IR 05000302/1975010
| ML19317G385 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 09/02/1975 |
| From: | Ebneter S, Robert Lewis, Whitt K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317G384 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-75-10, NUDOCS 8003030794 | |
| Download: ML19317G385 (5) | |
Text
.
.
.,
,
-
.
UNITED STATES
'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 11 230 PEACHTREE STREET. N. W. SU'(E 810
,
4-
IE Inspection Report No. 50-302/75-10
'
Licensee:
Florida Power Corporation
,1 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:
B&W, PWR, 2452 Mwt Type'of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced O
Dates of Inspection:
August 6-8, 1975 Dates of Previous Inspection:
July 1-3,1975 Inspector-in-Charge:
S. D. Ebneter, Reactor Inspector Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch Accompanying Inspector: L. E. Foster, Reactor Inspector Facilities Section Facilities Construction Branch Other Accompanying Personnel:
None IA/
k I
Principal Inspector:
'
,
,
K. W. Whitt, Reactor Inspector Date
.
Facilities Section
'
Facilities Test and Startup Branch Reviewed By:
6.
.., e in
'
R. C. I ewis, Senior Reactor Inspector Date Facilities Section Facilities Test and Startup Branch goW%
.3C W
"g45$f m
8003o3o799-
,,,..,
.
..
.___. _ _ _ _ - _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.e
-
.
-
.
)
=
.
T
-
'
IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-10-2-i
.
,
,
Q.
J
-
,
,
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
-
I.
Enforcement Matters
'
-
.
No items of noncompliance were identified during the inspection.
'.
II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters
-
-
Not inspected.
,
,
d
,
III.
New Unresolved Items 75-10/1 Data Recording Preservice inspection test results are not being recorded on applicable data sheets as tests are performed.
(Details I, paragrapl. 5)
IV.
Status of Previously Identified Unresolved Items Not inspected.
V.
Design Changes None VI.
Unusual Occurrences
'
None VII. Other Significant Findings
"
None VIII.
Management Interview
'
The inspector met with Mr. J. Alberdi,' Project Manager, and members
-
of his staff to discuss the inspection findings.
The problem of marginally acceptable data recording was discussed and the licensee stated that corrective action would be implemented.
The independent verification of selected weld joints and the need for comprehensive audits was also discussed.
-
G e
!
)
_
_
.
.-.
..
. -
...
. - -
.
.
.
.
...
.
,
l
.
m
-
'
L_,s IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-10 I-1
.-
.
DETAILS I Prepared by: I.Ibh k,-
f 24-7f
.
l 575D. Ebneter, Reactor Jnspector Date
,
!
Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch
'
.
Dates of Inspection: August 6-8, 1975 I
j Reviewed by:
7-24-7[
.
L. L. Beratan, Senior Inspector Date
.l Engineering Section
-
-
Facilities Construction Branch
^
~ ~
l J
l e
.
l.
Persons Contacted
-
.
,
I
'
Florida Power Corporation (FPC)
~
!
a.
i j
J. Alberdi - Project Manager
.
R. W. Slater - Quality Engineer
.
,
E. E. Froats - Manager, Site Quality Assurance
~
Tpp - Manager, Site Quality Surveillance mason - Manager, Special Projects R. J. Acosta - Results Engineer J. C. Hicks - Quality Engineer (NDZ-III)
,
D. W. Bienkowski - Mechanical Engineer b.
Contractor Organizations i
.
.
'
Babcock and Wilcox Construction Company (B&W)
i
G. Terning - Site Manager, Preservice Inspection Team 2.
Scope of Inspection
.
This inspection effort was directed at inservice inspection activities and included audits of various functions to determine compliance with
'
FSAR and applicable code requirements.
3.
Preservice Inspection
a.
General i
Crystal River 3 preservice inspection requirements are delineated in Section 15.4.4 of the FSAR which specifiesSection XI, Winter 1972
,
Edition, ASME Code as the governing requirement.
FPC is in the p
process of converting the original Technical Specification to the (
standardized Technical Specification and the preservice and in-
,
service inspection requirements are contained in Section 3/4.4.10.
.
.
%
-w
- w y.
e e
~r-v
-
-
w w
-
. -..
.. -..
-.
.
- -
.
--
.
..
..
-
.-
-
- -
<
.
.-...
~.,
'
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-10 I-2 s
.
.
.
.
!
-
The Babcock and Wilsspx Construction company'(B&W) is performing the preservice inspechion (PSI) of piping, hangers, vessels, pumps
-
and valves in accordance with the PSI Manual.
The manual contains
,
,
l weld listings, examination procedures, and calibration block data.
-
The manual was review'd and approved by FPC personnel prior to l
e
-
implementation by B&W.
.
,
!
'
-
-
--
The tentative schedule for completion of B&W PSI activities is mid-October.
The steam generator tube testing has been terminated until the reactor vessel inspection has been completed.
4.
Documentation Audit
..
.
v i
FPC and BEW documentation was reviewed to verify conformance with Section XI requirenents.
Calibration block material certifications
couplant certifications and personnel qualification certifications were available and appeared to be complete.
'
!
Audits and surveillance activities had been performed by both B&W QC
'
'
and FPC organizations.
FPC established a comprehensive audit schedule i
to provide more indepth coverage, due to the acceler stica Of PSI
.
.
l schedules.
,
i The PSI Manual appeared to include all requiremen;;s delineated in Section XI and the FSAR which W ically apply to Class 1 and Class 2
{
components.
Class 3 components are not required co be included in Crystal River 3 inspections.
l<
'
5.
Observation of Examinatione
.
.
The inspector observed B&W personnel performing sitrasonic, examinations of several circumferential seams on Steam Genera:or B.
One B&W team i
was examining the seam joining MK2 to HK3 directly above the main steam
.
lines and the other team was examining the next lower seam, MK3 to MK2.
Each team consisted of a Level II and a IAvel I technician; l
personnel certifications for all examiners were current and complete.
i UT equipment SN2141 and SN2389 exhibited curren'.. calibration sticke :s.
l A system calibration check and review of recorda appeared to be in-conformance with procedural requirements.
Instrument 2389 however had
'
.
,
drifted out of calibration which required that che work done between
-
this calibration check and the previous one be redone.
Personnel
,
appeared to be familiar with applicable procedures.
During observat' ion of 2xaminations, it was noted that neither of the examiners were com-pleting the data entries on the data sheets as the test progressed.
i
'
In addition, on one test team the members were separated'approximately 160 from each other around the steam generator so that one member was examining the weld and the other was-viewing the instrument, t
.
.
om
- - - - - < - <
--m-,
-,-a
,w
....,,----,,ee
--,.m,
,--v+
g-
,,,,
,
-r----
.
e q
,.
r y y
-
._
_.. _ _.. _.
.
_
_
._
. _.
-..
.
-
.....
.
.- m
,.
.
,
-
,
IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-10 I-3
.
-
.
,
but neither had visual captact with both the surface being examined and the response.
In reviewing other documentation, there was
,
'
,
additional evidence of sloppy data recording on a calibration sheet.
This could be a potential problem area considering that the PSI activities are being accelerated and crews are working three shif ts.
This is identified as Unresolved Item 75-10/1.
In discussing this
,
'
with the licensee, it was stated that corrective action would be implemented to assure test data entries are accurate and timely.
r
.
6.
Records Review The inspector selected several welds on the pressurizer nozzles for record review.
UT data sheets and calibration sheets for examinations
of welds MK32 to MD5 and MD45 to MK9 were reviewed.
All records appeared to be complete and nomenclatures correlated with equipment
markings, manufacturing prints and PSI plans.
As noted in paragraph 5 of this report, sloppy data entries were observed.
.
"
The inspector discussed the evaluatiori of indications that appear to be geometrical in nature with B&W personnel.
Geometrical indications, particularly if greater than 100 percent DAC, should be analyzed graphically to verify the contention that it is geometrical.rather than
'
,
basing the decision only on a hvel II judgment.
i 7.
Reverification The licensee is considering a reverification program to increase their confidence in the inspsetion data.
A preli:ninary plan based on a statistical sampling program from MIC-STD-105 was considered.
This
'
'
appeared to be rather intensive and the licensee is considering in-
-
depandent reverification of selected joints which contain significant reflectors which will provide a basis for determining repeatability.
Additional welds can be reverified if repeatability cannot be j
demonstrated.
-
'
-
.
,
i
.
4
-
-
\\s
.
.
,
i
^'
-
,
,.
. _,
.-
-... -.
-
-
.
- - -.
. -. _.. -. _
..