IR 05000302/1979028
| ML19209A088 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1979 |
| From: | Economos N, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19209A084 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-79-28, NUDOCS 7910020217 | |
| Download: ML19209A088 (5) | |
Text
(
ska atc
- p oq'o UNITED STATES l'
,,, 7f(' ')
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 11 g.
- '.
r
.
o,
,
f 101 MARIETT A sT., N.W., SUIT E 3100 t
AT LANT A, GEORGIA 30303
%
o
- ....
Report No. 50-302/79-28 Licensee: Florida Power Corporation 3201 34th Street, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Facility Name: Crystal River, Unit No. 3 License No. DPR-72 Docket No. 50-302 Inspection at C 'stal er Site near Crystal River, Florida Inspector':
[,_8 7f wa N. Ec n 9f patgSigned f
Approved by:(X
_ Date Signed A. R. Herdt, Section Chief, RCES Branch SUMMARY Inspection on July 10-12, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine unannounced inspection ir lved 20 inspector-hours on site in the areas of Inservice Ir.spection (ISI) -
ogram review, procedure review and data evaluation; previously identified inspe ion findings; hangers - welding.
Results No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,n
.
'7DIO020
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licenstre Employees
- G. Beatty, Jr., Plant Manager
- J. Cooper, Jr., Compliance Engineer S. Johnson, II, Inservice Inspection Engineer L. Bayer, Quality Stores G. L. Claar, Planning Coordinator R. W. Kennedy, Plant Engineer J. Smith, Nuclear Compliance Auditor, Welding D. Breedlove, Document Control Other licensee employees contacted included 3 construction craftsmen.
- Attended exit interview.
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on July 12, 1979, with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Infraction 302/79-06-01, Welding Rod Control Procedure Review.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's response of April 3, 1979, and the revised Weld Rod Control Procedure CP-103 Revision 1.
An inspection of the rod issue station, central stores and interviews with craft and supervisory personnel disclosed that corrective measures had been taken and were being implemented. This action snould preclude the recurrence of this problem.
(Closed) Infraction 302/79-06-02, Calibration of Temperature Indicators.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's response of April 3,1979. Temperature indicators in the rod issue station were inspected and records of temperature checks were reviewed for compliance with existing procedures. The licensee's corrective action taken on this matter along with existing programmatic requirements should preclude the recurrence of this problem.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Independent Inspection Effort i136 032 a.
Socket Weld Leak in Makeup Discharge Drain Line on July 11, 1979, the licensee stated that a one-inch socket weld in the discharge drain line MUP-1B of the makeup system inside the auxiliary
- -
a mJ m
p v
.
t-2-
,
building had developed a pin hole leak. The weld was identified as FW-2, Drawing No. CR3P-36444fU-1, Revision 5, and had been fabricated in accordance with B31.7 Class 2.
The repair was performed on Work Request No. 08510. Records / documents reviewed included MAR Deviaticu 79-7-70, Discrepancy Report No. 8606, rod issue slips, weld data sheet, welder performance qualifications, NDE Reports and replacement material certifications.
b.
Hanger Plate Modification Hanger inspection as per IE Bulletin 79-02 and modification was in progress at the time of this inspection. Discussions with cognizant licensee personnel disclosed that emergency feedwater hanger EFH-134 had failed inspection on 6-19-79, in that three of six anchor bolts could not be tightened.
The hanger was subsequently redesigned to allow for ten (10) anchor bolts 3/4" x 7" instead of the previous six (6) 3/4" x 5" wej-its.
The inspector reviewed the revised hanger Sketch 320135 and inspected the welding of the base plate.
Within the areas inspected no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Inservice Inspection, Procedure Review Code requirenents applicable to inservice inspection (ISI) activities on Class 1, 2 and 3 components are contained in Section 4.0.5 of the Crystal River Unit 3 technical specification (TS). This specifiesSection XI of the ASME Code and applicable addenda, as required by 10 CFR 50 Section 50.55a(g), as the govetaiag code for ISI activities. In this case Section XI 1974 Edition through the Summer 1975 addenda is applicable.
Nondestructive examination (NDE) procedures used,by Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) the ISI contractors, to, erform Code required ISI examinations on designated components were written to comply with requirements of the above mentioned Code.
Two NDE Procedures, ISI-300, Revision 8,
" Radiographic Examination of Welds and Base Materials" and ISI-270, Revision 4, " Wet or Dry Magnetic Particle Examination of Welds" were reviewed for technical content and Code compliance. Within this area no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Inservice Inspection, Program Review The licensee's program was reviewed in order to ascertain whether admini::tra-tive controls had been established to generate, control and store inservice inspection records. Documentation of NDE examinations and supporting data, e.g., calibrations, drawings, personnel qualifications, etc., is controlled by procedures contained in the contractor's (B&W) QA Manual. The ISI results, in report form, are submitted to the licensee who is responsible for storing, protecting and preserving this information.
-1136 03.,3 r* ***1
.
-3-rf
,
Administrative controls established by the lice /see to control these activities include the following:
" Plant Operating Quality Assurance Manual," AI-400R/28 a.
b.
" Control of Quality Construction Testing and Piant Operating Records,"
DC-104R/3 ANSI Standards N18.7 act N45.2.9 are applicable by reference.
Within the areas inspected no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Inservice Inspection, Data Review and Evaluation This ISI inspection was scheduled to coincide with the second fuel outage of Cryr+s1 River 3.
The applicable Code for this activity was discussed in paragraph 6 above.
Records of completed nondestructive examinations were selected and reviewed to ascertain whether: the method (s), technique and extent of the examination complied with the ISI plan and applicable NDE procedures; findings were properly recorded and evaluated by qualified personnel; programmatic devia-tions were recorded as required; personnel, instruments, calibration blocks and hTE materials (penetrants, couplants) were designated and qualifications /
certifications were on file.
Records selected for this review were as follows:
Figure Component /
Pressurizer Weld Comments B2.1.2 Long Seam E 1 to 1 UT-0, 45*, 60 Seam Interv. 9 thru 10 B2.1.3 Circle Seam E 1 to 2 UT-0, 45, 60*
Seam Interv. 12-14 B2.1.11 Shell to Lower Head UT-0, 45*, 60 E 4/40 to 6 Seam Interv. I thru 3 B2.2.1 Relief Nozzle UT-0*, 45*, 60 E 31 to 5 Rigid Supports B4.10.209 MVH-118 Visuel
.
034 B4.10.211 MVH-119 Visual
.
.
-4-
- ,
Pr. Retaining Supts and Studs Pressurizer B2.6.3 Htr. Bundle Studs UT-0*
75-207-59, 41 to B2.6.4 Htr. Bundle Studs iff 75-207-59, 41 to B2.7.2 Htr. Bundle Studs Visual 75-207-59, 41 to Vesnel Supt. lugs Pressurizer B2.8.1 HK 126 to 3 UT-0, 45, 50
Pipe Welds B4.1.85 Pipe to Pipe SE UT-0*, 45*
MKA-61 to 55 B4.1.86 Pipe to Pipt SE PT MKA-61 to 55 B4.5.9 Ell to Pipe UT-0, 45 RCS, HL Loop B
,
B4.5.37 Long Laam UT-0, 45 RCS, CL, Loop B2 B4.5.38 Outer Ell UT-0, 45 RCS, CL, Loop B2 B4.5.60 Valve to Pipe UT-0, 45, 60 B4.5.61 Ell to Pipe UT-0, 45 Class 2 Components C2.1.2, MS-4 Pipe to Ell UT-0, 45 C2.1.5, MS-17A Pipe to Ell UT-0, 45 C2.1.7, MS-18 z e to Ell UT-0, 45 jj3f Indications identified on Figure C2.1.5 during the preservice (baseline)
inspection, discussed in RII:IE Reports 76-2, 76-11, were again evaluated and characterized by the contractor as root geometry and beam conversion.
No significant changes were noted between the baseline and present data.
W' thin the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identifieu.
.