IR 05000302/1979019
| ML19207B286 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1979 |
| From: | Burnett P, Graham M, Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19207B282 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-79-19, NUDOCS 7908240297 | |
| Download: ML19207B286 (5) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES
/
'
8 ' 3,, ( ('
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION 11 g70/ !
101 MARIETT A GT., N.W., SUITE 3100 r
-*o,g'\\/
ATLANT A, GEORGI A 30303
.....
.
Report No. 50-302/79-19 Licensee: Florida Power Corporstion 3201 34th Street, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Facility Name: Crystal River Unit 3 Docket No. 50-302 License No. DPR-72 Inspection at Crystal River Site near Crystal River, Florida M
/%
~7/3/79 Inspectors:
e
-,
Dat# Signed P. T.M urnett hGud kmet h w. _
'1/3/7y Date Signed H. J. Grahay {
/ ~
Approved by:
. det 7 /5/79
-
Ddte 6igned R.D.MartigSectionChie,RONSfranch
/
SUMMARY Inspection on May 28 - June 1, 1979 Areas Inspected The This routine, unannounced inspection involved 47 inspector-hours onsite.
areas inspected included refueling activities, maintenance and modification of fuel handling equipment and followup of open items from earlier inspections.
Results No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the areas inspected.
D.2045 7908240 2
[
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
,
G. P. Beatty, Nuclear Plant Manager
- P. F. McKee, Nuclear Technical Services Superintendent
- G. L. Boldt, Nuclear Performance Engineering Supervisor
- J. Cooper, Nuclear Compliance Engineer
- G. M. Williams, Nuclear Compliance Plant Engineer
- W. Stephenson, Plant Engineer
- W. E. Kemper, Nuclear Technical Specifications Coordinator F. Pleubel, Electrical Supervisor S. Schroeder, Maintenance Engineer J. Parrish, Maintenance Engineer W. A. Cross, Reactor Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included four technicians, five operators, and three office personnel.
Other Organizations Babcock and Wilcox M. R. Stephens
- Attended exit interview.
2.
Exit Interview A meeting was held on June 1, 1979 with Mr.
P. F. McKee, Nuclear Technical Services Superinteudent, and those others indicated by asterisk in paragraph 1.
The scope and findings of the inspection were presented by the inspectors.
Two commitments were made by the licensee.
The first was to write and implement a surveillance procedure for the newly modified fuel transfer system prior to the next use of the system. The second was to combine the many maintenance work orders performed on the reactor building polar crane so that a completed copy of procedure PM109 can be created or any items missed identified.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspectior Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
781046
....
.
-
-2-
'
5.
Refueling Activities The inspectors observed fuel handling activities in the containment building in the spent fuel pool and as directed from the control room. Through these observations, all equipment necessary to refueling operations were observed through at least one complete operation or cycle.
No equipment dif ficulities were observed.
Core monitoring during refueling was maintained with the required instru-ments. Review of procedure SP 220, " Instrument Functional Test During Refueling" indicated that the source range instruments were calibrated and available before fueling handling started and throughout the period the fuel was being moved. On first entering mode 6, but prior to starting fuel movements, the licensee determined that the one source range channel was not properly calibrated and has since determined that to be a reportable event.
In the inspector's review of SP 220 it was noted that in one of the performances of the procedure that the acceptance criterion for counts observed on one scaler range had not been met.
However the technician performing the test indicated that the results were satisfactory, and the next level supervisor approved the test. This was brought to the attention of licensee management. However, since that range of the scaler was not used during the refueling activity, use of the scaler did not compromise the requirement to monitor. The inspectors observed that the reactor building equipment hatch was properly secured during the tefueling and that the double personnel entry doors into the containment were interlocked. A related procedure, SP 181, " Containment Airlock Test" was reviewed, and found acceptable.
Within containment, core internals, vessel utuds and similar itens were found to be properly and carefuly stored. Housekeeping on the refueling bridges, in the containment and spent-fuel pools and in the areas sur-rounding the pools was found acceptable.
Several checks were made of the refreling crew staffing and in all cases there was a senior operator with no responsibilities except direct supervi-sion of fuel handling.
Vessel water level was observed to be acceptable for a refueling outage and boron concentration records indicated acceptable concentration.
Also in conjunction with the observation of fueling handing activities, the inspectors reviewed the following procedures:
FP 601, " Fuel Handling Equipment Operations (Revision 7),"
a.
b.
FP 203, "Defuelng and Refueling,"
c.
SP 185, " Reactor Building Vent Exhaust Testing," and d.
SP 187, " Auxiliary Building Vent Exaust System Testing" The inspectors had no comments on these procedures.
781047
,
I-3-6.
Fuel Handling Equipment Immediately prior to handling fuel the licensee completed modifications of the fuel transfer system. These modifications were controlled, in part, by the folloving documents: MAR-79-3-18 and MAR-79-3-18A and -B. These modifi-cation packages and testing subsequent to the modifications were reviewed and"found acceptable. The inspectors challenged the identification of the fuel transfer system as a non-safety-related system and, hence, one that did not require surveillance procedures for use subsequent to the modifi-cations acceptance testing.
Since the equipment that delivers fuel to and receives fuel from the transfer system is controlled and tested by curveil-lance procedures this ommission appeared incongruous.
Licensee management made a commitment during the exit interview to provide a surveillance procedure for use on the transfer system prior to the next fuel handling outage. The licensee reported that the fuel transfer system was in its final configuration and acceptable to them. However there are some components that will be replaced with higher grade or more reliable equivalents when they become available. Those changes will not affect the described operation of this system.
The faspectors also reviewed the following fuel-handling equipment surveillance procedures performed on the dates indicated and found them acceptable:
a.
SP-530, " Auxiliary Building Overhead Crane Interlock Demonstration" (5-24-79, 5-17-79),
b.
SP-531, " Spent Fuel Bridge Innerlock Surveillance" (5-22-79, 5-29-79)
c.
SP-671, " Spent Fuel Bridge Load Surveillance" (5-24-79, 5-17-79),
d.
SP-672, "New Fuel Elevator Load Test" (5-16-79) and e.
SP-670, " Reactor Building Fuel Handling Bridge Load Test" (5-26-79)
(This test applies to both fuel handling bridges)
The inspectors did note that SP-531 was comp!eted only for the A spent-fuel pool since the B pool did not have water at the time the surveillance was conducted. This was clearly indicated on the procedure.
The inspector did not identify the mechanism that would assure the bridge was properly checked out for the B pool before use once that pool was refilled.
The licensee management pointed out that performance of SP 531 was scheduled to be repeated after filling the B pool. This was found acceptable for this instance.
7.
Reactor Building Polur Crane The licensee has a preventative maintenance procedure, PM-109, which gen-erally conforms tc the safety standard for electric overhead traveling cranes ANSI B 30.2.
The licensee had scheduled performance of the neces-sary inspection and checkout of the crane through a series of work requests.
781048
.
.
-4-
'
These work requests had not been compiled in such a manner that it could 'oe assured that all items of the procedure had been completed satisfactorily.
The licensee agreed to assemble the work requests and from them construct a completed procedure for review by the inspector.
8.
Items From Previous Inspections Item 4 The inspector reviewed two items left open after inspection 79-12.
was an erroneous form NRC 741. The correcting form sent to DOE was reviewed, and this item is closed.
Item-03 addressed portions of FP 302 which were not availabic for the new fuel shipment of November 3, 1978. The licensee indicated that these procedure section either were not complete or were lost and that the problem will be addressed by corrections described in their response to item of noncompliance (302/79-12-01). This item will be reviewed when those corrections are completed.
On that basis item 302/79-12-03 is closed.
78.1.049
.