IR 05000302/1977011
| ML19317G232 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 07/18/1977 |
| From: | Dance H, Epps T, Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317G219 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-77-11, NUDOCS 8002280865 | |
| Download: ML19317G232 (8) | |
Text
.
%
UNITED STATES Os An na%g[o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMi.?SION g
REGION il
{
c g
230 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W. SUITE 1.'17
-
r
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
-
o,
g*.v...f Report No.:
50-302/77-11 Docket No.:
50-302 License No.: DPR-72
'
Licensee:
Florida Power Corporation 320134th Street, South P. O. Box 14042 St. Tetersburg, Florida 33733 Inspection at: Crystal River, Florida Inspection conducted: June 14-17 and 27-30, 1977
Inspector-in-Charge:
T. N. Epps
'
Inspector:
J. D. Martin
,
Accompanying Personn : None
'l iN7 7 Reviewed by:
'W(L- +
,
hte H. C. Dance, Chief Reactor Projects Section No.1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on June 14-17 and 27-30,1977 (Rpt. No. 50-302/77-11)
Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of power escalation test results, followup of unresolved items, surveillance and limiting conditions for operation. The inspection involved 73 inspector-hours on site by two inspectors.
Results: Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were found in three areas; one item of noncompliance was found in one area (infraction - failure to comply with a limiting condition for operation action atatement - Details I, paragraph 5).
OU
,
f 8002esoPCg
-
..
.
-
.
.
.
-
,
.
\\'
d RII Rp t. No. 50-302/77-11 I-l
..
W b
~
DETAILS I Prep: red by:
_d T. N. Epps, Rea Inspector Date Reactor Projec ection No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection: June 14-17 and 27-30, 1977 b L t ~< L 7!/f!"17
%
Reviewed by:
IDate
H. C. Dance, Chief
!
Reactor Projects Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch 1.
Persons Contacted Florida Power Corporation (FPC)_
G. P. Beatty, Jr., Nuclear Plant Manager W. R. Nichols, Operations Supervisor P. F. McKee, Assistant Nuclear Plant Manager D. W. Peo.'ck, IV, Compliance Engineer J. Cooper, Compliance Auditor G. Claar, Compliance Auditor C. Goering, Compliance Auditor
-
J. L. Harrison, Chemical / Radiation Engineer K. O. Vogel, Computer and Controls Engineer G. M. Williams, Compliance Plant Engineer D. H. Ruzek, Results Engineer Other Operations Personnel 2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
3.
Unresolved Items No new unresolved items.
4.
Exit Interview A meeting was held by '.
N. Epps and J. D. Martin with G. P. Beatty
,
30, 1977.
Items discussed included a summary of areas on June inspected and the noncompliance item in Details I, paragraph 5.
,
A meeting was also held by T. N. Epps with G. P. Beatty on June 17, 1977, to discuss part of the inspection findings concerning surveillance.
-
..
---
-,
.
.
.
,,
..
<
.
,
.
RII Rpt. No. 50-302/77-11 I-2
.
5.
Limiting Conditions for Operation and Surveillance
'
This inspection included review of the licensee's planned surveil-lance program including review of many specific surveillance and
.
LCO requirements in Section 3/4 of the Crystal River-3 Standard Technical Specification (STS). Following is a list of items
reviewed with pertinent comments.
i (a)
SP-317 (RCS water inventory) was reviewed for June 15, 1977.
RCS leakage was determined to be approximately 0.5 gym.
l f
(b) SP-312 (Heat Balacce) conducted on June 16, 1977,' was reviewed i
with no significant comment.
i
(c) The inspector reviewed Iodine-131 activity data, in the reactor coolant, for the period June 5-14, 1977.
I-131 activity has increased to approximately 0.1 microcuries per gram, indicating a small amount of leaking fuel, but is well below the STS 3.4.8
,
limit.
(d) The inspector reviewed problems that existed with the emergency
'
start capability of the steam driven emeraency feedwater pump (EFP-2).
.
Sometime when this pump was started in the cold condition an overspeed trip would occur. The licensee determined that condensate was accumulating in the steam supply lines to the l
EFP-2 turbine. During cold start the condensate caused the governor valve to remain open long enough to overspeed the turbine and cause it to trip. While a solution was being formulated to this problem the licensee stationed an operator at the pump to reset thS trip valve if the pump was required to function and tripped.
I The licensee installed manual blowdown valves in the steam supply lines to the EFP-2 turbine and implemented a program to drain the steam supply lines at two hour intervals. The inspector observed modifications to steam line drain systems and startup testing of this pump on several occasions during this inspection.
On June 30, 1977, the EFP-2 pump startup surveillance test (SP-349B) was successfully conducted.
The licensee plans to maintain a periodic steam supply line drain program until further modifications can be formulated and installed.
,
,
. -
.
.
__
_
, _.
_
.
..
_. _ _ _ __, _.
.. _,
.-,...,___.,y
__
_.
_.
..
.
.
.
_
_
._
___
.
,
.
'
-
.
,
,
.
RII Byt. No. 50-302/77-11 ~
I-3
Borated Water Storage Tank (BWST) and Core Flood Tank (CFI)
~
'
(e)
'
level and boran concentrations were verified to meet T.S. 3.5.4 and 3.5.1 requirements on June 15 and June 6, 1977, respectively.
(f) SP-422 (RCS heatup), SP-355 (ES Monthly Functional Tests), and SP-112 (Calibration of RPS) were reviewed and the inspector
,
I had no significant comments.
(3)
SP-181 (containment air lock test) was reviewed to determine that T.S. 4.6.1.3 b&c were met.
Tuis surveillance procedure is required to be conducted on a 6 month interval plus or minus 25 percent which allows a maximum interval of 228 days.
The inspector observed that the first test was conducted on October 18, 1976, and the next one was conducted on June 3, 1977, which is 228 days (the maximum allowable interval)
i between surveillance tests.
!
)
The licensee committed to review his program for scheduling surveillance to assure that surveillance intervals are met.
-l i
See Details II on this subject.
'
t (h)
SP-354 (Diesel Generate fuel sample) was reviewed for eight surveillance intervals from February 11 through May 1, 1977, and it was verified that T.S. 4.8.1.1.2.b was being met.
(i) While in the control room at 0900 hours0.0104 days <br />0.25 hours <br />0.00149 weeks <br />3.4245e-4 months <br /> on June 30, 1977, the inspector observed that the control rod 3 group 6 absolute positioe indicator was at 37.5 percent withdrawn while the
other rods in that group were at approximately 90 percent withdrawn. The reactor was at 60 percent power as indicated by power range nuclear instrumentation.
j
!
A log book review of events that lead up to the condition stated above showed that an assynetric rod fault condition was i
l present at 2053 hours0.0238 days <br />0.57 hours <br />0.00339 weeks <br />7.811665e-4 months <br /> the previous day and reactor power was not reduced to below 60 percent until approximately 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> i
later. This was contrary to technical specification 3.1.3.3.a.1 which required that reactor power (thermal) be reduced to 60 The percent or below within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> for tha above case.
inspector stated in the exit interview that this was an item
'
,
of noncompliance.
I
!
(j) The inspector reviewed three items in the CR-3 operating license to verify licensee actions.
Licensee documentation I
was reviewed showing that modifications to BWST level indica-l s
l
\\
f
_ __,, _
-.. _ -
-
.
-.
.
.
..
.
.
.
_
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
_,
.
..
.~
v RII Rp t. No. 50-302/77-11 I-4
,
'
tions were complete, installation and testing of flow indicators in the ECCS system to provide indication of 40 gym flow for I
boron dilution were complete, and installation of a duel setpoint pilot-operated relief valve on the pressurizer was cecmlete.
The inspector reviewed a letter from the nuclear steam system (k)
vendor (B&W) to FPC, dated June 9, 1977, involving the NaOH dilution event reported in LER 302/77-17. The letter summarized i
analysis that indicated that the possibility existed for the
'
shutdown reactor to return to critical if dilution occurred and continued for approximately 18 alnutes or less depending upon initial conditions. The inspector stated that this is a potential unreviewed safety question and that the subject including a licensee report would receive further review by the NRC.
(1) The inspector also observed a fire drill during this it.c.paction on June 14, 1977. Licensee response time for gett'.ag a source of water to the test area was approximately 5 minutes.
.
.
O
.
.
.
~
s
.
..
O RII Rp t. No. 50-302/77-11 II-1
_
/
///! b 7!/f!//
DETAILS II Prepared by J.f. Martin,ReactorInspector
/ap Nutlear Support Section Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspectio June 27-30,1977
[h bl.~
7 'A 77 Reviewed by: R. D. Martin, Chief
/Date Nuclear Support Section Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branen 1.
Persons Contacted Florida Power Corporation (FPC)
G. P. Beatty, Jr., raclear Plant Superintendent P. F. !!cKee, Assistet Nuclear Plant Superintendent W. D. Pedrich, IV, Compliance Engineer J. C. Hobbs, Jr., Manager, Generation Testing D. Breedlove, Office Manager G. Claar, Compliance Auditor J. Cooper, Compliance Auditor C. Goering, Compliance Auditor Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W)
J. Putman, Startup Test Engineer 2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Unresolved Items (open) 77-3/1, (77-2/1) Offsite Organization Followup inspection on previously identified unresolved item 77-3/1, (77-2/1) revealed that the amendment to the Technical Specification Until such time (TS) to Change Figure 6.2-1 has not been approved.
that the amendment is approved this item will remain open.
3.
Unresolved Items _
No new unresolved 1 ass.
.
-.
. _ - _ _ _ _
-.____
'
s
"
f
.
.
RII Rpt. No. 50-302/77-11 II-2
.
4.
Management Exit Interview A managensat interview was held on June 30, 1977. Refer to Details I, paragraph 4, for matters discussed and personnel attending at the exit meeting.
5.
Power Ascension Testina Data Review
'
,
Final test results as documented in TP-71-800-0 (Rev. 2) " Power Escalation" were reviewed to assure that the licensee had performed an adequate evaluation of the test results and that all required testing has been completed. The review also verified that all testing anomalies have been evaluated and resolved by the licensee.
A review of the outstanding test deficiencies revealed that those items requiring further design study are in fact identified.
Within the areas inspected no further discrepancies were lef t identified.
6.
Review of Surveillance and Limiting Condition for Operations The inspector reviewed reactor operations to assure that surveil-lance of components and equipment associated with safety-related sytems is being conducted as required by Section 3/4 of Crystal River-3 Technical Specification (TS) and in accordance with approved procedures. The review also verified that reactor operations were in conformance with Technical Specification requirements for limiting conditions for operation (LCO). The following TS Sections, Pre-operational Test Procedures and Surveillance Procedures (SP)
were reviewed:
a)
LCO 3.1.2.1 Boration Systems SP-320 and SP-347
'
b)
LCO 3.1.3.4 Rod Drop Time Preoperational Test IP-71-710-3
!
c)
LCO 3.7.4.1 Nuclear Services Sea Water System Preoperational Test TP-71-600-25 d)
LCO 3.3.3.5 Remote Shutdown Instruments SP-161, 162, 330 and 333 i
e)
LCO 3.3.1.1.1 Reactor Protection System SP-110, 112 and 113
9
-,,.. -,,..
-
-
...,.
,..
,_.,n,-
.,.,. --.,
..n.
-,...
,-
._ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _.
s
.
.
,
'
'
.
,
RII Rpt. No. 50-302/77-11 II-3
.
f)
LCO 3.4.9.1 RCS Preau / Temp. Limits SP-422 g)
LCO 3.3.1.1.1 AC Sources SP-321 No specific discrepancies were found in meeting the surveillance intervals or limiting conditions for operation. It was noted, however, that in some cases the surveillance frequency dates were based on data transmittal date rather than on the date the data was actually taken.
The licensee agreed that this practice could cause problems in meeting the surveillance intervals and agreed to review the program of scheduling surveillance tests.
i
.
.I a
_. -_--
. --.
-
-
,,.,
_ -, -
-
,-,---e.-