IR 05000302/1990003
| ML20012F005 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1990 |
| From: | Bradford W, Crlenjak R, Holmesray P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012F004 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-90-03, 50-302-90-3, NUDOCS 9004090282 | |
| Download: ML20012F005 (9) | |
Text
y---
-
-w
.
., ' y.
. :/
';
,
a, y '
l
,
'
kn Mog,q UNITED 8TATES l
,,
,
~g NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION
!
I REGION ll
[
d
.g 101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.
- ATLANT A, GEORGI A 30323
-
!
'
- ...+,o L
. :
'
Report No:' 50-302/90-03.
l
. Licensee:
Florida Power Corporation i
h.
- 3201 34th Street, South
,
j
, St. Patersburg, FL 33733
'
Docket No:
50-302 License No.: DPR-72
',
r (
-l j.
Facility Name:
Crystal River 3 l
V Inspection. Conducted:. January 27 - February 28, 1990
!
Inspectorg: / b, b 27 4e g. Holmes-Ray,SeniorResidentInspector Date Signed 4 /
'EVid 6)4d
W. Bradford, Resident Inspector Date Signed
.
,
Accompanying Inspectors:
R. Brady P. Madden
,
. Elrod
'
.
Approved by:
/[
.7/I-7/N R. Crrenjak, SectTori Chief Dhte Sifgned L
.DivisionofReactorProjec/
ts
'
.
SUMMARY Scope:
'
This routine inspection was conducted by two resident inspectors in the areas of plant operations, security, radiological controls, Licensee Event Reports
,
and Nonconforming Operations Reports, facility modifications, and licensee action on previous inspection items.
Numerous facility tours were conducted.
and facility operations observed.
Some of these tours and observations were conducted on backshifts.
'
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
A strength was observed in both shutdowns of the plant during this reporting
'
period.
It was observed that the plant was maneuvered in a smooth controlled manner and the work performed as planned. The use of pre-job briefings enabled
-
good interchange between the various groups involved in the work.
Also the professional performance of controlled maneuvering of the plant is considered a strength.
g o g g j h i,g g,2 O
u
s,
,.
.
.
l REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J. Alberdi, Manager, Nuclear Plant Technical Support
- W. Bandhauer, Superintendent, Nuclear Operations
- G. Becker, Mana<)er, Site Nuclear Engineering Services
- G. Boldt Vice ? resident Nuclear Production
- M. Collins, Superintendent, Nuclear Safety and Reliability
- J. Cooper, Superintendent, Technical Support R. Fuller, Senior Nuclear Licensing Engineer
- B. Hickle, Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations i
- J. Holton, Senior Nuclear Results Engineer
- M. Jacobs, Area Public Infonnation Coordinator
- H. Koon. Assistant Nuclear Maintenance Superintendent
- G. Longhouser, Superintendent. Nuclear Security W. Marshall, Nuclear Operations Superintendent
- P. McKee, Director, Nuclear Plant Operations
- J. Roberts, Assistant Nuclear Chemistry / Radiation Protection
,
Superintendent
- V. Roppel, Manager, Nuclear Operations Maintenance and Outages
- W. Rossfeld, Manager, Nuclear Compliance E. Welch, Manager, Nuclear Electrical / Instrumentation and Control Engineering Services
- R. Widell, Director, Nuclear Operations Site Support-l
- M. Williams, Nuclear Regulatory Specialist
!
- K. Wilson, Manager, Nuclear Licensing
!
Other licensee employees contacted included office, operations.
l engineering, maintenance, chemistry / radiation and corporate personnel.
'
- Attended exit interview i
Acronyms and initialisms used throughout this report are listed in the
!
last paragraph.
i 2.
Review of Plant Operations (71707)
January 27 - February 13 the plant operated at full power. On February 13 the reactor was shut down to replace a pressurizer code safety valve and repack the PORV block valve. The plant was returned to power operations on February 21.
On February 27 the plant was shutdown to Mode 3 to correct packing leakage on the pressurizer spray block valve.
The plant was returned to power on February 27 after successfully isolating the packing leak on the pressurizer spray block valve.
The plant remained at power for the remainder of the reporting perio ;
-
-
-
,,
,
i
-
,
y,
.
l
'
i
'
'
a.
Shift Logs and Facility Records I
,,
The inspector reviewed records and discussed various entries with L)
operations personnel to verify compliance with the Technical
,
Specifications (TS) and the licensee's administrative procedures.
!
The following records were reviewed:
Shif t Su >ervisor's Log; Reactor Operator's Log; Equipment Out-Of-
Service '.og; Shif t Relief Checklist; Auxiliary Building Operator's Log; Active Clearance Log; Daily Operating Surveillance Log; Short Tenn' Instructions (STI); and Selected Chemistry / Radiation Protection Logs.
.
In addition to these record reviews, the inspector independently
verified clearance order tagouts.
No violations or deviations were identified, b.
Facility Tours and Observations
.
Throughout the inspection period, facility tours were conducted to observe operations and maintenance activities in progress.
Some operations and maintenance activity observations were conducted during backshifts.
Also, during this inspection period, licensee
,
meetings were attended by the inspector to observe planning and management activities.
The facility tours and observations encompassed the following areas:
security perimeter fence; control room; emergency diesel generator
room; auxiliary building; intermediate building; battery rooms; and, electrical switchgear rooms.
The inspectors also observed conditions in the following areas:
(1) Monitoring Instrumentation The following instrumentation and/or indications were observed
'
to verify that indicated parameters were in accordance with the
,
TS for the current operational mode:
-
Equipment operating status; area atmospheric and liquid radiation monitors; electrical system lineup; reactor operating parameters; and auxiliary equipment operating parameters.
No violations or deviations were identified.
(2) Shift Staffing The inspector verified that operating shift staffing was in accordance with TS requirements and that control room operations were being conoucted in an orderly and professional manner.
In
..
.
-
_.
..
-
.
.
j.
..
V
)
'
j
,
!
addition, the inspector observed shift turnovers on various occasions to verify the continuity of plant status, operational problems, and other pertinent plant information during these
-
turnovers.
l No violations or deviations were identified, i
(3) Plant Housekeeping Conditions Storage of material and components, and cleanliness conditions
'
of various areas throughout the facility were observed to t
detennine whether safety and/or fire hazards existed.
No violations or deviations were identified.
!
(4) Radiological Protection Program
Radiation protection control activities were observed to verify that these activities were in confonnance with the facility policies and procedures, and in com)11ance with regulatory requirements. These observations included:
,
!
Entry to and exit from contaminated areas, including
-
step-off pad conditions and disposal of contaminated
,
clothing; Area postings and controls;
-
Work - activity within radiation, high radiation, and
-
contaminated areas; Radiation Control Area exiting practices; and,
-
Proper wearing' of personnel monitoring equipment, protec-
-
tive clothing, and respiratory equipment.
'
Area postings were independently verified for accuracy by the inspector.
The inspector also reviewed selected Radiation Work i
Permits to verify that the RWP was current and that the controls were adequate.
.
No violations or deviations were identified.
(5) Security Control In the course of the monthly activities, ~the inspector included a review of the licensee's physical security program.
The performance of various shifts of the security force was observed
!
in the conduct of daily activities to include: protected and vital area access controls; searching of personnel, packages, and vehicles; badge issuance and retrieval; escorting of visitors; patrols; and compensatory posts.
In addition, the inspector observed the operational status of Closed Circuit Television monitors, the Intrusion Detection system in the central and secondary alarm stations, protected area lighting, protected and vital area barrier integrity, and the security organization interface with operations and maintenance.
.
-
.
_
___
_ _ _
.. __
_
. _ _ _
..
!
-
<
.
.
l 4..
.
-
o
-
t t
No violations or deviations were identified.
(6)
Fire Protection
,
Fire protection activities, staffing and equipment were observed to verify that fire brigade staffing was appropriate and that fire alarms, extinguishing equipment, actuating controls, fire
'j fighting equipment, emergency equipment, and fire barriers were operable.
No violations or deviations were identified.
(7) Radioactive Waste Controls Liquid releases were monitored to verify that approved I
procedures were utilized, that appropriate release approvals were obtained, and that required surveys were taken.
Problems
,
continue with the flow instrument for monitoring gaseous release rate (WD-19-FR).
Engineering continues to attempt to find a repair that will permanently fix this instrument.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
ReviewofMaintenance(62703)andSurveillance(61726) Activities Surveillance tests were observed to verify that ap) roved procedures were being used; qualified personnel were conducting tie tests; tests were adequate to verify equipment operability; calibrated equipment was i
utilized;' and TS requirements were followed.
The following tests were observed and/or data reviewed:
- SP-110, Reactor Protective System Functional Testing;
- SP-340E, B Train ECCS-DHP-1B, BSP-1B and System Valve
,
'
Operability Test;
- SP-347 ECCS and Boration Systems Flow Path;
- SP-354A, Monthly Functional Test of the Emergency Diesel Generator EGDG-1A;
- SP-365B, Diesel Fire Service Pump FSP-2A Operability; and,
- PT-130 Hydraulic Pipe Snubber Test Procedure.
In addition, the inspector observed maintenance activities to verify that correct equipment clearances were in effect; work requests and fire prevention work permits, as required, were issued and being followed; quality control personnel were available for inspection activities as l
required; and, TS requirements were being followed.
i Maintenance was observed and work packages were reviewed for the following maintenance activities:
o
- - -
, - -.
.,,,,...
}
F
,,
.
'
l
-
,
f
.
-
,
Hayes Hydrogen Monitor in accordance with MAR 89120201, Retube
!
-
HayesAnalyzer(WDGA-1);
!
SWP-2A in accordance with WR 295443; and,
-
SW Heat Exchanger 1-A in accordance with WR 260559.
l
-
- _Rosemount Transmitters The inspectors attended a briefing by the licensee on. the status of the licensee's efforts concerning the identification, testing and analysis of i
Rosemount transmitters in use or in stock at CR-3.
The inspectors also l
interviewed licensee engineering staff about this issue.
'
The licensee has devoted considerable resources to this matter. Beginning in early 1989, an identification and test program was initiated.
The
.
licensee identified 116 Rosemount transmitters - Model 1153 and 1154 -
installed in ES and RPS systems.
The licensee changed out two of these i
transmitters as a result of testing which indicated the transmitters may provide inaccurate responses. 'These contaminated transmitters are being
-
held by the licensee for future potential testing.
In addition, the licensee identified that they had received 17 Rosemount transmitters which were among the " suspect lots" identified by the vendor
.
t as being those' believed to be in the category of highest potential
'
failure. Of these 17, the licensee has identified 14 which are in service in ES or RPS systems. The licensee hopes to be able to change out all 14
)
of these transmitters during the upcoming refueling outage. The licensee has not identified the whereabouts of the other 3 suspect Rosemount t'
transmitters.
[
,
l 1he two transmitters changed out by the licensee were not part of the l
suspect lot identified by Rosemount.
The licensee also identified four (4) Rosemount transmitters, Models 1151 and 1152, which are installed in
,
'
The licensee also expects to change out these transmitters'during the upcoming refueling outage.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Licensee Self Assessment (40500)
During 1989 and 1990 the licensee demonstrated his capability at self assessment.
FPC attended several management meetings with the NRC; two of which were specifically in the area of self-assessment.
The other meetings also contained elements of self assessment. These meetings were useful and demonstrated the licensee's commitment to self assessment.
FPC has tracking systems in place to track action items to completion.
The Plant Review Comittee member's qualifications have been periodically reviewed and found to be satisfactory.
FPC has trained personnel on root cause analysis and this has improved the determination of the root cause of events.
l No violations or deviations were identified.
'
l l
l r
F
.
!U
-
.
f
i 5.
OnsitefollowupofEvents(93702)
J i
On February 13 Crystal River 3 was shutdown to replace a pressuriser code safety valve (RCV 8) and to repack the PORY block valve (RCV 11). A plan l
!
was developed to perform the s% tdown, do the work, taking into cons 10 era.
l tion ALARA concerns, and return the plant to power operations. The plant was then shutdown and cooled down to Mode 5, the work was accomplished and
'
the plant returned to power ahead of schedule, j
i f
Af ter restart of the plant another leak was identified from the interstage
!
packing area of the spray line block valve (RCV 13).
The leakage was monitored to determine trend and rate of change to determine if operations i
could be continued safely until the scheduled March 14 start of the i
refueling outage (RF7).
The 1e.) was about half of the TS limit and
!
slowly increasing.
Due to the increasing trend it was conservatively e
decided to shutdown tu repair the leak. Again a plan was developed and a l
pre job briefing conducted.
On February 27, the plant was maneuvered to
!
Mode 3, the leaking valve manually backseated in accordance with vendor
i and FPC engineering instructions, and the plant returned to power operations in less than one day.
l
,
>
.
In both of these shutdowns the plant was maneuvered in a smooth controlled
!
'
manner and the work was performed as planned.
The use of pre-job
'
briefings with good interchange between the attendees is considered a l
strength.
Also the professional performance of controlled maneuvering of r
the p' ant it considered a strength.
,'
6.
Licensee Action on Previously identified inspection Findings (92702 &
i 92701)
'
'
Failure to perform a surveillance I
a.
(Closed) Violation 302/88-1101,ly to the pressurizer heaters.
In test on the enivrgency power supp response to this violation, the licensee developed surveillance procedure SP-910. Electrical Line Up of the Pressurizer Heaters to an
,
'
Emergency Power Source. The inspector reviewed SP-910. Rev. 0, dated
,
10/21/88 and verified that this procedure satisfied Technical Specification 4.4.4.2 by demonstrating the operability of the
'
emercency power supply for the pressurizer heaters.
This procedure i
energues at least 126 Kw of pressurizer heaters from pressurizer I
heater MCC 3A & 3B via an emergency power source.
This item is
l closed.
b.
(Closed) Violation 302/89-23-01, Failure to have adequate procedures.
The inspector reviewed chemistry and radiation protection procedere j
RSP-110 Control of Auxiliary Building Doors, Rev. 5, dated 11/30/89.
,
'
j Based on this review, the inspector determined that the licensee's
corrective actions associated with the control of auxiliary building
!
I l
doors and the control of transient combustibles were satisfactory and I
should prevent the potential for recurrence. This item is closed, c.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 302/89-06 03, Review the detemination of
reportability for radiation monitor isolation of the reactor building purge system.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's reportability l
.
.
I
. -.
.. - -
.- - - -
. -
- -
_ -.
. -.
"
,..
7 evaluation.
The licensee detemined that since the isolation of the reactor buildinq purge system occurred as a result of a high sample i
flowrate condit< on (non CSF signal) associated with radiation monitor
'
RMA 1 this event was not reportable under 10 CFR 50.72.8.11.
The inspector found the licensee's reportability assessment to be l
satisfactory. This item is closed.
!
!
d.
(Closed) IFl 302/88 26 04, Review the licensee's activities to install new shunt devices in the battery chargers and include these i
devices in the PM-200 calibration program.
The inspector reviewed I
the licensee's engineering evaluation associated with the certifica-l tion of the ammeter shunts and the inclusion of the shunts into the i
PM program.
The licensee's evaluation indicates that the purpose of i
the shunts is only to supply indication on the front panel ammeter i
of the battery charge.
The licensee detemined that these shunts l
were approximately 0.6% out of tolerance.
The licensee considered j
this to be an insignificant variance since the charger ammeters are
0 300 amp +/ 21. The licensee revised surv6111ance procedure 5P-522 to include a special certification which assures shunt tolerance, i
The inspector reviewed $P-522. Rev.11, dated 3/14/89, Station l
Batteries Inspection and Battery Charger Load Test, and found it to
- '
be satisfactory with regard to assurinq the accuracy of the TS battery charger test.
Based on the l' censee's evaluation, the inspector determined that including these shunt devices into the
!
PM 200 program would not improve the accuracy of the TS battery i
i charger test. This item is closed.
,
I I
e.
(Closed)IFl 302/89-19-03, Review the licensee's corrective action to i
I
,
prevent erroneous readings during the perfomance of battery surveillance tests.
The inspector reviewed surveillanco procedure i
SP 521, Rev.19. dated 9/14/89, Quarterly Battery Check, and t
,
i detemined that this procedure provides specific guidance with regard l
l to specific gravity acceptance criteria and actions to be taken if i
!
the specific firavity measurements are not within specification.
j l
Procedure Sect on 5.2 Contingencies, provides the necessary guidance
,
regarding the actions required when the battery specific gravity does i
'
not meet the acceptance criteria.
This guidance is fair'y specific l
i about declaring a battery cell inoperable and should preclude erroneous readings from entering into operability considerations.
This item is closed.
IFI 302/88-34 04, The licensee has reviewed the accuracy of
!
(Closed)l diesel generator tachometers and the use for which they are f.
the loca
-
intended.
The results of this review indicate that the local
tachometer is a reference readinq only and is not used for a safety l
function.
Therefore, the surveiltance procedure acceptance criteria
!
is to be changed to reflect the accuracy of the tachometer.
This
item is closed.
1
,.
_.. _ _.
_
..
_
- _. _ ~, _ -. _.... _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _.. _ _. _ _ _ _ _
.
.o.
Y a
6.
ExitInterview(30703)
The inspector met with licensee representatives (det.ated in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on February 28, 1990.
During this
'.
meeting, the inspector suonarized the scope and findings of the inspect 19n i
as they are detailed in this report.
The licensee representatives acknowledged the inspector's connents and did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspection.
7.
Acronyms and Abbreviations ALARA As Low as Reasonably Achievable CCTY - Closed Circuit Television CFR
- Code of Federal Regulations ECCS EmergencyCoreCoolingSystem(s)
- Florida Power Corporation IFl
- Inspector followup Item kw
- Kilowatt MAR
- Modification Approval Record NRC
- Nuclear Regulatory Conpirision PORV - Power Operated Relief Valve RCA
- Radiation Control Area RWP
- Radiation Work Permit SP
- Surveillance Procedure ST!
- Short Ters Instruction SW
- Seawater TS
- Technical Specification
,