IR 05000302/1990031
| ML20058A999 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1990 |
| From: | Lawyer L, Mellen L, Linda Watson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058A966 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-90-31, NUDOCS 9010290342 | |
| Download: ML20058A999 (5) | |
Text
<
I
- ._,:.
C Ef 00q'o i
UNITED STATES
'
'.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
~
.["
REGION ll
101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.
- E'
g
.i?
ATLANT A, GEORGI A 30323
\\.... </
,
Report No.:
50-302/90-31 Licensee: Florida Power Corporation 3201 34th Street, South St. Petersburg, FL 33733 l
Docket No.: 50-302 License No.:
DPR-72 Facility Name:
Crystal River 3.
Inspection Conducted } September 17-20, 1990 Inspectors:
w k.%.
M /4
/0//g/9n LY L'~ L er
/
Date Signed ~
J Y-f.wf f%
/p//,,,/9,,
'
,
L'. 5. Mellen
/
Date Si'gned
.
' Approved by:-
M @ /d
~ /0!/O!f#
'
'
L. J. Watsoir, Section Chief Dat6 5fgned Operational Programs Section
'
Division of Reactor. Safety SUMMARY
'.
Scope:
This was a routine announced follow-up inspection.-
Its purpose was to verify that corrective actions for previous findings,were adequate, j
,
s Results:
The' inspectors' found that the= licensee's progress in development of important Emergency Operating Procedure, program features 'was good.
The licensee resolution of the Safety Evaluation Report comments and actions on previous inspection findings-' demonstrated the ability to meet deadlines with responses that were technically. sound and thorough in almost all cases.
.
I
.
,
,
,.
,
i
-,,
....
..
,
..
t REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
Licensee Employees R. Goodlet, Civil Engineer
- B. Marshall, Nuclear Operations Superintendent
- P. McKee, Director, Nuclear Plant Operations
'D. Porter, Shift Supervisor
- B. Rossfeld, Manager, Nuclear Compliance J. Springer, Nuclear Simulator Training Supervisor
- R. Zareck, Senior Reactor Operator / Emergency Operating Procedure Technical Support Other licensee employees contacted included instructors, engineers, mechanics,. technicians, operators, and office personnel.
NRC Representatives
- P. Holmes-Ray, Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended Exit Interview 2.
Current Status of the Plant Specific Technical Guidelines Currently the licensee considers the Plant Specific Technical Guidelines to consist of revision 2 of the Babcock and Wilcox owner's group Emergency Operating Procedure technical bases document.
Since this is a generic Babc0ck and Wilcox document it does not satisfy the need for a-plant specific document that technically constrains newly developed Emergency Operating Procedures.
Upgrade of'the Plant Specific Technical Guidelines was previously identified as IFI 302/89-10-01..The licensee is correcting this problem by developing a technical basis cross-reference document and a deviation document to supplement the Technical Basis
-
Document in forming Plant Specific Technical Guidelines.
The long-range plan is to utilize the Crystal River deviation document and the Technical Basis Document, revision 3, as the technical guidance for development and control of Emergency Operating Procedures and Emergency Operating Procedure changes. 'The inspectors reemphasized the need for this important control document.
There were no violations or deviations identified in this area.
3.
Emergency;0perating Procedure Continuing Maintenance The inspectors reviewed the biennial nrocedural review procedure and verified that-Emergency Procedures, Abnormal' Procedcres, and
. Verification Procedures were included in ti'e process.
Additionally, the inspectors reviewed the li-t of revisions ao the Emergency Frocedures, Abnormal Procedures, and Verification Procedures and a sample of these procedures and verified that they had been revised within the past two years.
-There were no violations.or deviations identified in this are.....
'
'
.
_
.
4.
Review of the Safety Evaluation Report Comments on the Procedure Generation-Package The inspectors reviewed the April 6,1990, Safety Evaluation Report comments on the Procedure Generation Package as discussed below and found that the Safety Evaluation Report comments were adequately addressed.
a.
Plant Specific Technical Guidelines
>
The current status of the Plant Specific Technical Guidelines was
,
as described in paragraph 2 above.
The licensee plans to update the Plant Specific -Technical Guidelines subsequent to revision 3 of the Technical Basis Document.
b.
Writer's Guide
'
i The inspectors conducted a comparison of a marked-up copy of the
,
current writer's guide with the coments in the Safety Evaluation Report.
The inspectors concluded that the licensee had been responsive to the recently issued Safety Evaluation Report and had
'
proposed resolution for all of the Safety Evaluation Report comments.
c.
Verification and Validation The inspectors conducted-a comparison of a draft procedure which delineated the licensee's proposed actions for verification and validation with the comments in the Safety Evaluation Report.
The inspectors concluded that the licensee had been responsive to the Safety Evaluation Report and had proposed a resolution for each of the Safety Evaluation Report comments.
d.
Training Program-The inspectors found the licensee to be adequately addressing-the training items from previous Emergency. Operating Procedure.
inspection reports as required by the Safety Evaluation Report.
There were no violations or deviations identified in this area.
5.
Simulator Status The licensee's simulator.will be used to validate the new Emergency Operating Procedures and to train the operators in their use.
The simulator was in place with most software operational.
Simulator-limitations < were being identified and resolved.
Operator training on Emergency Operating Procedures was being planned.
Completion of Emergency Operating Procedure validation and full preparation for Emergency Operating Procedure ' training was projected for September 1991.
There were no violations or deviations identified in this area.
l f
-.
..
.. <
,
.
6.
Actions on Previous Inspection Findings (92701, 92702)
a.
(Closed) IFl 302/88-09-02:
Licensee's implementation of an Emergency Operating Procedure cross-reference document.
The inspectors noted several minor discrepancies between the cross-reference list and the Emergency, Abnormal, and Verification procedures.
However, there was generally good correlation between the setpoints and the cross-reference document.
The specific discrepancies noted were between AP-380, Engineered Safeguards Actuation, Revision 15, and the Emergency Operating Procedure Setpoint and Procedure Cross-Reference document, dated August 1, 1990 Examples of the type of discrepancies noted are listed below.
1)
Step 3.11.1:
This step used setpoint DH12; however, this setpoint was not referenced.
2)
Step 3.11.2:
This step used a setpoint that was not identified in AP-380 or in the cross-reference document.
3)
Step 3.15:
The E0P Setpoint and Procedure Cross-Reference document identified setpoint SG2 as applicable to this step.
However, this setpoint was not used in the step but was used in a referenced table..
The use of the E0P Setpoint and Procedure Cross-Reference document was not consistent when the procedures referenced attachments or tables.
4)
Step 3.18:
This step referenced setpoint RC10.
In the procedure the setpoint was identified as " greater than or equal to",
however on the Emergency Operating Procedure Setpoint document it was identified as " greater than".
The licensee stated that the specific discrepancies noted by the inspectors would be corrected and the licensee would review these
'
for appropriate generic consideration. This item is closed, b.
(Closed) IFI 302/88-09-09: Revalidate the Emergency Operating Procedures on the simulator when it becomes operational.
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's plans for development of the Emergency. Operating Procedure deviation document and rewrite of
'the Emergency Operating Procedures as well as current plans of the owner's group to develop Revision ' 3 of the Technical Basis Document.'
These actions in conjunction with ' the procedural requirement to perform verification and validation were adequate to assure performance of verification. and validation.
This item
.is closed.
c..
(0 pen)IFI.302/89-10-01:
Develop upgraded consolidated PSTG, As discussed in paragraph 2, the licensee:has not completed the PSTG upgrade, therefore, this item remains ope W.
c
.
.,.
.
.
p. *
.
,
d.
(Closed) IFI 302/89-10-02: Restore the wide range hot well level system to operation.
The inspectors verified that the hot well level system had been modified under Modification Approval Records 88-04-05-01 and 88-04-05-02 and returned to service.
This item is closed.
e.
(Closed) IFI 302/89-10-03:
Revise the Violent Weather procedure into the format of an emergency plan procedure.
The inspectors reviewed the revised procedure EM-220 Violent Weather, Revision 0 and verified that previous concerns were properly treated.
This item is closed, f.
(Closed) VIO _302/89-14-01:
Operators failed to have procedures present for performing actions that were not routine to them.
OP-202, Plant Heatup, Revision 80, was inadequate in that it did not adequately address using pressurizer spray control to degas the reactor coolant system while in Mode 5. with no reactor
.
coolant pumps operating.. Appropriate cautions were not included in other procedures to prevent thermal shock to the emergency feedwater piping and steam generators under these conditions.
The inspectors reviewed ' the instructions issued to operators and operations ' supervisors to remedy this problem.
In addition, they reviewed changes made to OP-202, Plant Heatup, Revision 84; OP-404, Decay Heat Removal System, Revision 78; and OP-608, OTSGs and Main Steam Systems, Revision 35.
The inspectors judged these corrective actions to be adequate. This item is closed.
g.
(Closed) URI 302/89-14-02:. Control of drawings for-pipe supports.
The _ inspectors reviewed the licensee's corrective actions which
included the review of ten additional Modification Approval Records.
The inspectors selected an additional example.
The
,
inspectors walked through a portion of the safety-related Emergency ' Diesel Generator Heating, Ventilating and' Air
_
Conditioning system and compared a recently completed Modification
,
Approval Record and the ' appropriate pipe support drawing.. No i
' discrepancies were noted. This item is closed.
There were no violations or deviations identified in this area.
.
7.
ExitInterview(30703)
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on September 20, 1990, j
with those persons indicated in paragraph 1.
The NRC described the'
areas inspected. and discussed in detail the inspection.results L
delineated in this report.
No proprietary material is contained in this
report. No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
P c
,l
^
_