IR 05000302/1976001
| ML19317G231 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1976 |
| From: | Robert Lewis, Whitt K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317G195 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-76-01, 50-302-76-1, NUDOCS 8002280864 | |
| Download: ML19317G231 (17) | |
Text
-.
.
.
p
.
.
~
UNITED STATES
.
,
NUC!. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGloN ll I
-
N 230 PEACHTR EE STREET, N. W. SulTE 888 ATE ANTA. GEORGIA 30303
,
,
,
IE Inspection Report No. 50-302/76-1
'
'
'
Licensee:
Florida Power Corporation
,
3201 34th Street, South
'
Post Office Box 14042
,
St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
,
.
,
Facility Name:
Crystal River 3 Docket No.:
50-302
.
I.
License No.:
CPPR-51
!
Category:
B1 I
Location: Crystal River, Florida Type of License:
Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced b\\]
Dates of Inspection: January 12-16, 1976 Dates of Previous Inspection: December 9-12 and 16-18, 1975 Principal Inspector:
K. W. Whitt, Reactor Inspector Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Accompanying Inspector:
R. F. Rogers, Reactor Inspector Nuclear Support Section Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch J'. W. Hufham, Radiation Specialist Environmental and Special Projects Section
.
Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch
-
'
(January 12-14, 1976)
j l
Other Accompanying Personnel:
W. Laudan, Construction Inspection Specialist, LWR Program Branch Office of Inspection and Enforcement
,
Headquarters (January 14-16, 1976)
goLUTIO4 s
,
!
a nonp Ny
'
A
/
- 776198
.
p w+e ee=
es. ene.
ee-
- e m a-me-
=,
=9e -e
.=e-e gamp me e
,,
.
. _..
_.*
. _ _
__
,
.
-
-
t
.,
,
,
.
,
IE Rpt. No. 50-302/76-1-2-
_ _,
,
[ d. J-lcm
/ 5't*/d, Principal Inspector:
K. W. Whitt, Reactor Inspector
' Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Reviewed by:
[. [-
/ N
[3 R. C. Lewis, Section Leader Date
,
Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
,
O D
ge g.
.
e
,
e l
l l
e
!
.
.
~ -..
..
.
_.. _ _. -. _ _
.. - _ _ _. _ _ -,. _
_ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. -.
-
--
_
_
-.
- ...
. -.
.
.
.
,-
_
.
.s IE Rpt. No. 50-302/76-1
,
-3-
.
...... _.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
.
I.
Enforcement Matters
There were no items of noncompliance identified during the inspection.
- Licensee Action on previously Identified Enforcement Matter's II.
,
Not inspected.
,
III. New Unresolved Items 75-1/1 Performance of Sodium Thiosulfate - Reactor Building,
Spray System
The licensee does not plan to retest following a modification to the discharge lines of the safeguards systems chemical tanks.
(Details I, paragraph 3)
76-1/2 Valve Stem Discrepancy
- !
'\\
Licensee report on bent valve stems which was made per
_,)
10 CFR 50.55(e) did not contain sufficient information.
(Details I, paragraph 6)
'
,
l IV.
Status of Previously Identified unresolved Items,
75-8/2 Preoperational Test Procedure Review I
The licensee has provided the inspector with information regarding the proposed method of preventing safeguards systems pump runout.
The proposal is being evaluated.
This item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 2)
75-13/1 Incorrect FSAR Drawing The drawings in chapter six of the FSAR have not been
corrected. This item remains open.
(Details I, paragraph 4)
75-13/2 Turbine and Generator Trip from 100% Power The licensee has committed, in the FSAR, to perform the
.
turbine and generator trip tests from 100% power. Licensee management has not defined "as near as practical" and has declined to state their ententions concerning the performance
of these tests at 100% power.
(Details I, paragraph 5)
N
'
.
,
. -,
-.
.
.
. -... - -
. _. -
-.
.
.
. _ -.
.. _ _,. _ _.. -,.. _.
-
_ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
.
.
%.
f
-
,
.
IE Rpt. No. 50-302/76-1-4-
,
... _ _ _ _ -
.
75-19/3 Core Flood Tanks Functional Test
The core flood tanks functional test procedure now
'
addresses the flow rate verification, as recommended by Regulatory Guide 1.79.
However the procedure has not
-
been approved by the licensee. This item remains,open.
(Details II, paragraph 4.a)
,
V.
Unusual Occurrences
, j l
None VI.
Other Significant Findings
.
.
Project Status The fuel load date has been established as March 19, 1975.
Overall
'
completion of construction was reported as being 97.5%. Approximately 39% of the preoperational tests have been completed. Approximately 94% of the systems have been turned over to generation testing.
-
(Details I, paragraph 7)'
VII. Management Interview A.
Site Management Interviews A management interview was held on January 14, 1976, with G.
P. Beatty and members of his staff.
The findings of the inspection relat1ng to the emergency plan were discussed.
(Details III)
A second management interview was held on January 16, 1976,.
with J. Alberdi and members of his staff.
The findings of the inspection relating to preoperational testing and operational quality assurance were discussed.
(Details I and II)
B.
Corporate Management Meeting A meeting was held with Florida Power Corporation corporate management in St. Petersburg on January 23, 1976.
The progress of test activities in relation to the projected fuel load date was discussed.
Several outstanding items that could have an impacton licensing were also discussed. The meeting was conducted by F. J. Long, R. C. Lewis, and K. W. Whitt. The following licensee personnel attended:
s
%.d
.
.
.
._
-,,
- -,...,,..
.,.
,n
_av_.
.gr
., -_,.,
-o-m
.
-
e.
..
.
.
.
..
. -. _.
.
.
.-.
._ -.
. --.
.
.
.
.
i
.
.
(
.-
.
,
.
,
IE Rpt. No. 50-302/76-1
.
-5-
.
',
. _..... _ _. -
.
R. E. Raymond - Senior Vice President, Systems Engineering
'
,
and Operations S. A. Brandimore - Vice President'and General Counsel J. T. Rogers - Assistant Vice President, Quality and
'
Environmental Departments J. Alberdi - Crystal River 3 Project Manager
,
,
i I
.
.
6'*
.
O e
d
.
,
l
)
!
<
.
l
-
l
.
i e
.
- - -.,, _..._,,_,... _......,.. _. -, _. - _ _ _..
.
... -
. _ _... _., _. _ _..
...
.
-.. _ _..., _. _ _
..
.
_.
- - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
.
e
.
.
.
.-
.
-
.
,
,
'
'N IE Rpt. No. 50-302/76-1 I-1 U)
"-
-
.
DETAILS I Prepared by:
-
/
M
/
/ 7d
/
ate K. W. Whitt, Reactor Inspector D
Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear
'
Support Branch
-
Dates of Inspection: January 13-16, 1976
-
Reviewed by:
[. d.
t 4<M
/N
R. C. Lewis, Section Leader Date
-
Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor. Operations and Nuclear J
Supp--t Branch
,,
1.
Individuals Contacted
'
Florida Power Corporation (FPC)
J. Alberdi - Project Manager G. P. Beatty - Plant Superintendent J. C. Clapp - Manager, Site Quality Surveillance E. E. Froats - Manager, Site Surveillance J. C. Hicks - Quality Engineer
\\
J. C. Hobbs, Jr. - Manager, Generation Testing
'
,
P. King - QA Engineer C. R. Pope - Administrative Supervisor 2.
Preoperational Test Procedure Review This unresolved item (75-8/2) was identified in IE Report No. 50-
302/75-8, Details II, paragraph 2 and subsequently discussed in IE Reports 50-302/75-11, Details I, paragraph 4.b and 50-302/75-13,
,
Details I, paragraph 2.
The design engineer and the licensee have i
cor.pleted the evaluation to determine actions necessary to prevent safeguards systems pump runout.
According to a licensee representa-tive, runout of various safeguards systems pumps will be precluded as follows:
a.
Reactor Building Spray System The analysis performed by the design engineer shows that the pipe resistance plus the flow restriction of installed orifices provide sufficient resistance to prevent pump runout.
No further testing is planned.
r
.
i
'
, _..
.--
- - - _ _ _
. _ _, _, _
-.._,,
.
-.
.
- - -
.-_
_._
,
.
.;
\\
-
-
,
>
- -
.
.
.
,
IE Rpt'.' No. 50-302/76-1-
.I-2
,_,
.
-
... -
.
b.-
Low Pressure Inj ection System
,
Each loop of this system contains a motor operated gate valve
'
and a motor operated globe _ valve in series. The limit switch of the globe valve in each loop will be set to limit the flow
-
i rate and prevent pump runout. Failure of the' limit switc,h so that the globe valve opens would' allow a flow rate in excess of the pump runout rate and result in the possible loss-of the
!._
Pump in the affected loop.
The low pressure injection system
-
is redundant. Therefore, failure of one pump would not preclude i
the delivery of the required coolant to the reactor vessel.
'
c.
High Pressure Injection System
,.,
,
The high pressure injection system consists of two separate trains with one pump per train and a spare pump that can be
'
connected to either train.
The pump discharge line in each
-
.
train splits into two lines before entering the reactor building.
,
Each of two lines contains a motor operated globe valve (Two valves per train, 4 valves' total) located between the pumps
'
and the reactor building. The limit switches on the two
'
valves of each train will be adjusted so the rate through each
i valve is 250 gpm for a total flow of*500 gpm per train.
This j
will prevent pump runout which occurs at 545 gpm.
If one valve in any-train fails in the open position pump runout will occur and one train could be lost.
The required cooling will be provided'by the redundant train.
This proposed resolution of safeguards systems pump runout is being evaluated.
This iten remains open.
3.
Performance of Sodium Thiosulfate - Reactor Building Spray System This item was identified in IE Report No. 50-302/75-8, Details II, j
paragraph 4 and subsequently discussed in IE Report Nos. 50-302/75-11, Details I, paragraph.6, and 50-302/75-13, Details I, paragraph 3.
The results of the drawdown test performed by the licensee have been evaluated by the design engineer.
It was determined that the
,
?
sodium thiosulfate tank and the sodium hydroxide tank did not inject their contents at a rate commensurate with the draining of the borated water storage tank as required by section 6.2.2.1 of the FSAR.
The design' engineer has developed a computer program (Model) to analyze the flow characteristics of the chemical tanks and. associated piping in relation to the flow characteristics of the borated water storage tank.'
The analysis performed by the design engineer using the model agreed well with the test results.
Based on the analysis, the design engineer has recommended that a i
-
,
I.
.
-
.
v
.-
,,-
-
- -,
, - - - -
., _..
- -. - -,
e
..,,,...-..,,-.--,m_,,-.-
,,. -
.,_--_,,e
... -, -, _,..
3-,,
.y-
.--c.,
-.
,me e., se
.
-
-
=..
-.
.
.
.
..
-.
.
-
.
.
-
.
.
.
h
'
-
r3
,
,_
,
-
'
..
.
. IE Rpt.:No. 50-302/76-1 I-3:
-
.
,
_.
.
_ -..
stop check valve ~in each of four discharge lines from the chemical tanks i
(2 lines per. tank) be replaced with swing check valves.
Since the model.
+
!~
indicates that the chemical tanks will inject chemicals at a flow rate
!
commensurate with the draining rate of the borated water storage tank
af ter the proposed modification, a licensee representative stated FPC
,
did not plan to retest.the system.
,
.,
.
~
'
The IE, Region II, position is that the spec 1fic discrepancy relating-to the safeguards systems chemical tanks and piping-arrangement was identified and confirmed by testing and testing should be performed to verify that
-
the modification satisfactorily corrected the discrepancy. This item is-
-designated unresolved item 76-1/1.
.
4.
Incorrect FSAR Drawings
"
This unresolved item (75-13/1) was identified in IE Report 50-302/75-13, Details I, paragraph 5.
A licensee representative
,
stated that project management had recommended that the incorrect.
drawings be corrected by FSAR amendment.
The amendment had not been submitted at the conclusion of the inspection.
This item remains open.
(
'*
5.
Turbine and Generator Trip From 100% Power This unresolved item (75-13/2) was identified in IE Report 50-302/75-13, Details I, paragraph 6.
Licensee management has not defined their intentions regarding the turbine'and generator tests.
~
Chapter 13 of the FSAR specifies that these tests will be performed at 100% power or as close as practical.
IE, Region II, interprets
"as low as' practical" as providing a small tolerance to allow performance of the tests at a slightly lower power level if the design power cancot be achieved.
This item remains open.
,
6.
Valve Stem Discrepancy On December 17, 1975, the licensee reported that four valves had been identified that contained bent stems. A licensee representa-tive stated at this time that this was considered to be a possible reportable item in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e), but additional evaluation was required to determine the reportability.
Subsequent to this telephone report, the inspector has been provided a list of eleven safety related valves that have been identified with bent or broken stems. A letter from the licensee dated January 9, 1976, stated that the four bent valve stems reported on December 17, 1975, was considered a reportable item in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e).
Corrective action was also described.
However, the other valves (at.least seven) were not discussed.
During this inspection, the j
e
!
- __
.
-
,.m
,
IE Rpt. No. 50-302/76-1 I-4
~'
.
inspector stated that the January 9, 1976, letter was considered to be an interim report.
Licensee management subsequently informed Region II that a supplement report would be submitted.
This iten is designated unresolved item 76-l/2.
.
7.
Plant Status
..
a.
Construction
'
>
Construction was reported as being 97.5% complete.
Of the 57
.
systems inspected, all but three have been turned over to generation testing.
However, resolution of outstanding excep-
.
tions is required for all systems that have been turned over.
.
.
b.
Testing
Three hundred and forty (340) test procedures have been ident,1-fied of these, 284 have been approved.
One hundred fourteen (114) tests have been completed.
There are still outstanding deficiencies on 43 of the completed tests.
Fifty three test results packages have been approved by the licensee.
)
(O c.
Fuel Load Date March 19, 1976, has been established by the licensee as the official fuel loading date. To support this date, hot functional testing is scheduled to start on January 28, 1976.
The contain-ment structural integrity and integrated leak rate testing will be performed after completion of hot functional testing.
The status of completion of activities at the site in relation to the projected fuel load date was the subject of discussion during a meeting in St. Petersburg between IE Region II manage-ment and the licensee corporate management on January 23, 1976.
8.
Sy. stem Walkdown Walkdown of the decay heat removal and low pressure injection
<
systems to verify that the systems had been constructed in accordance with the FSAR was completed. The walkdown was started during the previous inspection (IE Report 50-302/75-19). No discrepancies were identified.
The inspector has no further questions in this area.
,
O
,
.
I
r I'
__
.
,3
.
.
..
.
.
['"'
IE P.pt. No. 50-302/76-1,_,
II-1
'
,
.
//Z7/7I0
DETAILS II Prepared by:
.
os,p R. F. Rogers / Reactor Inspector
' Date Nuclear Support Section Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
'
' Dates of Inspection: January 13-16, 1976
,
Reviewed by:
(
/ 47 f
.
ft%
H'.
C. Dance, Section Leader
/ Dat'e Nuclear Support Section
,
Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
..
1.
Personnel Contacted
.
J. T. Rodgers - Assistant Vice President, Environmental and
'
Quality Departments G. P. Beatty, Jr. - Nuclear Plant Superintendent i
D. W. Pedrick, IV - Compliance Engineer E. E. Froats - Manager, Site Surveillance P. E. Griffith - Training Coordinator
,
J. C. Clapp - Manager, Quality Surveillance Audits E. M. Good - Chief Control Engineer, Generation Engineering Department E. L. Brown - B&W Field Engineer 2.
Design Changes The licensee's design change process was examined.
The Generation Engineering Department Control Procedures Manual was reviewed and implementation was inspected.
The processing cf a design change selected at random was examined in detail at corporace headquarters in St. Petersburg and'at the Crystal River site.
The results of this inspection revealed a weakness in design change procedure
' auditing.
Engineering Control Procedure 7 " Architect / Engineer Design Performance Verification" Steps 5.1 through 5.3 require a
routine audit schedule and visits on a monthly basis with written reports.
This was not being done.
A. licensee repreeentative stated that a design audit program would be followed'to assure that architect engineer design control practices remained at an acceptable level.
3.
Mechanical Maintenance Training
A representative classroom session on mechanical maintenance was
'
'
Nd selected and observed by the inspector.
The training was conducted
.
!
.
,
.
.
-
-
--
, _..
..
,._ _.. - -
_ _ _.
.
_
...
.. -..
.
)
'
.
_
.
.-
.
,
IE Rpt. No.. 50-302/76-1 II-2
,_,
.
.... - -
.
by B&W personnel and covered reactor stud tensioning, internals removal, and in-core detector handling.
The instructors were
-
experienced and their visual aids added to a smooth presentation which emphasized the licensee's procedures and requirements.
.
4.
Review of Preoperational Test Procedures
.,
'
j The following procedures were reviewed for consistency with the
,
'
requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.68, Appendix C, " Preparation of
"
Procedures," FSAR Table 13-1, " Refueling Test Summary," and the
,
below referenced Regulatory Guides.
'
i a.
TP 71-201-3 Core Flood System Functional Test i
,. _
A draft of this procedure was reviewed for conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.79 "Prooperational Testing of Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Pressurized Water Reactors." Lack of'
'
conformance to R.G. 1.79 regarding hot and cold flow checks is
,
being carried as Unresolved Item 75-19/3.
The inspector found that the procedure had been acceptably revised to include hot and cold flow checks.
This item will remain open pending management approval of the procedure.
b.
TP 71-600-0 Hot Functional Test This procedurs was reviewed as approved and the inspector had no further questions.
c.
TP 73-600-38 Reactor Diagnostic System Baseline This procedure was reviewed for conformance to Regulatory
,
Guide 1.20 " Comprehensive Vibration Assessment Program for Reactor Internals During Preoperational and Initial Startup Testing." The inspector had no further questions on this
test.
.
,
.
.-
_- -
ww r'wf
--w+
ye r
- - -
-
w9
,
y av-
,-
,
e-m
-, - - -
are-w-
-r-
'i~-'
.
.
.- -.
-.
-.
_
. _.
- -
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _. - _. _ _ _ _ - -
.
,
.
'
'3
-
.
=
- .-
,.
s
~
-
j
,IE Rpt'. No. 50-302/76-1
'III -1-
,
DETAILS III Prepared by: *M i 0 b%
A
?r.
J. 'y. Hufham, RaLiation Specialist
' Ddte f En dronmental anc Special Projects
Section,. Fuel Facility and Materials
,
Safety Branch
.=
Dates of Inspection: January 12-14, 1976
,r
.2 /4 /76
.
Reviewed by: I/, 8aa om [
/
'Da t'e R. L. Bangart,g%ection Leader
Environmental and Special Projects
.
Section, Fuel Facility and Materials
.
I Safety Branch
--
i 1.
Individuals Contacted
,
Florida Power Corporation - Crystal River Nuclear Plant a.
E. E. Froatz - Manager Site Surveillance G. P. Beatty - Nuclear Plant Superintendent j
J. R. Wright - Chemical / Radiation Engineer G. D. Perkins - Health Physics Supervisor T. C. Lutkehaus - Maintenance Engineer i
G. R. Westafer - Technical Support Engineer D. Pederick - Compliance Engineer
j b.
Shands Teaching Hospital - University of Florida - Gainesville, Fla.
l W. T. Tobias - 1 2 dical Director of Emergency Services R. M. Esbenshade - Nursing Supervisor for the Emergency Room i
2.
Emergency Facilities and Equipment i
f (a)
Emergency Kits
!
The availability and completeness of the emergency kits were discussed with a representative of the licensee.
The inspector i
i
. as informed that some of the required equipment was not in the-w
emergency kits at the time of this inspection and the kits were.
'
not placed in their designated locations.
The contents of the i
emergency kits are described in Section'6.3.2, Appendix 12B of the FSAR.
The required locations for the emergency kits are listed in Section 6.3.1, Appendix 12B, of the FSAR.
The inspector
,
'
emphasized that the emergency kits should be completed and O
placed in their designated locations before the emergency exercise.
.
_
-
.
.
r
.
.
.
. -..
..
-.
'
~)
...
_ _ _.._.
_
,
,
.
-
r y
.
.
...
,
.
IE Rpt. No. 50-320/76-1 III -2-
-.... _ _.
,
(b)
Emergency Assembly Center
.
Construction of the Emergency Assembly Center was not complete at the time of this inspection.
The inspector explained to
,
representatives of the licensee that a temporary Emergency
'
Assembly Center would ba acceptable until the permanent structure
.
was completed, if the temporary structure could provide the r
,
same emergency function and have basically the same emergency l
equipment.
The function of the Emergency Assembly Center is
.
described in Section 6.1.1, Appendix 12A of the FSAR, and the
.
list of the emergency equipment is described in Section 6.1.2.
.
The inspector emphasized that this facility should be completed
.
"
and equipped before the emergency exercise.
(c) Onsite Medical Facility i
f The inspector discussed the Onsite Medical Facility (first aid station) to determine the status of the facility.
The inspector l
was informed that the facility was presently equipped and staffed
'
by the construction company and not the licensee. The inspector was informed that the facility would be equipped by the licensee.
The equipment designated to be in the Onsite Medical Facility
,
is described in Section 6.4, Appendix 12B, of the FSAR.
The inspector related that the Onsite Medical Facility should be completed by the date of the emergency exercise.
,
'
(d)
Plant Emergency Vehicle (PEV)
.
The inspector was informed that the Plant Emergency Vehicle (PEV)
,
was available at the time of this inspection but was not completely equipped.
The inspector was informed that the vehicle would be equipped in accordance with the Plant Emergency Vehicle (PEV)
-
description in Section 6.2, Appendix 12B of the FSAR.
The
,
inspector related to the licensee representatives that this vehicle should be' complete before the emergency drill exercise.
'
(e) Designation of the Emergency Plan and Supplementary Procedures
During this inspection the inspector was informed that the Crystal River Emergency Plan and supplementary procedures were not placed j
i in the designated locations described in Section 1.0, Appendix 12B l
of the FSAR.
The inspector emphasized that the emergency plan and procedures should be placed in these locations before the
'
emergency exercise.
'
(
.
e l
m
--
.
.
-
- -. _ -
.
. -.
.
._
.. -
_
..
.
)
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
-
'
.
>
.
IE Rpt..No. 50-302/76-1 III-3-
,
>
.
_.. _ _. _
,
(f)
Completion of the Control Center (Nuclear Plant Control Room)'
!
t The inspector questioned the status of completion for the nuclear plant control room that is designated by the emergency
,
i plan as the Control Center.
The Control Center-is described j
in Section 2.4.1, Appendix 12B of the FSAR and the inspector
- r]
,
'
was informed that the following items were incomplete:
I
-
(1)
Installation of the Appropriate Filters in the Emergency Ventilation System of the Control Room
.
'
The inspector discussed the emergency ventilation system
of the control room to determine if the system was complete.
-
The inspector was informed that fans and filter banks were installed but the actual HEPA and charcoal filters had
!
not been placed in the filter banks.
The inspector pas informed that the filters would be installed and tested during the hot functional test period.
The inspector also discussed the completion of the periodic test proce-j deres that needed to be completed in order to test the fat.s and filters of the control room emergency venti-l lat.'on system in accordance with Technical Specifications j
3/4.7.7.
(2) Area and Process Radiation Monitoring Equipment During this inspection the inspector confirmed that the l
area and process radiation monitoring system was not
complete.
The inspector emphasized that this system should be completed before the emergency exercises. The inspector also emphasized the completion 6f the calibra-tion and test procedures for the radiation monitoring system.
!
(3) Meteorological Instrumen'tation Readout Panels In the Control Room
.
During this inspection the inspector confirmed that meteo-rological instrumentation readout panels were not completely
<
installed in the control room.
The inspector emphasized that
these display panels should be completed before the emergency
'
exercise.
The inspector also emphasized the calibration of the meteorological instrumentation at the meteorological tower.
t (4)
Food and Water Supplies
,
l During this inspection the insnector confirmed that the
'
emergency food and water was not available in the control room.
.
--. -
,-.,.-+,
,
.
-
. _,. -. - -... - - -. - - -., -, - - - -.. - _ -
--c
,-,
..,,,
.
-.
_ _ _
_
-
. - -
,
'N s
'
.
,
..
l (
s/
.IE Rpt. No. 50-302/76-1
' III-4-
!
,
,
_ ____.
l Installation and Testing of the Reactor Building Evacuation Alarm.
(g)
,
l Durin'g this inspection the inspector confirmed that the Reactor Building Evacuation Alarm that is described in Section 2.5.7,
'
The inspecto,r Appendix 12B of the FSAR was not installed.
emphasized that this alarm should be installed, tested, and the
,I operational periodic test procedure completed before the emergency
'I exercise.
,
Installation and Testing of the Plant Site Evacuation Alarm (h)
a During this inspection the inspector confirmed that the Plant
.
Site Evacuation Alarm that is described in Section 2.5.8,
-
The inspector Appendix 12B of the FSAR was not installed.
emphasized that this alarm should be installed, tested, and the operational periodic test procedures completed before the.
,
,
emergency exercise.
(i)
Installation and Testing of the Plant Communication Systems During this inspection che' inspector confirmed that the Plant
,
Communcation System that is described in Section 2.5, Appendix 12B of the FSAR was not completely installed.
The inspector emphasized that this system should be completed before the emergency exercise.
Emergency dedical Arrangements Offsite Medical Facility 3.
12, 1976, with a representative of the The inspector met on January Offsite Medical Facility (Shands Teaching Hospital) that is located in Gainesville, Florida. The inspector discussed the arrangements The that had been established at the facility by the licensee.
inspector also toured the facility and inspected the contents of the
,
Since no calibration decal was placed in the portable
~
emergency kit.
the inspector questioned radiation survey meters in the emergency kit,The calibration was verified by a call thIe calibration of the meters.
'
The to the Radiation Safety Office at the University of Florida.
Radiation Safety Office verified that the calibration had been per-The inspector also verified that the procedures for handling formed.
a radiation accident from the Crystal River Nuclear Plant were posted.
The inspector was informed that the hospital had already performed two emergency drills to test the effectiveness of the arrangements that The inspector recommended to representatives had been established.
of the licensee that the hospital be incorporated into future emergency By touring the Offsite Medical Facility and discussing the exercises.
established arrangements with hospital representatives, the facility s
g,)
_
appears to be established in accordance with Attachment B-3, Appendix 12B of the FSAR.
.
)
-.
-
..
~
.
w M
&
.m,
.
'
.
-
IE Rpt. No. 50-302/76-1 iII -5-
.
.
_...
.
,
4.
Training (a)
Fire Training
.
(1) Fire Brigade Training
,
.'
During this inspection the inspector reviewed training cer-
'
tificates that verified that the members of the fire brigade had been trained in industrial fire protection.
-
(2) Fire Training of General Plant Personnel The inspector discussed the fire training of the general "
plant personnel as defined in Section 7.0, Paragraph 7.2.2, Appendix 12B, of the FSAR.
The inspector was informed that the fire training had not been completed because an
,
amendment to the FSAR had been submitted to change this requirement.
(b)
Emergency Team Training During this inspection the inspector reviewed the training outlines and verified the training of the following emergency teams:
(1) Medical Team (2)
Radiation and Emergency Monitoring (3) First Aid (c)
Emergency Training For General Plant Employees During this inspection the inspector was informed that the j
emergency training for all personnel permanently assigned to the nuclear plant was not complete.
This training is defined in Sections 1.0 and 7.2.1, Appendix 12B of the FSAR.
The inspector informed representatives of the licensee that this
~
training must be completed by the emergency exercise.
(d)
Emergency Training For All Personnel Entering the G-nerating Station Area f
During the inspection the inspector verified that the training in accountabiliry and the appropriate emergency procedures had
,
not been provided to the construction and fossil plant personnel.
'
l The accountability training is defined in Section 2.8.1 (B),
Appendix 12B of the FSAR.
The inspector informed representa-
'
tives of the licensee that this training must be completed by,
l the emergency exarcise.
,
.
' l
__
_
_
,
_ _..
.
-
,-
m
,
-
.
'
IE Rpt. No. 50-302/76-1 III-6-
- * ~ -
..
.
.
.
. _. _ _.
S.
Emergency Exercise
.
The inspector discussed the details of an emergency exercise that should-be sponsored by the plant before the fuel loading date.
The licensee represantatives confirmed that a drill would be sponsored prior to
-
the fuel' loading date but the exact date could not be confirmed during
'
this inspection.
,
F
.
0
.
"
-
...
i n
A I
T
.
i
!
l
!
!
l l
I l
I l
!
-
.-.
-.
-. y...,-. - _ _ _ --
.,...___.
_ _
_
_
__._..
_..
_
-. -.._.,_.
.
..
.
_
.
..
.....
.
..
.
.,
.
-