IR 05000302/1979026
| ML19262A133 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1979 |
| From: | Messitt B, Moon B, Ruhlman W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19262A124 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-79-26, NUDOCS 7910260403 | |
| Download: ML19262A133 (9) | |
Text
'o,,
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
g REGION 11 b[
101 MARIETTA ST N.W., SUITE 3100 o,
%
o ATLANTA, GEORGIA 303o3 Report No. 50-302/79-26 Licensee: Flordia Power Corporation P. O. Box 14042, Hail Stop C-4 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Facility Name: Crystal River Unit 3 Docket No. 50-302 License No. DPR-72 Inspection at C stal Rive Site near Crystal River, Florida Lbv Inspectors:
v ff;
/
BC1C M sitt '
f Date Signed k Q^
') lb l
B. T. Moc'nb; /
9 !iL 7
'
Date Signed Approved by:
)
Wj 'A'. Ruhlman'( Se% ion Chief, RONS Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on August 13-17, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 92
,,ector-hours onsite in the areas of calibration of inplant technical specification required instrumentation; calibration of measuring and test equipment used on safety related systems; surveillance of inplant technical specification required systems (equipments),
followup of IEB 79-09; followup of LERs; followup of previous inspection findings; and station operations.
Results Of the seven areas inspected no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in five areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was found in one area (Infraction - Failure to follow procedure on safety related instrumenta-tion - Paragraph 9.b.); one apparent deviation was found in one area (Failure to meet May 1 commitment to correct noncompliance 79-03-02).
'
1717 l18 7010260
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- G. Eeatty, Nuclear Plant Manager G. Boldt, Performance Engineering Supervisor J. Cooper, Compliance Engineer
- J. Harrison, Assistant Chem / Rad Protection Engineer
- L. Hill, Compliance Auditor K. Lancaster, Compliance Auditor
- P. McKee, Technical Services Superintendent
- W. Nichols, Operations Superintendent
- W. Stewart, Manager, Nuclear Operations
- G. Westafer, Maintenance Superintendent
- G. Williams, Compliance Plant Engineer J. Wright, Chem / Rad Protection Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators, mechan-ics and office personnel.
Other Organizations R. Clark, State of Florida R. Kohler, State of Florida
- Attended exit interview.
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on August 17, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above. With respect to the item of noncompliance (302/79-26-04) discussed in Paragraph 9.b, the plant manager acknowledged the item and stated that he would undertake immediate action to correct it.
With respect to the item of deviation (302/79-26-01)
discussed in Paragraph 3.a., the plant manager acknowledgedthe item. With respect to the item discussed in Paragraph 6.c., the licensee committed to initiate a formal program to followup all REI's which are related to LER's and to evaluate all REI's on safety related systems for inclusion into the followup system. With respect to the item discussed in Paragraph 7.c., the licensee committed to remove all the interim personnel from the list of qualified QC inspectors, and to ensure that all QC inspection personnel meet the requirements of ANSI 45.2.6.
Subsequent to the inspection item 302/79-26-05, as discussed in Paragraph 10.b., was discussed further with the licensee and the licensee commited to review all surveillance procedures to identi those which need to be upgraded to the format of Administrative Insuaction (AI) 400 by 9/15/79 and to upgrade those applicable procedures by 11/1/79.
Exceptasotherwisenotedallcommitmentsaretobemetby9/15/79.
1H 7 119
.
.
-2-3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.
Noncompliance (0 pen) (302/79-03-02) Data sheets used for SP-713 not reviewed by PRC nor approved by Plant Manager from October 1977 to February 1979.
Licensee committed to correct by May 1, 1979 in response to inspection report 79-03.
This committment has not been met. This is a deviation.
(302/79-26-01).
b.
Unresolved (Closed) (302/79-78-26-03) Procedural Deficiency SP-110 did not pro-vide an acceptable range of acceptance criteria. The inspector reviewed Revision 13 (11/16/78) of SP-110 and verified that bounds are provided for acceptance criteria.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
IEB 79-09 Response The inspectors reviewed the licensee actions with respect to the licensee response to IE Bulletin 79-09. The inspectors also reviewed Preventative Maintenance Procedure PM-118 referenced in the response. The inspectors had no further questions, this item is considered closed.
6.
LER Followup The inspector reviewed the following LER's for consistency with Technical Specifications Section 6.9, Licensee Analysis of Event and Licensee Corree-tive Actions; with results as follows:
a).
LER 302/79-46, Closed b).
LER 302/79-52, Licensee will submit a supplemental report further defining cause and corrective action. This supplemental report will be evaluated when received.
c).
LER 302/79-56 and 57, these LER's reference a Request for Engineering Information (REI) as a portion of the corrective action. The licensee has no program for close followup of REI's at present. The licensee has committed to initiate a formal program to followup all REI's related to LER corrective action, further the licensee has committed to review all REI's on safety related systems for inclusion in the followup program. This review is to be completed by 9/15/79 (302/79-26-02).
1" 7 120
_
._
.
-3-
.
7.
Inspector Followup Items The inspectors reviewed certain followup items as discussed below:
a).
Is FPC Subcontractor Catalytic's Quality Assurance / Quality Control Program approved and consistant with FPC program?
The inspectors verified by the minutes of the February 14, 1978 plant staff meeting and an internal memorandum from the Corporate Quality Programs Section dated February 6, 1978 that FPC "... reviewed the subject plan with respect to the FPC Quality Program requirements and find it acceptable in its present form".
b). Determine the Adequacy of the Vendor Instruction Manual Control System.
The inspectors reviewed Document Control (DC) Procedure DC 102 to verify that it defined a program to insure vendor manuals were updated.
The inspectors then reviewed the following vendor manual change transmittals to insure the program was implemented.
Transmittal Manual Date Issued To CDT 79-133 NASH #85-Parts List 8-9-79 Maintenance Lab CDT 79-137 Instruction Manual 8-15-79 Maintenance Lab CDT 79-137 Shepard Niles #339 6-15-79 Maintenance Lab CDT 79-25 Shepard Niles #339 8-1-79 Maintenance Lab CDT 79-25 Diamond Power #135 8-1-79 Operations and Maintenance Lab CDT 79-25 Diamond Power #34 8-1-79 Maintenance Lab CDT 79-101 Diamond Power #34 6-22-79 Maintenance Lab CDT 79-101 Pall Trinity #420 6-2?-79 Maintenance Lab CDT 79-101 Electric Machinery #422 6-22-79 Maintenance Lab CDT 79-101 Worthington #423 6-22-79 Maintenance Lab CDT 79-101 Eberline #424 6-22-79 Maintenance Lab CDT 79-101 Fisher Controls #425 6-22-79 Maintenance Lab The inspectors also reviewed the following library copies of manuals:
Book #82-2, Renewal Parts Data for Westinghouse Equipment Book #374-2, Trane Air Conditioning No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
c). Are Assistant Shift Supervisors or others pe. forming as Quality Con-trol Inspectors, and if they are, do they meet the requirements of ANSI 45.2.6?
Certain assistant shift supervisors and others were trained on 4/26 and 4/28/78 to act in an interim capacity as Level I QC inspectors, not to include NDE. The inspectors found no evidence that these personnel were used beyond this gualification.
1?17 121
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _... _ _
.
.
-4-These personnel are no longer being used in the QC capacity and will be removed from the list of qualified inspectors, also the licensee has committed to ensure that all persons used as QC inspectors are qualified to ANSI 45.2.6; to be implemented immediately (302/79-26-03).
8.
Station Operations The inspectors monitored station operations in the control room at various times during the inspection.
During the inspection there were four reactor trips experienced by the plant, three of which were caused by feedwater flow instabilities during power ascension. The inspectors were present during one trip.
Discussions were held with the li:ensee concerning these trips including a conference call with Region II and NRC:HQ.
On August 16, 1979, while the inspectors were present in the control room during preparations for reactor startup in three pump operation the inspectors witnessed the apparent item of noncompliance discussed in Paragraph 9b.
Also during this period the licensee notified the inspectors of a situation contrary to plant technical specifications, the plant was shut down and and corrective action was taken.
During the inspection but unrelated to the above the plant was visited by representatives of the State of Florida. The inspector was present at the meeting between State personnel and plant management.
No other items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Calibration a).
Review Conducted The inspectors conducted a review of the calibration procedures and results as follows:
SP-112, Calibration of Reactor Protection System SP-104, Hot Channel Factors Calculation SP-321, Power Distribution Verification SP-113, NI Calibratica PM-126, Electrical Checks of CRD Power Train The inspectors also reviewed the calibration records for measuring and test equipment:
TI 12, Weston 931 Multi-Meter (8-1-78)
TI-47, L&N RTD Bridge (8-9-78)
TI-70, GR Decade Resistor (8-2-78)
TT-181,F}ukeDVp(8-1-78)
} ) 1 7 j } }
'
-
.
.
-5-
,
TI-42.% W&T Pneumatic Calibrator (11-10-78)
TI-4so, Fluke Temperature Probe (11-28-78)
TI-202, Weston AC Ammeter (12-14-78)
CT-616A, Snap 0n Torque Wrench (1-3-78)
CT-896, Ashcroft Gage (12-19-78)
TI-163, Tektronix 454A Oscilloscope (11-10-78)
TG-28, Barton DP Gage (12-12-78)
TG-47, Ametek Vacuum Gage (12-12-78)
TI-24A, Tektronix Digital Voltmeter (DVM) (12-11-78)
TS-19, L&N 4361 Shunt (2-5-79)
TI-508, Mitotoyo Dial Indicator (2-7-79)
TI-485, ITT Jennings Digital HI Potential Tester Model 16420 (2-7-79)
TI-356, General Radio Decade Resistor 1433T (1-31-79)
TI-268, Biddle Major Megger (2-22-79)
TI-415, RT-3-100 Microhmeter, Digital (2-26-79)
TI-314A, DVM Fluke Mod 8020A (3-12-79)
TI-167, Keithley Model 261 Picoampere Source (3-12-79)
The inspectors also monitored, on 8/16/79, the performance of calibra-tion procedure on SP-113,"NI Calibration, Reset H: Flux Trip."
The calibrations above were reviewed to verify:
Reviews and approvals were being conducted, and data was recorded and evaluated.
Test instruments were listed and identified in test results.
Adherence to Technical Specifications required and limiting conditions for operations.
Technical contents were correct and verification of ret'en of equipment to service and removal of test equipment was being done.
The inspectors also conducted an inspection of the following areas:
Instrument and Controls Shop Instrument Standards Room Instrument Storage The facilities were inspected to verify:
That standard test instruments were labeled and included in the calibration program.
Instruments were being calibrated on schedule and labeled with calibratio status.
!?'7 123
.
.
-
-6-Storage facilities were proper for protecting the equipment.
Certification and calibration records were available and being maintained for test equipment.
The inspectors used one or more of the following acceptance criteria for evaluating the above items in the calibration program:
Technical Specifications Section 5 of AI-600, Control of Measuring and Test Equipment ANSI N18.7 (1976)
ANSI N4.i.2 (1971)
Industry Practice b). Failure to Follow Procedure Within the areas inspected, one apparent item of noncompliance was identified As required by Technical Specification 6.8.1.c, written procedures are implemented and maintained on surveillance and test activities of safety related equipment. The surveillance procedure, SP-113, "NI Calibration" requires sections 1, 2 and 7 to be completed in order to
".
. reset high flux trip" setpoints.
.
During the preparation for three pump operation on 8/16/79, the technician who performed the calibration did not have the procedure on hand when the inspectors approached to monitor, and when asked procured a copy of the procedure from a file cabinet. The procedure was teratinated and transmitted to station records without completing the data sheets for sections 1 and 7 ef the procedure.
This is designated as an item of noncompliance (302/79-26-04).
No other items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
10.
Surveillance Test Procedure and Results Verification a.
Review Conducted The inspectors conducted a review of the following surveillance proce-dures and results:
SP-110, Reactor Protection System Functional Test SP-322, Feedwater Isolation Functional Test SP-340, ECCS Pump Operability
!?17 124
-
.
L-7-SP-187, Auxiliary Building Ventilation Exhaust Systems SP-415, Offsite Power Source Transfer SP-135, Engineering Safegards Actuation System Response Time Test SP-416, Emergency Feedwater Automatic Actuation SP-502, Fire Pump Diesel Battery Check SP-430, Containment Entry (Enclosure 2)
SP-333, CRD Exercises The inspectors also monitored the performance of portions of the following surevillance tests conducted on 8/15/79:
SP-320, Boron Injection Systems SP-340, ECCS Pump Operability Test The test procedures and test results were reviewed to verify:
That test prerequisites and plant conditions were specified and reviewed, and approvals had been performed; That contents of the procedures were correct and the tests were performed on scheduled; That test instruments were listed in the procedures and instru-ments used were identified in the results; That test results were recorded and compared with acceptance criteria and the return of the system / equipment to service and removal of test equipment was verified upon completion of the test.
The inspectors used one or more of the following acceptance criteria for the above items:
ANSI N18.7 (1976)
ANSI N18.1 (1972)
P0QAM Administrative Instructions (AI-400)
Technical Specifications ANSI N45.2 (1971)
b). Procedure Not Formated Correctly During procedure review the inspector L und that SP-416 " Emergency Feedwater Automatic Actuation Test" was not formatted like similar procedures. The licensee's controlling document for this area is Administrative Instruction (AI) 400 " Plant Operating Quality Assurance
@nnalCoppro}Docuppat".
l
![
l25
.
r-8-
,
This was discussed with the licensee and with the inspector's super-visors and subsequent to the inspects a the licensee committed to review all surveillance procedures to.'dentify those which need to be upgraded to the format of AI 400 by 9/15/79 and to complete this required upgrading by 11/1/79.
This is designated for inspector follow up (302/79-26-05).
c).
Procedure Housekeeping The inspectors also found that the test instrument pii designations contained in step 6.3.78 of Procedure SP-135 " Engineered Safeguards Actuation System Response Time Test" does not agree with the measured pin designation in step 6.3.77 of the procedure. The licensee took immediate corrective action by intiating procedure revision in the presence of inspectors. This item is therefore closed.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this area.
l?17 126