IR 05000302/1988025

Insp Rept 50-302/88-25 on 880822-26.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Mods & Design Control

ML20154R239
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	09/20/1988
From:	Belisle G, Jury K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20154R236	List: IR 05000302/1988025 ML20154R234
References
50-302-88-25, NUDOCS 8810040208
Download: ML20154R239 (5)

Text

__ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - .

. ps*A *'%,

3* *

-*k UNITED STATES

• l, .j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS810N o REGION 11

'g j[ 101 MARIETTA ST , ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30323 e,,,,

h Report No.: 50-302/88-25 Licensee: Florida Power Corporation 3201 34th Street. South

St. Petersburg, FL 33733 Docket No.: 50-302 License No.: DPR-72 Facility Name: Crystal River 3

inspection Condu ted: August 22 - 26, 1988 Inspector: ' 9L 2. Jww e/2olas Dats Signed K. Jury C

.

Accompanying Personnel: E. Lea f Approved by: 4f/ M Lf. GLk G. Belisle, Chief (

t[to/08 Date Signed

,

Quality Programs Section Operations Branch Division of Resctor Safety SUMMARY Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of modifications and design contro Results: In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identifie {DR ADOCK 03000302 PDC

]

- . _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

-

.

E

.

l l

l REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees l *J. Alberdi, Managar. Nuclear Technical Support

'

• F. Bailey, Superintendent, Projects

• G. Becker, Manager, Site Nuclear Engineering Services J. Colby, Manager, Nuclear Mechanical Structural Engineering Services

• R. Fuller, Senior Nuclear Licensing Engineer

• M. Jones, Nuclear Projects Specialist

• Rossfeld, Manager, Nuclear Compliance R. Wagner, Senior ISC Engineer

• R. Widell, Director, Nuclear Operations Site Support G. Williams, Supervisor (Acting), Nuclear Mechnical Structural Engineerino. Services i *M. Williams, eclear Regulatory Specialist l

Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included engineers, tecFnicians, and administrative personne I I

NRC Resident Inspector

• P. Holmes-Ray

• Attended exit interview Acronyns and initialisms used throughout this report are listed in the l last paragrap ) Design Control and Modifications (37700) l This inspection was conducted in the area of design control and i modifications. As part of this inspection, evaluations were perfomed concerning the adequacy of: 10 CFR 50.53 evaluations, training, and necessary procedure and drawing revisions. Both open and closed KARs were reviewed, as well as one temporary MAR. The following MARS were reviewed:

MAR Number Title 85-09-04-01 Replace SFV 18 and 19 T66-08-09 01 Removal of Supports 87-06-21-01 SWP-lC Mechanical Seal Replacement 87-07-03-01 Makeup Tank Level Instrumentatto HP!/LPI Tine Response Problem 87-00-03-01 Letdo n Coole* 3C Instellation L-- - __ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _

- _ _ _ _____________-___ ____ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

.

-

.

.

!

All of the above MAfts had been turned over to Operations in accordance with Modifications Projects Procedure 107 (MPP-107). Turnover of

'

Modfications (Complete 1/ Partial) to Nuclear Operations, Revision The i details of each MAR are discussed as follows:

i

,

MAR 85-09-04-01 This MAR was written to replace two Spent Fuel Cooling system valves, SFV-18 and SFV-19. These valves are containment isolation valves and

! Were replaced due to leakage through them, prohibiting passage of their respective LLRTs. This design package was thorough; design inputs were specified, the 10CFR 50.59 evaluation was adequate, post-modification testing was performed, and even though seismic

.

'

j calculations were not contained in the package, they were available and sufficiently detailed and accurate,

,

MAR T 86-08-09-n1

'

This temporary MAR was written to repair two spool pieces in the 9ea Water Decay Heat system that had pressure boundary failures due to 1 corrosion, This MAR provided a temporary fabricated enclosuae for the spool pieces and was written on an emergency basis due to the necessity of promptly stopping the leaks. During the review of this

.

l

MAR one discrepancy was identified involvi19 the 10 CFR 50.59 l evaluation; it was written before supportin; calculations were

! completed, Due to the urgency of the modification, the responsible

!

engineer utilized his judgement in detemining that an unreviewed

safety question did not exist, while the calculations were being

! performed in parallel. This is not considered to be a good practice; I however, che example appears to be isolated and the calculations did J support the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation. The inspector discussed the j situation with the responsible engineer, and his assumptions and 4 judgement appeared to be valid. This tes.vorary modification has

! subsequently been removed. No other discreponcies were identified

! with this temporary MA MAR 87 06-21-01 i

This MAR was initiated due to excGssive leakage that occurred from

) SWP 1C shaf t packin Excessive leakage resulted in increased J

liquid radioactive waste and increased demineralire water usag MAR 87-06-21-01 replaced the existing packing with Chesterton type l

,

221 mechanical seals. A review of the closed package and other j documents indicated that procedure compliance was adhered to in the j

implementation and close out of this design nodificatio Documentacion was available to show that training, and required

j procedure and drawing revisions were cerfome J

,

)

---

I

-- _ ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______

.

.

'

.

.

The engineering evaluation performed by A. W. Chesterton Co. to allow the Chesterton seals to be used as replacement for the conventional shaft packing was very detailed. All concerns addressed by the licensee in PAR 87-06-21-01 were evaluated by A. Chesterton Co. The 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation performed by the licensee was adequate. One discrepancy was identified with the MAR proces The leakage acceptance criteria for determining if the modification '

had resulted in the desired rosults were not clearly stated in the design package. The design input record stated that the rechanical  ;

shaft seal must limit leakage to less than 10 drops per minute. The test requirement provided in the Engineering Instruction states that leakage should not be greater than 10 drops per minute. Actual results l were stated an Work Request Number 90603 as approximately 120 drops 5 per minute leakage. Justification for not following the design input .

record requirement and allowing the leakage to be in excess of the  ;

10 drops per minute was based on the acceptance criteria and information r provided by A. W. Chesterton Co. The acceptance criteria established '

by Chesterton for leakage was less than 150 drops per minute. There is i aiso a "breakin period" until the faces of the seal lap themselves to  ;

each other; leakage reduces with elapsed time while the pump is in oneration. Based on the vendor acceptance criteria, the 120 drops per minute was acceptable and the low limit set by the licensee was conservativ MAR 87-07-03-01 ,

l

'

This PAR was initiated due to the release of dirborne contamination that occurred when venting the MUT gas space to atmospher ,

Modifying the dry reference legs of MU-14LT1 and LT2 to wet reference  !

legs eliminates to requirement of venting, therefore eliminating ,

airborne contaminatio The closed package was complete and detailed. The 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was adequate and applicable drawings and procedures were revised as necessary. No training was ,

required as a result of this PA j PAR 87-08-02-01

,

This MAR changed the LP!/HPI undervoltage time delay relay settings from 7 to 5 second This change was initiated to satisfy a ,

NUREG-0737 comitmen The inspector verified that all TS and FSAR requirements were still met, and that satisfactory post-modification ,

testing was performed. All necessary procedure revisions were [

accomplished in a satisfactory manne Due to the fact the modification increased conservatism of the HP!/LPI pump response times, system operability was not adversely affected and the modification did not prove to be an unreviewed safety questio l

,

k

]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _

.- ,'

.

..

<

MAR 87-08-03-01 1 This MAR was initiated to add a letdown cooler (3C) to the Nuclear Services Closed Cycle Cooling system. The ad6itional cooler was installed as a result of repeated letdown cooler failure at the licensee's facility and other plants. The addition of the third letdown cooler was intended to increase plant reliability by reducing ,

the risk of a forced shutdown in the event of existing letdown cooler failure. The engineering evaluation provided was very detailed. All affected drawings and procedures requiring evisions were identified .

in the modification packag In summary, the licensee's design change process appeared to be adequately ,

planned, executed, and documented. The discrepancies identified above  ;

were not significant in nature and it appeared they were not indicattve of I a programmatic breakdown. There are many (553) MARS that are still in the '

!

design, routing, field working, or "on hold" stage, which could become a '

concern it they are not worked in a timely manner, leading to a larger backlog. However, the number of open FPRs, which is the main mechanism  !

utilized in initiating MARS, has been consistently decreasing, which should  :

lead to a decrease in the number of MARS still requiring implementatio l This number of open MARS should be monitored to prevent encountering a cumbersome backlog which could hinder timely MAR implementatio l Exit Interview  ;

The inspection scope and results were summarized on August 25, 1988, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1. No proprietary information is ,

contained in this repor : Acronyms and Initialisms  ;

i CFR Code of Federal Regulations -

FPR Field Problem Report  :

'

HPI High Pressure injection LLRT Local Leak Rate Test l'

LPI Low Pressure injection LT Level Transmitter  !

MAR Modification Approval Record  :

MUT Makeup Tank l SFY Spent Fuel Cooling Valve i SWP Nuclear Service Closed Cycle Cooling Pump j l

l

,

l i