IR 05000302/1980013
| ML19344A845 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 04/08/1980 |
| From: | Kellogg P, Wagner A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344A824 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-80-13, NUDOCS 8008220338 | |
| Download: ML19344A845 (4) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:,. .. _ . _. _. . _.
- _.
- , b.
, ,, / 'o UNITED STATES ~,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
g a REGION 11 o, [ 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SulTE 3100 % - ATLANTA, GEORGIA 303o3
Report No. 50-302/80-13 'I Licensee: Florida Power Corporation 3201 34th Street, South , St. Petersburg, FL 33733 . ' Facility: Crystal River Unit 3 Docket No. 50-302 License No. DPR-72 b (/ !/d Inspector: <f ~ a A. C Wagner V Date Signed M V[.[[[d Approved by: u u P.'J. Kellogg, Acting Section Chief, RONS Branch Date Signed SUMMARY a t Inspection on March 21-28, 1980 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 44 inspector hours on site in the areas of fuel receipt and inspection and outage maintenance.
' Results Of the two areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified . in one area; one item of noncompliance was found in one area (Deficiency, processing an improper procedure change-paragraph 6d).
. ' . } , ., /
1 sd ,- & g p,=.='e e s 8008220 3 N . <
. -.. _ . -
. ' ? . '
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees D. C. Poole, Plant Manager ' J. Cooper, QA/QC Compliance Marager J. R. Wright, Radiation Protection Engineer G. D. Perkins, Health Physics Supervisor
- K. F. Lancaster, Compliance Supervisor
- J. L. Bufe, Ccmpliance Auditor E. K. Neuschaefer, Compliance Auditor J. P. Gibson, Shift Supervisor H. M. Embach, Shift Supervisor M. E. Collins, Reactor Engineer
- J. R. Kraiker, Acting Operations Superviscr E. R. Sessons, Senior Reactor Operator S. W. Johnson III, Maintenance Staff Engineer
- G. R. Westafer, Maintenance Superintendent
- G. M. Williams, NQA/AC Supervisor Other Organizations Babcock and Wilcox N. M. Seeling, Maintenance Support Engineer
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 28, 1980, with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above. The licensee had :: comments regarding the inspection findings.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
, ? 4:*' Unreshlved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more informa, tion is required to m ~. determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deviations. New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraph 6c.
. m -
. g - " .
, -.. . f-f i " -2-s I 5.
Fuel Receipt and Inspection The inspector observed the following areas of fuel receipt and inspection for compliance with Refueling Procedures FP-302, FP-203 and Radiation Protection Manual RP-101.
Unloading of fuel shipping containers - no comments.
a.
b.
Fuel containers handling - no comments.
. c.
Unloading new fuel assembly - no comments.
d.
In-faction of new fuel assembly - no comments.
I Dry Storage of new fuel assembly - no comments.
e.
f.
Radiation Protection Requirements - During the positioning of the truck carrying the fuel element in tne radiation controlled area (RCA), the inspector noted that the truck driver did not have on his ' person a thermoluminescent device (TLD) for the measurement of his radiation dose as required by RP-101 paragraph 4.4.b.
The driver was wearing a self-reading pocket dosimeter at the time. Health physics personnel removed the driver from the area and issued him a TLD.
During their discussion with the driver it was discovered that he had on five previous occasions of new fuel delivery entered this RCA without a TLD. The driver's maximum time in the area was ten minutes during each of the six deliveries. A radiation survey indicated a l maximum radiation field of 12 millirem per hour in the area entered by the driver. His maximum dose was then calculated as 12 millirem.
It should be noted that the radiation procedure requirement for wearing a TLD in this case is more restrictive than 10 CFR part 20.
Although , this occurrance does not violate 10 CFR part 20 requirements, it does
indicate a serious weakness in the control of RCA's which have direct access from areas outside of plant buildings.
6.
Outage Maintenance The inspector reviewed the following procedures for compliance with Adminis-trative Instructions (AI) AI-300, AI-400, AI-600, Technical Specification .(TS)'6.8 and Babcock and Wilcox Field Quality Assurance Manual section q , 'QPP-100.
4J' ,- w Field Construction Procedure CRR-3-1, Installation.and Removal of OTSG a.
lighting. - No comments.
' ' *"7 ' b.
Field Construction Procedure CRR-3-2, Installation,and removal of Overhead Camera Assembly. - No comments.
' J . , i.
.
~ -_ _ __ -_ _ _.m. _ _ m .a . . _.
-- - - - - - - - > - .. ., - 9 g-3- [ Field Construction Procedure CRR-3-14, Leak Detection by Helium Bubble c.
Test With Flooded Tubesheet.
> Unresolved Item (80/13-01): This procedure appears to be more than'a work instruction authorized to be prepared in accordance with Babcock and Wilcox Field Quality Assurance Manual.
This procedure requires the operation of plant equipment but does not reference plant operating . procedures.
This item is unresolved pending review and verification by the licensee that the vendor quality assurance program is properly' qualified and authorized to prepare this type of testing procedure, d.
Temporary change procedure number OP414, Revision 5, Helium Pressurizing of OTSG "B".
The insp ector noted one minor technical problem in that valve HSU-135 was not labeled on the diagram in Enclosure 1.
The inspector pointed out that the form used for processing this tem-porary change was outdated and the responsible supervisor / superintendent review signature was not obtained prior to submittal to the plant review committee.
The inspector noted that this procedure details the operations for installing and pressurizing the "B" OTSG with helium and the parent document is for uie and operation of the Nitrogen and Hydrogen systems.
The parent procedure does not contain specific Precautions for the use j l of Helium, if any. This temporary change violates Technical Specifica-tion 6.8.3 which allows a temporary change to a procedure if the l intent of the original procedure is not altered. This is an item of ' noncompliance, deficiency (302/80-13-02).
! 7.
Plant Tours , The inspector toured portions of the Auxiliary building and the control l building.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
\\ ..,. - : %,,._. e a
. . p. J }}