N Comeent 3: A space for recording significant events has been provided
)
on the test log, and times are being recorded. A licensee represen-
_,
tative stated that verbal and written instructions had been provided test personnel concerning eaintenance of the test logs.
The inspec-tor reviewed two memorandums from the manager, field testing to the test superintendents instructing them in the content and detail to be maintained in the logs. The inspector has no further question regarding this item.
b.
Details II, Paragraph 4 Comment a: A corputer program has been developed which provides_ a printout of all outstanding ECN's.
The systems and, in most cases,
,
the procedures that are affected by each ECM is listed.
The affects of ECN's on the performance of tests are evaluated before the test procedures are approved for use.
If ECN's are issued after the test procedures are approved, the affects of the ECN's on the tests are evaluated and procedure changes are initiated as appropriate.
The inspector has no further questions regarding this item.
Comment b: See Comment 2 under 3.a above.
l l
i ('~'T
~
U
!
..
.
.
-
%--
-
._
,_
_,
L
'
.
, ~
-
p.y (
\\
s
V IE Ept. No. 50-302/75-8 I-4
.
.
A system has been initiated which requires justification Comment c:
for any test exception. The justification must specify the test procedure and procedure step (s) that will be used to perform the
'
portion of the test that is deferred. The f.nspector has no further questions regarding this item at th,is time.
,
,
This unresolved item is closed.
,
4.
Design Change Control _
'
This unresolved item (75-4/1) was identified in IE Report No. 50-302/75-4^,
Details I, paragraph 3.
The quality assurance nanual (OAM) and the engineering department implementing instruction are presently being revised to correct the first two discrepancies identified in this unresolved item. An evaluation is being made to determine the proper This item will action necessary to correct the third discrepancy.
remain open until the corrective action has been evaluated.
5.
Improper Machining of Pistons in Colt Industries (Fairbanks-Morse) Diesel
'
Generators (f0B 74-16)
This unresolved item (75-4/2) was identified in IE Report No. 50-302/75-4, Details I, paragraph 7.
The inspection of the diesel generators by a Colt Industries representative which was scheduled for early July,1975 has be rescheduled for the early part of September,1975. The purpose of the inspection is to determine whether the pistons in the emergency diesel generators were improperly machined.
This item will remain open until the inspection has been made and any required corrective
-
action has been completed.
6.
Incorrect Lower Disc Spring and Clearance Dimension in Series 8300 and 8302 ASCO Solenoid Valves (IEB 75-03)
This unresolved item (75-4/3) was identified in IE Report No. 50-302/75-4, Details I, paragraph 8.
The licensee has determined that ASCO valves of the types described in IEB 75-03 are not used in safety related systems at Crystal River Unit 3.
This was verified by a letter from FPC to IE Region II, dated April 21, 1975.
This item is closed.
7.
Preoperational Test Procedure Review
- This unresolved item (75-4/4) was identified in IE Report No.
50-302/75-4, Details II, paragraph 2.
Fifteen preoperational test
/'~'\\
procedures were reviewed. One general comment and three specific
\\s_,).
comments resulted.
Action to resolve these comments is being taken.
However, the required action had not been completed at the conclusion of the inspection. This item remains open.
.
e
- + " + '
w
_ _ _.
.
.
s.~.
., _..,, _..
. _,... _.
..
.
.
.
,)
-
..
.
( h)
t N./ '
s IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-8 I-5
'
,
8.
Test Pro,rram OA Records
.
This unresolved item (75-6/1) was identified in IE Report No.
50-302/75-6, Details, paragraph 3.
It was determined that there were no administrative controls governinF the access to and account-
'
,
ability for QA records in the site quality document file.
The onsite
,
quality assurance group has responsibility for maintaining the pre-
-
operational QA records. QA procedure No. 24, Accr ss to Quality Document File, has been prepared and approved.
This porcecure provides controls
-
.
for personnel access to the document files and for maintaining account-i
'
ability of the records. This item is closed.
-
,
9.
Preoperational Test Procedure Review-Outstanding Comments
.
.
.
Prior to this inspection, comments resulting from the review
'
of preoperational tett procedures and documented in the following
'
reports were outstanding.
.
RO Report No. 50-302/74-6, Details, paragraph 6.
RO Report No. 50-302/74-9, Details I, paragraph 5.
RO Report No. 50-302/74-13, Details, paragraph 3.
.,
All the comments on preoperational test procedures documented in the above listed reports have now been resolved and are considered closed.
,
i
.
.
O
.
' b I
~
v
, _...,
.
<y
- -
w
.
II-1
'
.
J IE Rpt No. 50-302/75-8
,
m
.
U.
-
'-#<* /~ '
,
~
I Details II Prepared By
'
.-
-
,.J. A. Dyer, Reactor Inspection Date-Specialist
'
Technical Assistance Branch
.
IE HQ
,
Dates of Inspection June 17-20, 1975
.
,
,
b
'
"'
l Reviewed By
'
-
-
,
K. V. Seyfrit, Chief, Technical Date
Assistance Branch i
IE HQ
!
1.
Individuals Contacted
,
Florida Power Corporation (FPC)
i J. C. Hobbs, Jr.
Manager, Generation Testing J. Kelly Mechanical Test Supervisor
'
R. W. Slater Quality Engineer K. O. Vogel Manager,. Testing Procedures
,
G. J. Walker Manager, Field Testing
'
2.
Preoperational Test Procedure Review Three preoperational test procedures were reviewed and comments as outlined below were provided to a licensee respresentative.
The procedures reviewed were:
TP7-1-202-C3-0 Makeup and Purification System Functional Test i
TP7-1-203-03-0 Decay Heat Removal System Functional Test TP7-1-203-03-0 Makeup and Purification System Operational Test
.,
I a.-
General Comments
,
i-(1) -There are no provisions to prevent pump runout either by use of valve throttling or flow restricting orifices that would provide protection againse safeguard pump rips due l
J to overload. A licensee representative stated '.nat FPC I
has contacted the A&E (Gilbert Associates) for resolution on pump runout.
,
j. '
6
. -. - -
,
.
'
-
II-2
.
.
(2) An instrumentation calibration and surveillance program has not been initiated for the preoperational testing program. A licensee representative acknowledged the
'
inspectors comment that meaningful test data might not be obtained if an instrumentation calibration frequency has not been established.
,
,
b.
Specific Comments
.
(1) TP7-1-202-03-0 Makeup and Purification System Functional Test (a) During a LOCA the suction for the makeup pumps may under some circumstances be supplied from the reactor building sump via the decay heat removal heat exchanger outlet at temperature of 140*F.
The procedures do not include testing the makeup pumps with 140*F wat'er
-
from the decay heat removal system and recording t.hermal expansion data. A licensee representative stated that thermal expansion of these lines would be measured as part of the hot functional testing p
(
program.
(b) The required valve operating times for MUV 58 and MUV 73 (makeup pump suction valves from the borated water storage tank) are not measured with maximum
tank head pressure against them. A licensee representative stated that this step would be included in test procedure 310-4 " Berated Water Storage Tank Drawdown."
(2) TP7-1-203-03-0 Decay Heat Removal System Functional Test (a) The required valve operating times for DHV34 and DHV35 (Decay heat pump suction valves from the borated water storage tank) are not measured with maximum tank head pressure against them. Also, required valve operating times for DHV-5, DHV-6, DHV-14 and DHV-25 are not measured with maximum decay heat removal-pump discharge pressure. A licensee represertative stated that these steps
>
would be included in test procedure 310-4 " Borated Water Storage Tank Drawdown."
-
~
v
,
.
.
,3
-
.
.
~
\\~ >
II-3
,
i (b) The acceptance criteria for the steps listed below*
are for the decay heat removal pumps in their various operating modes.
The acceptance criteria include
-
statements that the pumps will operate within their design intent.
Such statements are too general. A licensee representative stated that specific design
-
,
criteria for the various modes of operation would be added to the procedure;
,
10.2.4.4
.
10.2.4.5
,
10.2.5.1
'
10.2.5.2 10.2.5.3 10.2.5.4 10.2.6.1 10.2.6.2 10.2.7.2 (2) TP-7-1-600-04-0 Makeup and Purification System Operational Test
~sg (a) Test steps 9.2.2.26, 9.2.7.8 and 9.2.8.7 require returning the system to normal without referring to a specific procedure or valve lineup. A licensee representative stated that specific requirements for
-
returning the system to normal will be included in the procedure.
,
(b) Acceptance criteria 10.2.2 does not specify a minimum
allowable leak from the reactor coolant pump seals.
-
A licensee representative stated that a minimum acceptable seal leak off would be included in the procedure.
The above ccaments have been designated an unresolved item.
3.
Operobility of Catagory I Hydraulic Shock and Sway Suppressors
'
(IEB No. 75-05)
The inspector reviewed FPC's response to the bulletin. This item is unresolved pending IE evaluation of the results of testing of the suppressors during hot functional and power escalation testing.
D
,.
,, -
_
_
_
_, _. _
__
. -.
,,,
.
.
.
. - -.
-
.
,
...
_.
,
i
t
.
i
' l
,
.
.*
,%
.)
N
'
II-4
i
.
1 4.
Possible Deficiency In The Performance of Sodium Thiosulfate
-
,
Reactor Building Spray System The Babcock and Wilcox letter to the Director of-Inspection and
.
Enforcement, dated May 8, 1975, on the preliminary evaluation
~
s of a possible deficiency in the performance of the sodium
'
'
thiosulfate reactor building spray system, was discussed with-
.
'
FPC quality assurance' personnel. A licensee representative
stated that a 32tter had been mailed to Region II stating that i
l they had received the Babcock & Wilcox letter and were evaluating
its possible effect on Crystal River 3.
b i
t The inspector stated, that while it was not discussed in the
'
l Babcock and Wilcox letter, it appears that air could enter the
[
suction of the reactor building spray pumps and the low pressure injection pumps and cause damage due to cavitation, if the hydroxide and thiosulfate tanks become empty while still pumpin,;
l i
from the borated water storage tank. A licensee representative
,
l stated that this would be evaluated during the borated water storage tank drawdown test.
i This will be carried as an open item pending our review of Florida Power Corporation's evaluation.
,
!
5.
Testing of The Emergency Core Cooling System
.
Testing of the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) was discussed with licensee personnel. A licensee representative stated that
'
FPC's plans for testing the ECCS did not include all of the testing
,.
suggested in Regulatory Guide 1.79, Preoperational Testing of Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Pressurized Water Reactors.
Specifically, lui stated that FPC did not plan to inject water
into the primary system via the high pressure injection systen
<
at bot operating conditions or to take suction from the reactor building sump while testing the low pressure injection system (LPIS). Furthermore, verification of vortex control and acceptable pressure drop across sump screens and LPIS suction lines and valves l
by testing is not planned according to the licensee representative.
He explained that FPC had not committed to test the ECCS in i
accordance with the provisions of Regulatory Guide 1.79, and that i
i J
s
[?
,
!
..,. _,
- -,. _
-. _ _ _
. _,
.
. _. _ _,
_. _, _.. _ - - _
...
, -.
,y
.,
,
.
s V
-
II-5
,
management felt that the testing planned for these systems was
'
meaningful and sufficient to prove that they have been constructed as designed and will function properly.
The licensee representative stated that while the testing did not include pumping from the reactor building sump via the LPIS,
,
the suction line betweer the pumps and the sump had been flushed which indicated that they were open. The inspectors stated that their review af the flushing procedure indicated that sufficient
,
<
volume and velocity had not been specified to insure that the lines were clean and free of obstructions. A liceneae representative stated that a procedure would be developed to verify that the lines were clean and free of obstructions.
In the course of a telephone conversation with a licensee representative subsequent to the inspection, the inspector learned that a meeting between FPC and the Division of Reactor Licensing was scheduled for July 1, 1975 to discuss testing of the ECC3. Testing of the ECCS O
will be carried as an open item until FPC has finalized the testing
'
program in this area.
.
.
~
s.-]
.
i
!
l
,
.--
.
.-
..
.
. -
-_ - _ _,
.
,
. -
s
.
g i
.
(
/
x-
.
IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-8 III-l t"/
/hNf i. ! {' ' l/ ' t 'l I
.,/9 !5 0
/
DETAILS III Prepared by:
'l 7~
'
'
-
!
G. L. Troup, Radiation Specialist Date
.,
Reactor Facility Section
-
,
i Radiological and Environmental Protection v
Branch
,
Dates of Inspection; Jun[e 24-26, 1975
- 7 Reviewed by:
,
. <
-
A. F. Gibson, Senior Fealth Physicist Date Reactor Facility Section Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted G. P. Beatty, Jr. - Nuclear Plant Superintendent
,_[s; P. F. McKee - Assistant Nuclear Plant Superintendent V
D. W. Pedrick, IV - Compliance Engineer G. D. Perkins - Health Physics Supervisor R. W. Slater - Quality Engineer E. E. Froats - Manager, Site Surveillance
..
R. C. Bonner - Electrical Construction Supervisor J. C. Hobbs, Jr. - Manager, Generation Test 2.
Posting of Notices to Workers a.
In part, 10 CFR 19, paragraph 19.11, requires that current copies of specified documents be posted by the licensee or that a notice be
.
posted describing the documents and where they may be examined.
At the present time the licensee possesses by-product material on-site under by-product material license 09-07683-02. However, the required documents or notices were not posted.
The inspector informed licensee management that if material was in their possession under the terms of the license, then the documents or notices must be posted.
b.
During the inspection the licensee posted the required notices. After discussing the regulations with licensee representatives, the inspec-tor advised licensee management that no written response to this item of noncompliance would be required and that, based on the correeve action taken this item was considered closed.
f~\\
t
/
v
'
-,,
,
-
.
-
,-~U
.
IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-8 III-2
.
3.
Contamination Control in the Hot Machine Shop _
.
Within the shop facilities a hot machine shop is provided for work a.
on contaminated pieces of equipment. During a tour of the machine r
shop the inspector noted that the ventilation system was not provided with portable extensions or outlets for connection temporary exhaust lines to minimize the spread of contamination or reduce the
.
probability of high airborne activity during machining operations.
,
.
b.
Two doors are provided into the hot machine shop from uncontrolled
areas, one from the outside. and the other from the cold machine shop.
The inspector pointed out two problems with these doors which needed to be addressed:
(1) Administrative controls relating to the security of the doors, including the opening of the doors.
(2) Verification of the air flow during ventilatioe testing to assure that any flow is into hot machine shop.
C$
d The inspector also pointed out that several other areas, such as the c.
handling and disposal of centaminated cutting oil and decontamination of equipment prior to machining should be reviewed and addressed administratively. Licensee management stated that the ventilation system and security of the doors would be reviewed for possible changes and that the other considerations for the operation of the hot machine shop would be reviewed.
4.
Floor Surfaces in the Radiochemistry Laboratory and Counting Room During a tour of the plant the inspector noted that the floor surf aces in the radiochemistry laboratory and the counting room were painted concrete and that gaps of approximately one-quarter inch existed between the bottom of installed cabinets and work benches and the floor.
In the event of a spill of a radioactive sample, cleanup and decontamination would be difficult due to the roughness of the floor surface and the space under the cabinets could result in the entrapment of radioactive water and produce airborne radioactivity when it dried. While the floor surfaces in the plant are similiar to those in the laboratory and counting room, these areas are of more concern due to type of work done in the rooms, i.e., precision analytical work.
Licensee management stated that this matter would be reviewed to determine what changes must be made for good. contamination control in these areas.
,_s
.
'.-
3
,
-
O IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-8 III-3
.
5.
Instrumentation Inside of Shielded Cubicles
.
The inspector noted that instruments such as gages and indicating transmitters were installed inside of shielded cubicles next to
'
potential high radiation sources. Maintenance and calibration of these instruments could result in high personnel exposures, which would be inconsistent with the plant policy of maintaining exposures
~
as low as practicable.
Examples of areas in which these instruments
{
were found are:
Waste evaporator and reactor coolant evaporator rooms.
a.
b.
Waste gas compressor room and valve gallery c.
Reactor coolant bleed tank room.
.
Licensee management stated that the inctallation of instruments in the shielded cubicles would be reviewed for possible relocation of the
,
instruments. However, it was noted that some instruments were part of equipment packages and relocation might not be practical,
<
l'.m )
s
\\s_s/
6.
Installation of Primary Sample Coolers Three unshielded sample coolers are located in the primary sample room and are to be used to cool primary coolant liquid and gaseous samples and steam generator secondary side samples. As the primary coolant samples may contain high radioactivity concentrations resulting in significant exposures to personnel collecting samples, this cooler installation may be inconsistent with the plant policy of maintaining exposures as low as practicable. Licensee management stated that this
.
condition would be reviewed for the possible installation of shielding for the coolers.
7.
Boundary for the Radiation Control Area FSAR Figure 1-12 shows the exit point from the radiation control a.
area (RCA) in the control complex at elevation 95'0" outside of the health physics office. The Radiation Protection Manual states that the health physics office is considered to be outside of the RCA and the exit point inside of the RCA.
b.
A licensee representative stated that the RCA boundary in the passageway in front of the health physics office would be a marking on the floor outlining the boundary and possibly a rope or chain. The inspector 7N emphasized that a rope or tape marking on the floor does not provide,a t
x,_/.
.
-
- - -
~
-,
-
-
- -, -,.
.
-
j.-,,_.-
3;
.
>Am
'
IE Ept. No. 50-302/75-8 III-4
-
.
positive physical barrier and that it can be easily, albeit uninten-tionally, violated.
Licensee management acknowledged this comment and
,
' stated that the installation of a positive physical barrier would be
,
studied.
.
-
r 8.
fudits of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Contractors n.
This item was originally discussed in IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-2, Details I, paragraph 2 and dealt with audits of the two environmental monitoring
.
contractors.
Licensee representatives informed the inspector that
an inspection of one contractor was conducted on April 28, 1975, but that an irspection of the second contractor had not yet been performed but that an inspection would be conducted.
'
b.
As discussed in IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-2, Details I, paragraph 2, licensee management had stated that the operational environmental monitoring program would be under the operational quality assurance program.
In a letter dated March 3,.1975 from Florida Power Corporation to the Director, Division of Reactor Licensing, USNRC, it was stated
.3 that the preoperational environmental monitoring program was being s_ /
discontinued during 1975 and outlined an interim program to be implemented. The inspector asked what provisions were being made for
,
quality assurance for the operational program.. Licensee management stated that the quality assurance was being developed with che develop-
~
ment of the environmental monitoring program and that both programs would be ready ninety days prior to receipt of the operating license.
Management further stated that the interin program outlined in the letter was under the same guidelines the preoperational program.
9.
Periodic Calibration of the Meteorology Facility
This item was originally discussed in IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-2,- Details I, paragraph 4 and dealt with the establishment of a quarterly calibration
,
'
program for the meteorology facility in accordance with FSAR Section 2.3.3.
Licensee representatives informed the inspector that the facility was
'
calibrated in November,1974 (initial calibration), February 1975, and June 1975 by contractors but, as yet, a calibration program for use by FPC personnel had not been developed and issued.
10.
Facility Design During a tour of the facility and a review of the layout in the~ FSAR
,
the inspector noted two items which appeared to be poor practices.
/O V
-
- -
-.
..._
.
.
_-
.
.. _ _ -
_
.
.,,.
g IE Rpt. No'. > 50-302/75-8 III-5
,
,
FS AR' Figure 1-12'shows a safe for the storage sof radioactive sources a.
to be located in the health physics office.
As this office is outside of the radiation controlled area, it would be a poor practice to store radioactive material in it.
Licensee management acknowledged,
this comment and stated that when the safe is received, it will be located inside of the radiation controll2d area.
,
.
b.
In areas containing equipment which handles radioactive fluids, such as the make-up pumps or waste evaporator package, floor drains are
-
provided at the entrances.
In the event of a major spill or leakage with plugged floor drains, the water would flow out into corridors
,
.
a or adjacent cubicles spreading contamination.
Licensee management
'
stated that the layout would be reviewed for the possible install-ation of curbs in the cubicles or bays where there is equipment which could lead to the spread of contamination by leakage or-spillage.
.
,
11.
Procedure Review The procedures listed below were reviewed; minor comments were accepted x
by licensee representatives for consideration.
Several of the procedures reviewed are currently being revised.
AI-7000 - Conduct of Chemistry and Radiation Protection RP-101 - Radiation Protection Manual
'~
RP-102 - Respiratory Equipment Manual RP-24 - Receipt of Radioactive Materials RP-205 - Leak Testing of Sealed Sources
,
j RP-206 -- Radiation Protection Instrumentation Calibration Procedures RP-207 - Non-Routine Reporting Requirements for Internal at External Overexposures
.
RP-28 - Bioassay Sampling Procedure RP-211 - Assessment of Containment Atmosphere RP-212 - Radioactive Source Documentation and Control
.
v
..
-
_
.
-
_
..
_ _ _ _ _ _
[E fdES
'
-
.,
,
,.-
q g
.
..
-
,
l 2x mye== 50-302/75-a
.
_
-
-
~, -
f -
JUN 3 0 '1975 l
natsis 2r c ;---4 my
/.S/
-
l
.
. J A. Byee, n =ne.c T--
- _-
-
Date
'
~
,
'
~gye=4=14=e
,.,,
,
!
T==>=4==1 Assistance Bramek
-
-
HM
'
.
,
Dates of Y------
.Jamm 17-20, 1975
"
'
tendens sis.es *r JUN 3 0 1975
-
movinsed my x. s.,en K. V. seyfrit,. Chief. Taeh=1e=1 Data
-
Am=4=e==er, Branch II M
.
i 1,
1.
Individes1m - *=ee=d e
!
.
.
i
,.
- h (PPC) ~
.
+-..L'b:wmsw.w~. m.
m m...i...
...
.
.,
..I....f.G,PJ.
,..
...
-J. Xally
-
Ma=h==4a=1 Test Supervisse
~
.' - "
.
3. FEM,'.~Jr. << % n==-me4am. Testing
. ;'q.g,
'
-
-
'
.
-
E..W. 21=eme A-14ty T=g4===r E. O. Vogel Manager, Testdag Precedures G. J. unih.c yemager. Field Tasting
,
i 2.
Preoperational Test Procedure Review Three ys_ ;_ e4--1 test ys-- =Lres 1 sere reviewed and ea====e=
as outlined below were provided to a licemene respresentative.
The ys h es revisand. wore:
TP7-1-202-03-0 Makeup and Purifiemeian Systen Ponceir==1 Test; TP7-1-203-03-0. Decay Beat Removal System Functional Test TP7-1,203-43-0 Mah==p and Purification System Opermeia==1 Test
,
a.
General F - tm (1) There are no r. - _ =4 __- to prevent pump rumene either by
^
men of velve throttling or flow restricting orifices that
-
.
would provide protection against safeguard pump trips due te overleed.
A.14e===== repr===ne=tive stated that PPC has contacted the ME (Gilbert Associates) for resolution
'
on pump runcat.
.
i e
34Y
0
'
u o
J1 p %j
_
-
-
-
y 3 9-kdJ];idda
-
.
-
...
.-
-
-. _
,
-
!
i.
.
-
t
,
t JUN 30 l
-
.
_2-
,
-
.
.
- (2).As Sastrumentatism calibratish and serveillemme program c.hom. net been i=*ei=*=d for the. pe==y== =e4===1 *==e4==
,
- m.A.limennee..,,. a _a w i tha
.
-m-
- *==p=*==.a=====e that====4=g*=1 test date M met (
ahamisme if.an fastrumeneme4== e=ith-e 4== % w
,
.
'
m been==e=h14=had.
,
.
A'
specific m e=
e
'
(1) Tp7-1-202-05-0 u=h=== and Purif* = 9 - sveten F =ce4===
. -...
'
(a) -During.a IACA the M= ler ths.msbesp pumps any under emme W be supp11md from the react s-4144=T. sump via the doesy heat, removal heat.enche
==e1=e at tampar=*= m.af 140*F. The precedures de
i==1=de teettas the mahoup puespe with 140*F unter from the desey host removal system and recording
,
thermal - p===4-data. A.148'a==== repe====*=**=4
'
.;.p;.wy..g. -
.
g.
..,. 6...
l;,,,,,md that th=='==1 espammism ef these 11ame woubt
~
be measured as part of the het f==ee4===1 testing progre.
(b) The required valve operating timme for Igl7 58 and MUV 73 (makamp pump suction valves from the borated water storage tank) are use==== red with==wi-tank head pressure agatast ek = - A 14 - -
representative me=ead that this step would be i=e1=
in test precadare 310-4 "Borsted Water Storage Tank Dr==da== "
.
.
(2) TP7-1-203-03-0 Decay Heat Removal System Functimaal Test
,
!
(a) The repaired volve operating times for DE734 and
.
DW35 (Deesy host pump emetiam valves from the berated water storage tamk) are met moneured with
==wi - task head pressure against them. Also,
.
j required valve gr : =- times for DEF-5, DBY-6, i
DEV-14 and DB7-25 are met maneured with==vi -
decay host remeral pump dimeh=ege pressure. A 14e==== repr====eme4ve stated 4: bat these steps would be ine1= dad in test procedure 310-4 " Borated Water Storage Tank Draudoum."
.
.-
..
..
.
bi em
'3
J A
.
-m
__.
-
. _.
..
. _ _
-
- - -
.. - - - - - _ _ _ - _
.
.
..
- -
JUN 3
.
-3-l
-
.
-
.
.
.. (b).'iThe aeseptance criteria.far the steps listed bolst l
'
-
.,
,,,
.
. ;.g O v
.-are-for the decay heat rumsval pumps la their ind
.
.
'
operatingimedes. The asseptance criteria 1malade
.-.
' '.1.J....
-
"
.
~.s*=*====*= that-the pumps 6 sparate within thed
. -, -
.' design 4=emme-Emeh statammmes are too gammm L
'
-
y.,
u-=re
. 4==-stated that;apasific de4
..
ertearim-for.the varia== modes of oposatiam memIni
.
added to the precedures
.. _._....,.
.
-
-
,
10.2.4.4
_
_
10.2.4.5
'
10.2.5.1
}
10.2.5.2-
'
.i
.10.2.5.3 d
. 10.2.5.4 10.2.6.1
'
.
10.2. 0 2
.
...... -.
.
. ;1
- -. 4 Q.C'; f G l.Yr$ C %.0;2.7.2 -
' '
'
. - - -
.
'
..
.
-p, uf%?lff.W:fQ);&?."i..Qy "-f;L,;
..
.
.
.
(2) 2P-7-1-400-04-0 Maheup and Tarifiame4==' System L G (a) Test steps 9.2.2.2'; 9.2.7.8 and 9.2.8.7 require
i returnias the system to normal without referring K
'
specific procedure er valve lineup. A lie== -
representative stated that specific requirements f(
returning the system to normal will be i=*1=d=d in the procedure.
.
-
(b) Acceptance criteria 10.2.2 does not~specify a minim alloamble leak from the reacter coolant pammp sealed
-
A H==m representative seme=d that a ninfamm
.....
acceptable meal leak off would be ine1=d=4 in the The above - r= have been damignmend an unresolc item.
3.
Operability of Catamory I avdr==14e Shock and Suny E n reasors (IER Eo. 75-05)
-
,
-
'
The inspector revissed FPC's raeponse to the M 11=*4=.
.
This iten is unresolved pending TE evalmation of the results of testing of the suppressors during het f-**-1 and power escalation testing'
.
.
me
- - *
- e..e m-
. em me.
.,%
. I 1LuL
.
-e
,
e.-- -,..,,., --.
~,
,. -
- - - -
- - -, - -
.
_ - _ _ _ _
_
_ _
i
-
-
-
.
.
JUN 3 0 1975
-4-
-
.
.
I i
l
.
..
-
.
,
4.
Possible n-**=4-Ta The Perf===== of Sodiser Ttdassifat_a
_1
.
,
.,
-
-.
,
g... e. g 4. c.
w L '.o L
'
..
.
.
'
The:Behemok:amd112 men law to:the Dimoster of Inspostian and
,
_
we--==e..dened usy s,. 2srs.
.thm y==i4-i===y -i=*4-i l
. af.ey===ih1= A=ri-4===y in the par *====e=. af the==d4===
.
-ch4===se-e
,===eme n iidi=g openy_ system, uns disemesed id.tk
-
-1 - A 11memone repenametative
-
~.Frcquality assuremes ; __ -
'
stated that a.latter had been mailed.to Eegian.II =*=*4==
that
,
they had rMwed the Enhesek 3, utla== letter and were er=1==eing its y===ih1= effect en Crystal River 3.
.
.The 4 - --- - -l= stated.. that iubile it was ast disemesed in the Esbeeck and Hilaos 1 meter, it. appears that air amm1A estar the
,
ametism af the reacter hilding spany passps and the leur preneure dad==e4== pummys and emmes dassess des to.eavih**=_; if the hyd===4d= and *h4= -1F=*=-tembs homens empty iskilm still pumping from the.h===*=d meter storage tank.AAIlammene representative
.
statestbatthim;ssemid:he:ev=1==ead during the.h===*=d unter
<
. h. n.).
..
,
'
-
-
" ' ' ' l-j steenen tank Je=-a= = test. ~ -c;.. * * '~ . _
This will be carried as an open item pending anse regiaur of Florida Poser Corporation'a er=1==e4==-
5.
T==e4== of The ' -
1 Core Coo 11az System i
,
,
Testing of the emergemey care emoling syntesa (ECCS) was di=e====d
!
with 14-per-1.
A 14e===== representative stated that
'
.
'
FPC's plans for tasting the ECCS did.not ine1=d= all of the testing suggested in Eag=1=*a y Gtide 1.79, Preoperattamal Testing of
Energemey Core Cooling Systems for Pressurized Unter Rasetors.
Specificallyq e stated that FPC did not plan to indect 1sater h
into the @ eystem via the high pressure injection system
,
'
.at hot g ame4--_ _
'i*4--
er to take section from the resetor
'
--
h=ildi=F sump htestdag the lair pressure injection system (LPIS). Furehme==reberifie=e4== of vertas centrol and acceptable
.
pressure drop across emmy screams and LPIS section lines and valves I
!
by testing is not y1====d according to the li m representative.
Ha - p1=i==d that FFC had not comunitted to test the ECCS in
-
-
,
!
accordanes with the provioimme of Regulatory theida 1.79, and that
_
,
.
.
%
l l
.
..
- - - - - -... -
_. -.
., - - -
o D
0)
-
E
aw
-
-
e
,Dl 9T
.
.S.A.
J v
.
.
,
._. ___________
______
.
-
,.
.
JUN 30 1975-5-
_
O
.
-
...
V managementfeltthatthetestingplannedfortl$esesystemswas meaningful and sufficient to prove that they.have been construct d as designed.and will. function properly.
e include pumping from the reactor building sum not auction line between the pump
, the
.
indicated that they were open.s and the sump had been flushed which The inspectors stated that their review of the flushing procedure indicated that sufficient volume
'
and velocity had not been specified to insure that the lines wer clean and free of obstructions.
e
-
that a procedure would be developed to verify that thA licensee rep clean and free of obstructions.
e lines were
b In the course of a telephone conversation with a licensee r subsequent to the inspection, the inspector learned that a meeti epresentative between FPC and the Division of Reactor. Licensing was sche 7'
ng
. July 1,'1975.to discuss testing.of.the ECCS.
or.
will be carr1ed as an open item until FPC has finalized the testi Testing of the'ECCS i
program in this area.
.
ng l
I
.-
'
.
.
B L
-
.
.
t
.
CRESS E/4> rect > R
)
Jygyg
._
-922 MC
'
_ _ _ _
I N_
~~~~ ~
jgawaut > _J $e~r:- - 1k
- KV.Sey_f_r_i_t____
~ ~ - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -
--
- - - - -
- -
onc > 6l29._LZ5
___.61. RJ_7s
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _., _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,,..
Form AEC-318 (Rev. S53) AEC'A 0240
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~
_______,
- .........,,[ ',,$,~[,$,,[,~,,~,~,[,~,
-~~~~
~
,,,,,,
~ ~ T -~ ~~ ~~~~-~~~~ ~ -~~
.
'
l
.