IR 05000302/1975012
| ML19317G421 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1975 |
| From: | Fred Bower, Bryant J, Vallish E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317G408 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-75-12, NUDOCS 8003030823 | |
| Download: ML19317G421 (14) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:r e ,
e , UNITED STATES . W NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
f \\ REGloN ll 330 PE ACH rREE STREET. N. W. SUITE 818 ATLANTA. GEORGI A 30303 , 7* IE Inspection Report No. 50-302/75-12 , Licensee: Florida Power Corporation 3201 34th Street South , P. O. Box 14042 , St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 . Facility Nat:e: Crystal River 3 .; Docket No.: 50-302 i License No.: CPPR-51 Category: A3/B1 l Location: Crystal River, Florida ) Type of License: B&W, PWR, 2452 Mwe, 815 Mwe Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced, Construction ,m ( Dates of Inspection: September 10-12, 1975 < \\ Dates of Previous Inspection: August 26-29, 1975 Inspector-in-Charge: F. U. Bower, Reactor Inspector Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch Accompanying Inspectors: T. E. Conlon, Reactor Inspector Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch E. O. Porter, Metallurgical Engineer Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch ( S. D. Ebneter, Reactor Inspector , l Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch ' l Other Accompanying Personnel: J. C. Bryant, Senior Inspector Facilities Section l Facilities Construction Branch l g~s 40WU% ) % Q ' y g s '4 / 8oososo N 3 '
- 76 19 N
,
._ _ _.. __.
_. _ _ - - % - .
. , IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-12-2-36!')k' Principal Inspector: 1:V ' Date * E ."Vaflish, Reacto / Inspector cilities Section Facilities Construction Branch Reviewed by: . j!f//!75 ~ ' Date J. C.
rya'ntigniorInspector . , ' Fac ties Section Facilities Construction Branch .
. ,
l i r i i . , t l \\
--- , _, - ,, _ - _ - -.,,.. -. _. --, -.._,._ _ ,, .-.__..,.,_-,,4 -,, _ _ _
r . -
_ - . ('~'N IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-12-3-G .
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS , I.
Enforcement Items Certain items appear to be in noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, ' " Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants," as indicated below.
This apparent noncompliance , is considered to be of the infraction category.
- . Infractions 75-12-Al (II) Control of Special Processes [ Criterion IX of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 as implemented by commitments in the FSAR, Section 1.7.6, requires that special processes such as nondestructive testing be ' accomplished by written procedures.
Contrary to these requirements, procedures for data recording appear inadequate in that calibration data for nondestructive test equipment is not always directly ['~'N traceable to the tests performed on a specific date.
( _ ) This is evidenced by failure of procedures to require recording of calibration time and lack of correlation between calibration data sheet dates and corresponding test data sheet dates.
(Details III, paragraph 5) This infraction had the potential for causing or contributing to an occurrence with safety significance.
II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items There were no previously identified enforcement items.
III. New Unresolved Items 75-12/1 Hanger and Support Documentation Documentation and control of deviations to hanger and support installations is not clearly defined.
The licensee agreed to revise FPC-W48 to reflect existing methods of hanger support installation.
(Details II, paragraph 5) s . ~- > i
- - - - - -. . -.. .-- . . . , s /- - . , . , . O IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-12-4- . IV.
StatusofPreviouslyReportedUnrEsolvedItems . 74-14/2 Seismic Qualification of the Control Rod Drive Control System AC Breaker Cabinets (10 CFR 50.55(e) Item) . The modification work is reported complete.
Design , certification and installation inspection remains to ,i be completed.
This item remains open.
(Details I, - paragraph 3) , , 75-7/1 Procurement Records for Control Rod Drive AC Breaker Cabinet ,
" Correspondence examined at the site indicates that the . required records will be. acquired and available at the site in the very near future.
This item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 4) . 75-10/1 Marginal Data Recording Corrective action failed to eliminate all aspects of this problem.
Apparent noncompliance was identified during this inspection and this item has been elevated to noncompliance 75-12-Al (II) of the infraction category.
This item is no longer considered as an unresolved item.
(Details III, paragraph 5) V.
Design Changes None-i VI.
Unusual Occurrences None ' VII. Other Significant Findings None < I VIII. Management Interview The inspectors met with Mr. J. Alberdi, Project Manager, and other members of the staff to discuss the inspection findings as reported.herein. The noncompliance regarding data recording was discussed.
The licensee acknowledged the findings.
s.
, [ ( ( , - i I' . - - - . ,, ,
- . *....
y ' ' - . m IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-12 .I-l
9 k -/Ib ) j DETAILS I Prepared by: ~b E r i..--r.
J( - ' 'F.
U. Bower, Reactor Inspector Date* i Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch . l Dates of Inspection: September 10-12, 1975 - Reviewed by: d-f-24 - 7.6~ '. L. L. Beratan, Senior Inspector Date
- ' Engineering Section-Facilities Construction Branch j ' ! 1.
Persons Contacted i Florida Power Corporation (FPC) D. Olsen - QA Auditor, Instrumentation - , P. King - QA Auditor, Electrical R. Morrow - Instrument Engineer R. Bonner - Supervisor, Electrical Construction M. Robinson - Supervisor, Instrumentation Systems 2.
-Electrical / Instrumentation (E/I) Construction Progress y ? The period of construction slow-down has ended and the electrical [ craft force has been rehired. The electricians now number 206 men which is near the number before the stretched out construction E schedule was implemented.
Forty-three (43) of the present number are-assigned as support to the test and startup unit.
>
f.
Construction progress in the E/I areas is estimated to be 94 percent ! complete. Work remaining consists primarily of cable pulling L and conductor terminations.
Cable pulling is reported at 88 percent l complete and terminations 84 percent complete.
f No current problems were reported and it is anticipated that the E/I
. construction effort will support the current scheduled completion ! [ dates.
. < ! 3.
Seismic Qualification of the Control Rod Drive Control System AC i Breaker Cabinets (10 CFR 50.55(e) Item) (Ref. 74-14/2)
}J The modification work to the cabinet attachments is reported to be ' ); essentially complete.. Examination of the cabinet attachment region l [ -supports.this report, however, the completed work has not yet been accepted by the QC inspector at the. site.
Additionally, documenta- , i , l 1.
\\ _
, - -, , . _.. , J - . , ,- - - , , , IE Rpt. No.'50'-302/75-12 I-2 -
- , ! . . .,. tion has not yet been provided b'y the Engineering Unit to certify that the attachments have been' designed to meet the site seismic ' ,
criteria.
.,
Correspond'ence examined at the site and discussion with.the staff - ! _ revealed an on-going effort to assemble the required documentation at the site.
It is anticipated by the staff that this information , , will be ready for examination during the next inspection by IE:II.
- J , l This item will remain open pending the examination of the supporting
i documentation.
. ' ! 4.
Procurement Records for Control Rod Drive AC Breaker Cabinet-(Ref. 75-7/1)
The conftssion associated with the safety classification of the ) i subject equipment that was previously reported-(Ref. IE:II Report
50-302/75-7) has been resolved.
Resolution was reached by confirming that the subject equipment was properly classified as Level III.' - ' Correspondence examined at the site assures that the outstanding documentation (seismic certification) will be supplied by.the vendor
in the near future and should be available for the IE:II inspector's examination during the next inspection.
This item will remain open until the certification can be examined.
! 5.
Out-of-Core Nuclear Instrument Tube Coating , , A potential problem with the subject coating was identified and i i discussed by the inspector during a previous inspection (Ref.
IE:II Report 50-302/75-7).
During this inspection the staff agreed to study the characteristics of the coating material then subjected to a high radiation field. A letter from the A-E Responsible Engineer (GAI letter dated 8/13/75 signed R. S. Faust, Mechanical Engineer) examined at the site revealed that the subject coating, known by the trade name of "Placite," had been j tested and qualified to the provisions of ANSI Standard N101.2/1972.
- The inspector has no further questions.
! . 6.
Inspection Results L The following listed: equipment and cables were examined as representative samples of installed safety related systems. This equipment and QC documentation was inspected for such features as workmanship, handling - \\- . L
. .. - - - - ... _ _.
, ....
T, . . . , . [ ] IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-12 I-3 . \\\\~ I . . techniques, protection of installed equipment, cleanliness, QC inspection and documentation and requirements of licensing; such as, redundancy, physical separation, structural integrity, material certification, testing, use of proper materials and the suitable implementation of
. the QA/QC program.
a.
Equipment , Reactor Coolant System Pressure Transmitters: . RC3A-PT3 - ' RC3A-PT4 . ' RC3B-PT3 , b.
Cables - Containment Pressure Sensing Instrumentation Systems:
ESH 251 ESH 549 ESH 250 ESH 550 ESH 249 ESH 551 Reactor Coolant Pressure Sensing Instrumentation Systems:
RCR 86 RCR 91 RCR 95 (cable not installed) Examination of the listed equipment and cables revealed that
two of the cables (ESH-249 - ESH-250) were switched at the control room end.
This anomaly was noted by the QC inspector on NCR report 02064.
Corrective action was initiated and completed by P.he construction unit prior to the completion of the inspection activity.
At the conclusion of the inspection there were no identified variations from the requirements and there are no further questions.
O.
\\ ~ \\ . . _.
. .
-.-- .. - --. . . .. . . _ - -.. . ?= , -* -. a .. . , ., y_ ,e - - , , , . .. . i r IE Rpt. No.: 50-302/75-12 II-1 , ,, . DETAILS II . Prepared hy: b o7I d' ' h1T.E.Conlon,ReactorInspector . /Datie Engineering Section i Fac es Construction-Branch
' k ' b; O E. O. Porter, Reactor Inspector / Da(e ,. i '- l Engineering Section.
Facilities Construction Branch ,
' Dates of Inspection: -September-10-12, 1975 ' d
[[ _/ D4te Reviewed
i L..L.
Beratan, Senior Inspector ' Engineering Section
j Facilities Construction Branch l , j' s 1.
Persons Contacted i' a.
Florida Power Corporation (FPC) ! . E. E. Froats - Manager, Site Surveillance D. Bienkowski - QA Engineer (Mechanical) l b.
Contractor Organization , ' , I (1) Babcock and Wilcox Construction Company (BWCC) ' i ' J. L. Richardson - Project Engineer J. McGill - QC Supervisor l R. Shope - QA Supervisor l R. L. Percy - QC Inspector
- , i (2) J. A. Jones Construction Company (JAJ) . . J. Amundson - QC Supervisor l 2.
' Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM)
' l The CRDM's were installed in accordance with BWCC Procedure No.
l' 077, entitled, " Procedure for Installation of CRDM Motor Tubes.'_' l BW-077.is a sequential procedure with QC signoffs at predetermined line' items.
The master copy of this procedure was examined and
appeared complete.
c
- .
. During the process'of examining this master copy and associated . ' i ' deviation reports it was noted that reports Nos. 230, 241 and.243 identified three motor tube assemblies with loose thrust' bearing-
y , l -\\f ' i f I 1. i.-. . . a- - - -. . - -,.. . -,_..u.- .-a. = -.. .,.. -, . -
- .. . . . .. . - -. .. --_.__ _ - - t
.. .. m e , ' ~. - . . g IE Rpt..No. 50-302/75-12 ' II-2 ' . ' retaining nuts.
BWCC contacted Diamond Power-Specialty Corporation ' (DPSC) and obtained instructions to retorque these nuts.
Verbal instructions were given to the technicians to check each thrust bearing retaining nut on the balance of units.
There were no other l instances of loose retainer nuts.
The licensee has a TWX from DPSC - stating that a detailed review of the consequences of the thrust i bearing retainer nut being loose during operation and concludes , ,
that this very unlikely event would not preclude safety related . - functions of the CRDM's.
' , The inspector examined the CRDM motor tubes after installation and the measures taken to protect and maintain cleanliness. Within the i
1-areas inspected, there were no items of noncompliance identified.
.
3.
Pressurizer Relief Valves The pressurizar relief valves were temporarily installed to facilitate ' fitup of discharge piping.
After which, they were placed in storage.
The inspector examined the valves in storage and the periodic inspection signoffs. There were no items of noncompliance noted, ' ' i ', Final installation of these valves will be done in accordan,a with procedure BWCC-081.
Examination of this procedure disclosed no itema of noncompliance.
~ i 4.
Steam Generator and Pressurizer Cleaning ,
The steam generators and pressurizer were cleaned prior to turnover
in accordance with BWCC-084, entitled " Hand Cleaning of Reactor . Coolant System." However, additional work such as baseline inspec-l tion has resulted in certain areas being less than acceptable.
These areas will be recleaned to level B' cleanliness as defined by
' Field Specification FS-II-2.
I 5.
Piping Supports The inspector reviewed procedure FPC-W-48 which was written by JAJ
i and approved by FPC. This procedure defines the scope of QC
! inspection for installation of hangers, guides, sway braces and
, I restraints.
. The inspector reviewed selected data sheets for supports completed l with emphasis-placed on noted deficiencies and verification of correction.
i (:'
. G - = ,y
,---9- -p w - - a.g_.,,
y---y-_.
-
7 p - % - + ---- 1 r-t
- w-
, n
.. . ... . _ _ ~ . - . . - ..
- , s ( ~IE Report No. 50-302/75-12 III-2-
. 7~ 5.
Test Data Audit , The inspector-reviewed the-PSI status. report and selected the pres-surizer as a component for. audit.
The pressurizer PSI was essentially , complete and the test data with associated calibration records had , been reviewed and' accepted by.B&W personnel.
The data had been sub- . mitted to FPC as package Q-38-10.
, The PSI. requirements for the' pressurizer are delineated in Item 2.0, . Section 2.0 af thc-PSI manual which appears to be in conformance with the FSAR and ASME code.
. . Examination procedures applicable to the pressurizer PSI are: Number Title ' ISI-101 Ultrasonic Examination of Similar Metal Weld Seams and Attachment Welds ISI-102 Ultrasonic-Examination of the Base Metal Areas Bordering Welded Seams and Base Metal Repairs ISI-104 Ultrasonic Examination of Ligaments Between Threaded Holes and of Studs and Bolts l' Inch and Larger in Diameter . ISI-105 Ultrasonic Examination.of Nuts and Washers ISI-106 Ultrasonic Examination of Full Pene-tration Nozzle Welds from the Outside Surface ISI-110 Ultrasonic Examination of Nozzle Knuckle Area from the outside Surface ISI-350 Visual Examination of Welds and Surface Conditions The ultrasonic examination procedures specify that applicable test i data and calibration data sheets be provided to the customer (licensee) l I as part of the record of examination.
The records of examination are compiled and submitted to FPC in accordance with FPC Procedure Q-38.
The inspector reviewed the test and calibration data sheets for h)' completeness, adequacy, and conformance to requirements and proce- , ' \\ dures. -The inspector noted that in many instances a specific ,, test data sheet was dated at some day other than the date entered l - .. _ _ _
.. . . - . - - - - ,, '
, , - . . IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-12: III-3 ,
- . onthecorrespondingcalibrationdaE$ sheets.
It thus appears
that the calibration of the ultrasonic system was performed on the day prior-to, or several days prior to, the actual test ' examination.
This lack of traceability-of calibration data-is due to the manner in which test data is recorded. A typical -
weld examination requires a 0, 45 and 60 ultrasonic examination.- The data for each test run, which may occur on , l-successive days, is recorded on the same data sheet and the data sheet - is dated on the day that the entire test is completed. However, a calibration data sheet is prepared for each day that the instru- ', . ment is used to perform examinations on the weld and each cali-bration data sheet is dated on the day the calibration is performed.
[' ' Thus,.the date entered on the calibration sheet does not correlate j with the test data sheet date.
The procedures applicable to the j
nondestructive examination contain detailed step-by-step instructions
with regard to accomplishing the system calibration. However, there is no requirement or instruction related to the recording of calibra-
tion data on ISI Form 3-2.
Thus, there are some inconsistencies in actual recording leading to lack of correlation between calibration dates and actual test performance date as noted above.
Specific , ' examples of the inability to correlate calibration data sheets and-test data sheets are PSI Items 2.1.22, 2.5.10 and 2.7.2.
In addition ) to.the above, the system calibration time: entry on calibration sheet - 1200091 was not entered.
The calibration time entry is required to provide the base for recalibration at periodic intervals as specified ' in paragraph 8.3 of ISI-102 and 9.4 of 1S1-101. The failure to record calibration time and lack of correlation between test data and calibra-tion data sheets appears to be a noncompliance of the infraction category.
Section XI of the ASME Code, paragraph IS - 130 states, in part, that it is a responsibility of the licensee to record all inspection and test results which provide a basis for evaluation, and facili- ! tate comparison with the results from subsequent inspections.
+ l Paragraph 1.7.6.7.1.i of the FSAR states that measures are established to assure that-special processes are performed by ! qualified personnel and documented and accomplished by written procedures and provide for recording evidence of verification.
By failure to follow procedure in proper recording of calibration.
, times,-and inability to correlate calibration dates with test data . due.to lack of specific instructions for preparation of data forms, it appears that the licensee is in noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion IX,' Control of Special Processes, and this j is identified as Infraction 75-12-Al(II). This represents an upgrading of Unresolved Item 75-10/1 as previously reported in
i IE Report 50-302/75-10.
i l
. .. - -. . .. - - . - - . - - -l '
. . - - -- - -. .. - . . > . , - m, . .
,
.IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-12 III-4 . E,' With the exception of the above~ comments, the records appeared to . be complete, calibration block data appeared satisfactcry and trans-ducer data correlated from calibration data sheet to test data sheets.
The inspector noted that B&W personnel were' performing . calibration checks much more frequently than required by procedure.
- The test data sheets audited revealed very few recordable and/or reportable indications in the systems inspected.
', Two reportable indicatic.s have been found, one in a control - rod drive mechanism which was returned to Diamond Power and one in the reactor coolant pipe to steam generator nozzle weld.
, i The inspector reviewed the records for the latter veld, PSI item
4.4.173.
The data sheets appeared satisfactory and resolution is pending a decision by B&W Level III examiner.
This particular weld was selected for reverification which is discussed in paragraph 6.
, > 6.
Reverification FPC has reverified several welds during PSI activities.
This consists of selecting a weld, reviewing the assigned test data, re-examining the weld with a different test crew and comparing the original data with the data obtained on the re-test.
The , reverifications performed to date have characterized the weld on the're-run very close to the original test.
The inspector selected the weld of PSI item 4.4.173, reactor. coolant pipe to steam generator nozzle for reverification. As noted in para- ' graph 5, this weld contains an indication that was reportable.
B&W appointed a test crew with members different from the original test crew to perform an ultrasonic examination of the - weld.
The inspector observed instrument calibration, test conduct of the weld, and compared the reverification data with the original < data.
The reverification exhibited very good repeatability of data, both with regard to magnitude and location of the previously identi-fied reflectors.
The inspector verified equipment calibration dates, l personnel certifications and the calibration block used in the reverification.
7.
Observations of Work The inspector observed nondestructive examinations in progress on piping welds and reactor coolant pump nuts. Each test crew consisted of a Level II and a Level I examiner with objective evidence of certification on file at the site.
Examinations appeared to be , in conformance with applicable procedures.
The inspector had no i further questions.
' . .. . _ -. . . . -. . ._ .. - ~ _ _
. _. .. . . . , y - . . ' IEiReport-No. 50-302/75-12 III-1 N C, i DETAILS III Prepared by: ^ e S. D. Ebneter, Reactor Inspector Date, Engineering Section . Facilities Construction Branch , U
. Dates of Inspection: September 10-12, 1975 ['/2' M r Reviewed by: 4A i r- , L. L. Beratan, Senior Inspector Date Engineering Section - Facilities Construction Branch ". . 1.
Persons Contacted Florida Power Corporation (FPC) a.
J. Alberdi - Project Manager E. E. Froats - Manager, Site Quality Assurance J. C. Clapp - Manager, Site Quality Surveillance J. C. Hicks - Quality Engineer D. W. Bienkowski - Mechanical Engineer W. G. Wellborn - Plant Engineer b.
Contractor Organizations Babcock & Wilcox Construction Company (B&W)
G. Terning - Site Manager, Preservice Inspection Team ' 2.
. PSI Requirements The FSAR commitments are detailed in Section 15.4.4 which references Section XI, Winter 1972 of the ASME code. These requirements have been translated into implementing procedures and schedules contained Ln the-PSI Manual which was prepared by B&W. The manual ~has been
- reviewed and approved for use by the licensee. Additional informa-tion related to the PSI requirements and procedures is contained in IE Report 50-302/75-10.
. 4.
FPC Control of PSI FPC has developed and implemented Procedure FPCQ-38, " Construction Release to Plant Staff for Pre-Service Inspection." This precedure l releases a system for preservice inspection, assures no work is done i on the system while PSI is in progress and provides for rework and final inspection.
. . ., .... _ _ _. _ _ _ . - . - ... -. - - - --. __ . . - . - .
... . - _-..._ --_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . , IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-12.
II-3 . . 9.
During discussion with the licensee it was pointed out by the , inspector that the present method for control of deviations to , design sketches was not described in procedure FPC-W-48.
The licensee was informed that the present method appeared adequate, but the method used should be defined.in FPC-Q-23..This was identi- , , fied to the licensee as an unresolved item.
t . . i . 6-t
4
, t
! - ! t t' i i i k
t , I i. l l . - .- __ . . . _ _ . . . . --... . }}