IR 05000302/1977005
| ML19308D167 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1977 |
| From: | Jape F, Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19308D141 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-77-05, 50-302-77-5, NUDOCS 8002270639 | |
| Download: ML19308D167 (11) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:I
- . -
. . []l
- [pa 88C9 UNITED $? ATES
c, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COf.%1tSSION , ('d 5-e R E GioN il = .
$ . 230 PE ACHIREE STREET. N W. SutTE 1217 3.k. g"*,f
e, Art.ANTA.csoacia 303o3 - s., , ~.
- ....
. l IE Inspectio: Report No. 50-302/77-5 Licensee: Florida Power Corporation 3201 34th Street, South P. O. Box 14042 St. Petersburg, Florid: 33733 0Inmh {b Facility Narse: Crystal River 3 u Docket No.: 50-302 g J.icense No.: DPR-72 - - - Category: B2 Location: Crystal River, Florida " ~ Type of License: 3%', PWR, 2452, Mut Type of Inspection: Routine, announced . Dates of Inspection: March 22-25, 1977 ' Dates of Previous Inspection: March 7-11, 1977 ' Principal Inspector: F. Jape, Reactor Inspector Accocpanying Inspectors: J. D. Martin, Reactor Inspector R. C. Parker, Reactor Inspector Other Accompanying Personnel * None Principal Inspector: /[ N_ M F. Jape,ReactorInspytor/ ~ , Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch 2. 6. &O [[/4[27 Reviewed by: R. C. Lewis, Chief Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
v 8002 270 h3 7 - ,.,, e - , - , -,g, , w -,. - - -,, - - - - - ---qs-
.. . .
. .
's , w -- , V' IE Rpt. No. 50-302/77-5-2-P 0$@M d \\ SLT MtY OF FINDINGS p D 9m T
y.k I.
Enforcement Matters d y g Infraction - Change to Test Program Commitment' Contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59(b), a written safety evaluatioc was not performed to determine that an unreviewed safety question did not exist when the reactivity coefficients at power test was deleted from the 15 percent power ascension test program.
Table 13-4 of the FSAE states that this test will be performed at incremental power levels.
(Details III, paragraph 3.d.(1)) s' II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters Deficiency - Failure to Maintain Procedure Revision Records Event Licensee's response, dated February 21, 1977, has been reviewed and corrective actions verified. This matter is closed.
(Letails I, paragraph 2) '~' III. New Unresolved Ite=s ' v 77-5/1 RCS Leakage Surveillance . , Several errors were observed in Surveillance Procedure No. 317 data sheets.
(Details III, paragraph 3.d.(3)) 77-5/2 Shutdown From Outside Control Room Test The test as described in Revision O does not appear to fulfill the FSAR or RG 1.68 commitment.
(Details I, paragraph 5) IV.
Status of Previously Tdentified Unresolved Items 76-24/1 Facility Records Licensee has revised document control procedures to address retention of all records required by Technical Specifications 6.10.1 and 6.10.2.
This item is closed.
(Details I, paragraph 3) ) J . ' y . _ _
_ . , . , ... _ _. _.
-
, ' _ ) J.
' IE Rpt. No. 50-302/77-5-3- _ - D* M V.
Unus_ual Occurrences W s_s ITHIL - . ' VI.
Othyr Significant Findings a D_e_via tion Contrary to the require =ents of FSAR Table E-4, RCS Hot Leakage Testing was not adequately performed. On February 1, 1977, only two readings of hkeup Tank Level were taken one hour ap:irt to , determine RCS Hot Leakage. This represents the tota * effort at ',, the 15 percent power increment to determine RCS Hot Lea' age.
(" tails III, paragraph 3.d(2)) s VII. Snagement Interview A canagement interview was held on h rch 25, 1977, with G. P. Baatty, Jr. and staff. The inspection findings were discussed.
, e .
.
% . ,,,. ,p- - ,- -+- y ,. - -, 9--- w,- y---
'. . ^T ... .
. . - t . I E Kp t. No. 50-302/77-5 I-l , DETAILS I Prepared by: M [M __ F. Jape, Reactor 6.spector Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 E3 actor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch ' Dates of Inspection: March 22-25, 1977 Reviewed by: [. d.
M ///83 , R. C. Lewis, Chief Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear , Support Branch ' 1.
Individuals Contactec Florida Power Corporation (FPC) G. P. Beatty, Jr. - Nuclear Plant Superintendent J. C. Bobbs, Jr. - Manager Generation Testing O D. W. Fedrick, IV - Compliance Engineer E. B. Lucas - Administrative Supervisor T. L. Baker - Plant Clerk R. M. Cesner - Plant Cl erk Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W) J. J. Kelly - Shift Testing Superintendent 2.
Document Control During inspection 50-302/77-2, a defic 5ency was identified involving ~ the failure to maintain revision recoros of plant pro'cedures up to date.
FPC's response, dated Februar7 21, 1977, was reviewed and corrective actions were verified. A complete audit of control center procedures was performed. The inspector conducted a spot check of selected procedures and found these to be current.
0
0
} W Lb ' gosp s a . m.It ul0 u du e , .- <,- , - -. , -,, - ,, e- - - -,
. - - , , . . - - m (G . \\ . (,_,/ IE Kpt. No. 50-302/77-5 I-2 . Interviews with licensee personnel revealed that all changes to the Plant Operating Quality Assurance Manual are being processed by a clerk assigned specifically to this task.
Control records.and a log are being maintained to ensure accurate accounting of all procedure revisions. The inspector had no further questions on this matt er.
The deficiency is closed.
3.
Facility Records , During inspection 50-302/76-24, Unresolved Item 76-24 was identified.
This itec dealt with retention of records as required by Technical Specifications 6.10.1 and 6.10. 2.
Follevup revealed that the
I f eensees procedure, DC-101, " Drawing and Document Control," has been revised to cover all previous comments.
The program for control and retention of records is as required by 15.
This item is closed.
Quality Assurance for the Startue Test Protram A report on the licensee's program for quality assurance auditing during pewet ascension testing was presented in inspection report
50-302/76-24.
The program was found satisfactory, but specific [U] audit results were not available for review at that time.
Followup on implementation of the program revealed that documentation of audit results and resolution of audit findings are being conducted , in a satisfactory manner. The commitment for the audit program is stated in Section 1.7.6.7.lr. of the FSAR. The overall program appears to conform with the commitment.
The audit reports reviewed are as follows: Audit Response Report Date Date Subject QA Audit 521 1-18-77 1-20-77 TP 710-3 QA Audit 523 2-2-77 2-15 - 77 TP 710-2 QA AR 76-DEO-37 12-6-77 NA FP 202 QA AR 77-GWS-10 3-10-77 NA TP 800-26
D TT UWI ] m g rg e 7 , w JU . L L A v s l l . - - - -. _
_ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . . . ',
D
i V' IE Rpt. No. 50-302/77-5 I-3 - 5.
Review of Test Procedures Pewer ascension test procedures were reviewed for content, consis-tency with FSAR commitments and guidance of applicable regulatory guides. The inspector raised several conments and questions con-cerning TP 800-27, "Shutdewn from Outside Control Room Test."
These are listed belev.' Licensee management stated that this test procedure is currently being reviewed and will be rewritten prior to conducting the test.
There were no comments concerning TP 800- ) 11. " Core Power Distribution," and TP 800-18, "Pewer Imbalance Detector Correlation." These two test procedures are currently in f' process and appear to be in agreement with RG 1.66 and FSAR commit-ments.
TP 800-27 a.
Step 9.2.1 states that the reactor will be tripped from the J control center console. This is contrary to the guidance of RG 1.66 and the objective of the test as committed in item 10 of Table 13-4 of the FSAR.
. . - 'f One of the stated test objectives is to verify Emergency b.
Procedure No. EP 113, " Plant Shutdown from Outside Control Center;" however, there appears to be inconsistencies between EP 113 and TP 800-27. For example, Table 2 of the TP states t hat letdown flew will be secured by remote operation of MUV- ., 49.
EP 113 states that letdown flow will be secured by the nuclear operator prior to leaving the control center.
t c.
Neither EP 113 or TP 800-27 alerts the operator of the need for access keys to the various control stations located through-out the plant.
The comments and questions related to TP 800-27 has been ,
identified as Unresolved Item 77-5/2. Followup will be conducted on future inspections.
t I' ih D <> ha 1L ' No .
__ _--_ - ___ _ -__-___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . ..
,- , ' f" . ( )
. w/ IE Kpt. No. 50-302/77-5 II-l . DETAILS II Frepared by: of Y j J.
artin, Khactor Ins;iector e . Nule,r Support Section Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection: arch 22-25, 1977 Reviewed by: J d4 My/77 R.
D.' Martin, Chief Da(e Nuclear Support Section Reactor Operations and Nuclear f Support Branch g , VV 1.
Personnel Contacted ~ 9~} ~ Florida Pewer Corporation (FPC) V L J -) . G. P. Beatty, Jr. - Nuclear Plant Superintendent P. F. McKee - Assistant Nuclear Plant Superintendent
W. R. Nichols - Operations Supervisor D. W. Pedrick, IV - Compliance Engineer , \\ J. C. Hobbs, Jr. - Manager Generation Testing A. P. Vogt - Testing Superintendent B. L. Cha stain - Administrative Supervisor 2.
Post Fuel Loading and Zero Power Testing Results Evaluation A portion of the completed subject tests were reviewed to assure that the licersee had performed an adequate evaluation of the test results and that the results were within established acceptance criteria. The review also verified the adequacy of the method used for identifying and correcting test deficiencies.
The tests were evaluated for conformance to the requirements of PSAR Tables 13-2, 13-3 and Regulatory Guide 1.68 - November,1973 Appendix C, Section C.
The following documents were reviewed: TP-71-710-01 (Rev. 0), Zero Power Physics Test .TP-72-710-02 (Rev.1), Reactor Coolant Flow and Coastdown Test TP-71-710-03 (Rev. 0), Post Fuel Load CRD Trip Test At the completion of the inspection period all questions raised by the inspector were satisfactorily resolved after discussions with the operating staff.
(u, - ._ _ _
- . ..
. -
. \\ : IE Kpt. No. 50-302/77-5 II-2 _ . Within the areas inspected no discrepancies were left identified.
. 3.
Power Ascension Test Procedure Review Selected pewer ascension test procedures were reviewed to ascertain whether they were consistent with regulatory requirements. The procedures were evaluated for conformance to the requirements of FSAR Table 13-4 and Regulatory Guide 1.68 - November, 1973 Appendix C, Section D.
The following documents were reviewed: TP-71-800-33 (Rev. 0), Unit Loss of Electrical Load Test ', TP-71-800-14 (Rev. 2), Reactor Turbine Trip Test TP-71-800-07 (Rev. 2), Peedwater System Operation and Testing Within the areas inspected ne discrepancies were identified.
D 6Ar , 1[2:IL , i, . - . j 'J - - .. - .. . - - .
. r -
_ Oe IE Rpt. No. 50-302/77-5 III-l _ DETAILS III Prepared by: - O., (~ R. C. Parker, Reactor Inspector Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection: March 22-25, 1977 8.0. !M Y/M/77 Reviewed by: R. C. Lewis, Chief Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear g-Support Branch 1.
Persons Contacted F_lcrida Fever Corporation (FPC) C. P. Beatty, Jr. - Nuclear Plant Superintendent J. C. Hobbs, Jr. - Macager Generation Testing P. F. McKee ' Assistant Nuclear Plant Superintendent D. W. Pedrick, IV - Compliance Engineer ' B. L. Chastain - Administrative Manager D
Eabcock and Wilcox (B&W) O s ~ g- - n J. J. Kelly - Shift Testing Superintendent 2.
Control Room Operator The inspector reviewed Administrative Instruction (AI) No. 500 to determine if it conformed to Section C of Regulatory Guide 1.114, " Guidance on Being Operator at the Controls of a Nuclear Power Plant." No discrepancies were identified.
3.
15 Percent Pcwer Ascension Testing The inspector reviewed Test Procedure (TP) No. 7 1 800 00, a.
" Power Escalation," and its implementation for testing re-quired through and including 15 percent power. The purpose of the review was to determine that: (1) Test commitments contained in Table 13-4, " Power Test Summary," of the PSAR had been implemented.
) J
. l , -- - -
. _ __ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. - -- .,
- p ~ IE Rpt. No. 50.-302/77-5 III-2 _ (2) Test administrative controls required by Section 13.2, " Administrative Controls," of the FSAE and the Test Program Guide were being adhered to.
(.3). Testing required by sub-procedures of TP 7 1 800 00 was being performed and documented as required.
(4) Prior to ascension above 15 percent power, appropriate review of test dat2 was perfor=ed by the Test '4orking Group (WG) and the Plant Review Comittee (PRC).
j b.
Specific docu=ents reviewed by the inspector included working g copies of the following Test Pr:cedures (TP): (1) TP 800 2 "N1 Calibration at Power Test" ' , (2) TP 800 5, " Reactivity Coefficient at Power" (3) TP 800 7. "Feedwater System Operation" D ,D) (4) TP 800 9, " Turbine / Generator Operation" { , ' ' (5) TP 800 10. "ROS Hot Leakage Test" D , ' (6) TP 800 ll, " Core Power Distribution" V -' - i (7) TP 800 12, "Unic Load Steady State Transient Test" (8) TP 800 22, "Unic Be~at Balance" (9) TP 800 25, " Pipe and Component Hanger Bot Inspection at Power" (10) TP 800 28, " Effluent and Effluent Monitoring" l (11) Surveillance Procedure (SP) No. 317, "RC System { Water Inventory Balance" data file from the QC record vault.
In addition to reviewing Test Procedures the inspector c.
discussed test administration with FPC and BS*** personnel and reviewad the following records: (1) TWG Meeting Minutes 77-06, dated February 22, 1977.
(2) Major and Minor revisions 1 through 14 to TP 7 1 800 00.
N _ .- . .
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ .... . . . .. - - 7s , g I E Rp t. No. 50-302/77-5 III-3 % _ (3) Test Sequence Deviation Reports dated January 30, 1977, through March 3, 1977, applicable to TF 7 1 800 00.
d.
L'ithin the areas inspected the following discrepancies were identified: (1) The Note to FSAR Table 13-4 states in part, that Test No. 5. " Reactivity Coef ficient at Power," (which is covered in TF 800 5) is to be performed at incremental power levels. Contrary to - this requirement TP 800 5 was not performed at the 15 percent incremental power level. TP 7 1 800 00, " Power Escalation," did not ' '. require that TP 800 5 be performed at 15 percent power.
Contrary to 10 CFR 50.59(b), a written safety evaluat' on i was not performed to demonstrate that failure to perform this test does not constitute an unreviewed safety question. This is an item of noncompliance.
(2) The Note to FSAR Table 13-4 states in part that Test No.18, "RCS Hot Leakage Test," (which is covered by TP 80010) is to be perfor=ed at incremental power , levels. TP 7 1 800 00 requires this test to be performed C/ at the 15, 40, 75 and 100 percent power increments.
. TP 800 10 requires that Surveillance Procedure (SP) . No. 317 be performed to satisfy the RCS Hot Leakage Test - requirements.
On February 1,1977, SP-317 was performed to satisfy the testing requirements. Hewever, only two readings of Makeup Tank Level were recorded on the data sheet. This does not constitute an acceptable test.
Consequently the requirements of FSAR Table 13-4 were not satisfied at the 15 percent power level increment. This item is a deviation.
(3) In conjunction with the inspectors review of TP 800 10 and SP-317 discussed in paragraph (2) above several errors in data reduction were observed in the SP-317 data sheets for surveillance performed to meet requirements of Technical Specification 4.4. 6.2.d.
These errors were discussed with FPC personnel. This item is designated an unresolved item pending further review during a sub-sequent inspection.
cm em D J m o g a>uslb N o'9'T ' & . S .' b.
n v
... }}