IR 05000302/1976002

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
IE Insp Rept 50-302/76-02 on 760114-15 & 28-30.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Instrumentations Calibr Program Examination Procedure & Mgt Interview
ML19308D519
Person / Time
Site: Crystal River Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 02/06/1976
From: Bryant J, Vallish E
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML19308D502 List:
References
50-302-76-02, 50-302-76-2, NUDOCS 8002280861
Download: ML19308D519 (5)


Text

.

O UNITE 3 STATES

]

'

.

.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSis

.

REGION 11 C.

230 PEACHTREE STREET. N. W. SUITE SIS

~

ATLANT A. GEOR CI A 30303

. 7. - -

L..,, ;.,--

~

.

.

IE Inspection Report No. 50-302/76-2

.

Licensee:

Florida Power Corperation 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:

A3/B1 l

i Location:

Crystal River, Florida

,

Type of License:

B&W, PWR, 2452 Hwt, 855 Mwe Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced, Construction Dates of Inspection: January 14-15 and 28-30, 1976 Dates of Previous Inspection: January 13-16, 1976 Inspector-in-Charge:

S. D. Ebneter, Reactor Inspector Engineering Support Section No. 1 Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch

'

.

l Accompanying Inspectors: None

.

f Other Accompanying Personnel:

one Principal Inspector:

/7

2-6-74 Date E.f.Vallish,ReactorInspector

.

Projects Section

.

Reactor. Construction and Engineering upport Branch Reviewed by:

/

,..!. #

l-d'76

'

Date J. C. Bryar.t, SectionLeaderg Projects Section Reactor Construction and Engineering t

'

goLW%

Support Branch

\\

R x.)

m

  • %

l

'

8002 280 dp

  1. 776 19 8

__

__ _

_

_

.

(

~.

S

..

.

.

IE Rpt. No. 50-302/76-2-2-

..:,..

j

-

.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

!

I.

Enforcement Items

.

'

None l

II.

Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items

'

'

Infractions 75-19-A1(II)

Inadequate Nondestructive Examination Procedure

',

'

!

Contrary to Criteria IX nondestructive examinations of the steam generator tubes were conducted with inadequate procedures. The licensee is revising the procedure to correct the inadequacies.

This item

'

remains open.

(Details I, paragraph 2)

'

III. New Unresolved Items i

76-2/1 Separation of Instrumentation Sensing Lines Instrumentation piping used for sensing lines for input i

to the containment pressure switches violates specified separation criteria.

This is listed in an FPC audit and is being evaluated by the licensee.

(Details I, paragraph 3)

76-2/2 Instrument Calibration Program

.

The instrument calibration program for process instru-l ments appears to lack formalization and continuity.

Licensee is preparing a recalibration program.

(De-

tails I, paragraph 3)

IV., Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items 75-19/8 Indications in Class 2 Components The licensee has embarked-on an evaluation program which entails re-examination of selected welds by alternate volumetric techniques, and an attempt to duplicate the conditions by fabricating a' mockup of a section of the j

!

main steam line.

(Details I, paragraph 2)

V.

Design Changes None

.

e i

!

.

..

..

.

.

__

_ _

_. _... _, _.. _ _ _..., _ _... _.. _ _ _,. _ _,,

.

.

,

s.

',-

  • .

'

.3

,

.

,

'

'

.

IE Rpt. No. 50-302/76-2-3-

,

...-

.., ;., _

-.

VI.

Unusual Occurrences

.

None

.

l VII. Other Significant Findings

-

'

None VIII. Management Interview

,

An exit interview was held with Mr. J. Alberdi, Project Manager,

,

and other members of the staff to discuss the results of the inspections. The status of the unresolved item related to baseline

,

,

inspection of Class 2 components and the proposed' corrective action

to eliminate the inadequacies of the NDE procedure were discussed.

The two new unresolved items identified were also discussed. The i

licensee acknowledged these findings.

.

.

.

,

.

I

.

1

's

i

,

,

J.

.

. -,i

')

, _

-.

._,

.. _.

.. _..

- _ -.

-_,

-.

-

-

--

.

.

.,

)

.

..

.

,

,

IE Rpt. No. 50-302/76-2 I-l

,

- D... :

.,

-

.

DETAILS I Prepared by:

/

_

-

S. D. Ebneter, Reactor Inspector Date Engineering Support Section No. 1

,

Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Dates of Inspection:

January 14-15 and 28-30, 1976

'

Reviewed by:

Y L /. I 2d[76

,

L. L. Beratan, Section Leader Date

j Engineering Support Section No. 1

.

Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch

.

'

l.

Persons Contacted a.

Florida Power Corporation (FPC)

J. Alberdi - Project Manager E. E. Froats - Manager, Site Quality Assurance J. C. Clapp - Manager, Site Quality Surveillance J. C. Hicks - Quality Engineer S. Johnson - Plant Engineer

.

D. Olsen - QA Auditor, Instrumentation

b.

Contractor Organizations (1) Babcock and Wilcox Construction Company (B&W)

G. Terning - Site Manager, Preservice Inspection Team

.

(2)

J. A. Jones Construction Co.npany

R. Stanley - Assistant Project Engineer

.

2.

Preservice Inspection Activities The preservice inspection program has been essentially completed with the exception of the steam generator tube examinations and

resolution of the numerous ultrasonic indications detected in the Class 2 systems.

The steam generator tube eddy current examinations are scheduled to be completed in mid-February.

The licensee is revising procedure l

SP-305 to correct conditions which resulted in citation of noncom-f

'

l l

pliance 75-19-AI(II).

The inspector reviewed the proposed correc-a lO

.

'

,

l l

.

-

_

-..

.

-

-

...

. -. -

. - _..

--

.

-.

.. -.

__

.__

_ _

__

.

_ _

-

.

.g p

j

..,

v.

.

' i.'

.

IE Rpt. No. 50-302/76-2-I-2 m

!

+....,;.,

tive action with the licensee and found the corrective' action to be-acceptable with the exception of that related to re-examination

required whenever equipment calibration drift is detected.

Tne proposed action as detailed in the revised procedure SP-305 must be

,

approved by the licensee Plant Review Committee and formally submitted

'

-

to NRC prior to closing out the noncompliance.

i Actions taken.to resolve Unresolved Item 75-19/8 were reviewed.

During the inspection of January 14-15, 1976, re-examinations of

-

L selected welds were reviewed with the licensee.

Primary emphasis

'

was placed on weld MS-17A.

Ultrasonic avaminations conducte'd on

<

M the weld as'part of preservice inspection revealed numerous reflectors-

.,

"

^

with indications in excess of 100% DAC.

Radiographs were made.of

.

~

j.

MS-17A and the results compared with the UT data.

There did not.

'

appear to be any currelations between the two sets of dr.s and the

,

i

!

radiograph film did not reveal any defects.

Subsequent to hydrostatic testing, MS-17A and several other welds j

were re-sxamined by ultrasonics.

The ultrasonic re-examination

"

!

test data correlated very closely with the original data.

In l

addition, many of the UT indications appeared to have grown, i.e.,

increased in length, as a result of The l drostatic test.

Weld MS-

,

~ 7A-was also re-examine ~d bDT buti the~ result could not be correlated l

~

!

with.UT data.

Since the alternate volumetric techniques appeared

to be in disagreement with regard to the condition of the welds, l

I the FPC Level III examiner recommended to FPC management that a weld be cut out of the system so that additional examinations, including penetrant examinations, magnetic part' le and metallographic, l

could be performed. The inspector discussed the status of the i

evaluation in the exit interview of January 15, 1976.

FPC management stated that no action had been taken on'the recommendation and that

'

!

it was still under consideration.

i In the interim, as a alternate means of possibly developing additional data to aid in resolving the situation, FPC has been constructing in the shop a duplicate weld of those in the main steam lines.

Adequate material of the same lot and a consumable insert of the j

same heat number we.re located.

The welder that performed some of

'

the welds during the erection of the system was available at the site and he has been utilized.in constructing the mock-up. The

!

original procedure has been followed and the welding is being l

monitored closely.by QA.

In addition, radir, graphs are being made at various points in the weld sequence to provide data for correla-tion and subsequent interpretation.

Upon completion, the mock-up will be subjected to RT, UT, PT, MT and visual inspections. This

,

item remaina open.

\\

-

n.

-

jl

. i1

_

.

._.

~~

.,,,

-.

..

-

,

.

., _.... _.... _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ -._..

____.,__._a