ML19308D208
| ML19308D208 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 01/10/1973 |
| From: | Crossman W, Herdt A, Vallish E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19308D159 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-72-05, 50-302-72-5, NUDOCS 8002270671 | |
| Download: ML19308D208 (15) | |
See also: IR 05000302/1972005
Text
-.
-.
. . . . .
.-
. - .
.
- . .
-
- . .
'
.
9
,
G.
'
.
fhs
UNITED STATES
'
j
g @Me
- q
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
!- *
- )
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATICUS
-
c.
REGloM ll - $UIT E 918
-
2M P E AC HT R E E ST A E ET. NCRT HwEST
T
Mum
AT t. A NT A. G EORGI A 30303
RO Inspection Report No. 50-302/72-5
Licensee:
Florida Power Corporation
3201 34th Street, South
P. O. Box 14042
St. Petersburg, Florida
33733
Facility Name: Crystal River 3
Docket No.:
50-302
License No.
Category:
A2
Location:
Crystal River, Florida
Type of License:
Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced
O
Dates of Inspection: November 20-21, 1972
Dates of Previous Inspection:
September 25, 1972
Principal Inspector:
E. J. Vallish, Reactor Inspector, Facilities Section
Facilities Construction Branch
Accompanying Inspectors:
R. F. Warnick, Reactor Inspector
Facilities Test and Startup Branch
A. R. Herdt, Metallurgical Engineer, Engineering
Section, Facilities Construction Branch
D. H. Danielson, Reactor Inspector, Facilities Section
Facilities Construction Branch
,
Principal Inspector:
/- f- 73
E. A Vallish, Reactor Inspector, Facilities
Date
Section, Facilities Construction Branch
Reviewed By:
[
/ /C 73
%
W. A. Crossman, Acting Senior Inspector, Facilities
Date
Section, Facilities Construction Branch
,\\-
8002270 o 7 [
.
. .
-
.
-_
_ - - ______ - _________
a
-
-
^
q
,
'
.
-
[h,
(d
.
,
RO Rpt. No. 50-302/72-5
-2-
SU) MARY OF FINDINGS
I.
Enforcement Action
None
II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters
A.
Violations
1.
Equipment Handling, Storage, and Inspection Program
(Letters to FPC dated November 24, 1971, item 1, and
July 24, 1972, item 1)
FPC's corrective actions have been reviewed and there
are no further questions at this time. These items
,
are closed.
(See . Details II, paragraph 2.)
2.
Material and Fabrication Certifications for Decay Heat
Pumps and Reactor Building Spray Pumps
(Letter to
FPC dated January 27, 1972, item 1)
The material and fabrication certifications for the
decay heat pumps and the reactor building spray pumps
have been upgraded by D&W and reviewed by the inspector.
There are no further questions at this time. This item
is closed.
(See Details II, ' paragraph 3.)
3.
Identification of B&W Construction Company's Quality
Control Requirements for Crystal River 3 (Letter to
FPC dated October 11, 1972, items 1 and 2)
B&W Construction Company has identified the applicable
portions of their field specification book and they
)
informed FPC that their entire Quality Control Manual
j
is applicable to Crystal River 3.
There are no further
questions at this time. These items are closed.
(See
'
Details II, paragraph 4.)
B.
Safety Items
There are no outstanding or unresolved safety items.
1
)
O
I
. ,
_
, . _ _
_
_ . . _
_
_
_
., , ,
.
. . - -
.
.
a
m.
,
/
.
e~
.
\\'
R0 Rpt. No. 50-302/72-5
-3-
III.
New Unresolved Items
72-5/1 Radiographs / Code Case 72
The sensitivity level and penetrameter thickness used
in M. W. Kellogg's radiograph procedure is in accordance
with USAS B31.7, Code Case 72.
The item to be resolved
is the acceptability of the deviation in sensitivity and
penetrameter requirements for that code case.
(See
Details III, paragraph 4)
72-5/2 Weld Procedure Qualification
Welding procedures, CS-1-TIG-SMA and CS-2-TIG-SMA,
did not have supporting weld qualification data for
the post-weld heat treated condition as required
by USAS B31.7.
Reexamination of the qualifications
is required.
(See Details III, paragraph 3)
IV.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items
C
The following constitutes the entire list of Unresolved Items
and their status, as of the date of this letter.
72-3/6 Decay Heat Pump and Motor (DEP-1A)
The documentation of the engineering change, which replaced
the motor 120V strip heaters with 480V strip heaters, was
reviewed; there are no questions at this time.
This item
is resolved.
(See Details II, paragraph 5)
72-3/5 Procedures for Final Inspection of Piping (See RO Letter
August 26, 1971; Item 5.a.) Open item.
.
Develop procedures for the final inspection of piping
installation prior to hydrotest and insulating.
71-5/5 Cleanliness Procedures for Piping and Components
(See R0 Letter January 27, 1972, paragraph 5) Open item.
Develop procedures for internal and external cleanliness
of stainless steel valves, piping and components.
72-5/3 Valve Wall Thickness Requirements (See RO Letter from
J. G. Davis , June 30, 1972) Open item.
s
\\
Verification of valve wall thickness to meet construction
requirements.
.
--.,_..__..y-.
-
, _
_
,
,
. - .
-
.l
e
-
o
-
I
,
/~'s
(
R0 Rpt. No. 50-302/72-5
-4-
V.
Design Changes
None
VI.
Unusual Occurrences
'
None
.
VII.
Ot,her Significant Findings
None
VIII.
Management Interview
Messrs. Jackson, Froats, 1+1 rick and others were in attendance
at the exit interview.
A.
Warnick related that FPC's corrective actions concerning
the following items identified in previous correspondence
i
with F"" aad in previous inspection reports have been reviewed
and r~
no further questions at this time:
,
,
1.
Equipment handling, storage, inspection, and installation
requirements.
(See Details II, paragraph 2.)
i
2.
Material and fabrication certifications for decay heat
pumps and reactor building spray pumps.
(See Details II,
'
paragraph 3.)
3.
The quality assurance quality control requirements which
FPC expects B&W Construction Company to follow.
(See
Details II, paragraph 4.)
4.
Decay heat pump 1A motor strip heater engineering
change.
(See Details II, paragraph 5.)
B.
Vallish Discussed the following items:
1.
Reactor Vessel and Internals Modifications
The inspector stated that he had reviewed the progress
of the B&W modifications to the reactor vessel and
internals for documentation purposes.
(Details I,
paragraph 3)
4
$
64
"
. - , ,
,
. . ,
-
-.
-
-
-. ,, . , .
.,
--
.-
-
.-.
-
. _ . - - -
_ .
-
.
,7
7
.
i
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-302/72-5
-5-
1
2.
Control Rod Drive Motor Tube Extension
!
{
The problem of the CRDM motor tube extensions was
i
discussed with licensee and contractor personnel.
(Details I, paragraph 4)
i
!
3.
Void Under Personnel (Airlock) Access Hatch
!'
The repair procedures and work performance activities
for repair of the void under the airlock in the con-
tainment building was audited.
(Details I, paragraph 5)
In all, no descrepancies were identified; however, future
inspections will concern the reactor vessel and internal
,
'
modifications, and the CRDM motor tube acceptance criteria
docueentation.
The licensee's representatives acknowledged
these results.
C.
Hardt discussed the following items:
1.
Weld Rod Control Procedure
The inspector stated that weld rod control procedure FPC
W-21 needed clarification on when the weldor is to return
l
welding consumables to the weld rod control room. The
licensee agreed that elarification is requitad and the
paragraph in question would be changed.
(See Details III,
paragraph 2)
,
2.
Welding Procedure Qualification
4
]
The inspector stated that his review of welling procedures
CS-1-TIG-SHA and CS-2-TIG-SMA and the respe.ctive qualification
i
data indicated that the procedures were not properly qualified
for all thicknesses indicated. The licensee disagreed,
]
but stated that the qualifications would b , reexamined.
(See Details III, paragraph 3)
3.
Cleaning Procedures
Cleaning procedures for stainless steel pipe and
valves are still an unresolved item. The licenses
stated that the procedures should be completed with-
!
in six to eight weeks.
i
l
I
. - . - -
- . - . . .-
,--
. . - - - . - .
,
,-,
. . - -
- - . - .
.
, - , . , , , . -
.-
._
_
=
.
-
.
-
1
.
-
s.
,
'
_,
RO Rpt. No. 50-302/72-5
-6-
4.
Radiographs
The inspector stated that the sensitivity level being
met by M. W. Kellogg inspection procedures was the
4T hole and not the 2T hole as specified by USAS B31.7.
The licensee stated that this item had been identified in
an internal audit and the Code Case 72 is the only reference
that could be found allowing such a deviation.
The
licensee further stated that he is looking into the
acceptability of this code case.
(See Details III,
paragraph 4)
5.
Welding
i
The inspector stated that his review of makeup and
'
purification system piping (MU) welds indicated that
weld MU-65 should be reevaluated with regard to joint
Os
blending since the radiograph di.d not appear to be
acceptable. The licensee agreed that the necessary
,
corrective action would be taken to place the weld
in an acceptable condition.
(See Details III, paragraph 5)
.
.J
h
N
- .
.
. _ _ . _
-.
.
.
-
.-
.-
.
.
_
^
,%
'
.
.
g.
.
'
RO Rpt. No. 50-302/72-5
-7-
_,
DETAILS I
Prepared By:
/~ /- 73
E. JA Vallish, Reactor
Date
Inspector, Facilities
i
Section, Facilities
Construction Branch
Date of Inspection: November 20-21, 1972
Reviewed By:
-
/!/d[73
W. A. Crossman, Acting
Date
Senior Inspector, Facilites
'
Section, Facilities
Construction Branch
.
1.
Individuals Contacted
a.
Florida Power Corporation (FPC)
'
E. E. Froats - Quality Surveillance Supervisor
R. B. Johnson - Engineer, Electrical
R. S. Dorrie - Engineer, Civil
!
b.
Contractor Organizations
Babcock and Wilcox Construction Company (B&W)
L. M. Watson - Field Project Manager
T. J. Richard on - Proj ect Engineer
i
J. A. McGill - Quality Control Supervisor
2.
Organization Changes
E. E. Froats has been transferred to the St. Petersburg office and
is responsible for the site quality program under M. H. Kleinman.
D. W. Pedrick is now responsible for quality surveillance on the
site.
3.
Reactor Vessel and Internals Modifications
The vanes in the reactor vessel have been cut and are being
i
ground. Work has not started on the change to the instrumentation
nozzles in the bottom of the reactor vessel.
All modifications
to the internals will be done in the B&W Barberton shop. The
~s
\\
.
..
-
-
.
-
.
~
.
.
]
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-302/72-5
-8-
presently scheduled shipping date of the internals to the site
is June 1973. Documents were reviewed in the B&W site office
describing the method of proceeding with the modifications
to the reactor vessel and internals. Also reviewed were the
QC specifications that are to be followed for these modifications
and the specifications concerning the disposition of nonconformities.
No procedural deficiencies were identified; however, future
inspections will be made of this work.
4.
CRDM Motor Tube Extensions
All the Crystal River 3 motor tube extension extrusions were returned to
the vendor's shop for inspection and resolution of acceptability. A
small number of these tubes has been returned to the site.
J. A. Jones
Construction Company will perform the QC of the returned tubes to assure
compliance with the construction requirements. No deficiencies
,
were identified, but follow-on inspections will be made in this
area.
5.
Void Under Personnel (Airlock) Access Hatch
Applicable procedures / documents / specifications were examined
in the field concerning the repair of this void in the concrete.
Review of the specifications regarding the concrete mixture com-
position, mixing and placing requirements revealed no descrepancies.
Procedures for the repair and replacement of the tendon conduits
were inspected and there are no further questions.
Inspection
of the repair work performance was made. The repair is complete
to the extent that it is ready to formup and receive the concrete.
There are no further questions on this repair.
.&
O
. _ ~
_.
._
.
.
.,
,
.
-
/
\\
(j~)
-
\\
II-l
.
Prepared by:
[ [ [ M f f/ V M'
//M/f3
DETAILS II
ii
R. F. Warnick, Reactor
Date
Inspector
Facilities Test and
Startup Eranch
Dates of Inspection: !!ovember 2C-21,1972
Reviewed by:
'/v
/ b 75
'
c//
' i
,
C. E. Murphy, Act1ng Chief
Date
Facilities Test end
Str.rtup Branch
1.
Individuals Contacted
a.
Florida Power Cornorstion (FPC)
r%
I
(d
C. E. Jackson - Construction Superintendent
E. E. Frcats - Quality Surveillance Supervisor
D. W. Pedrick - Quality Engineer
b.
Contrnetor Organizations
,
FE.1 Construction Cemrany (E&W)
J. R. McGill - Quality Control Supervisor
2.
Ecuirment Handline. Stor we. nnd Insnection Prc rtm
During the inspection of October 6-8, 1971, deficiencies were identified
in FPC's equipment handling, storage, cnd inspection progrsa.
Actions
to correct the specific deficiencies and to prevent recurrences were
described in FFC's letter of December 16, 1971, and were reviewed in the
subsequent inspection.
As a result of this review and to help in the eve.luation of the
adequacy of FPC's quality control program for handling, storing,
inspecting, and installing Class I equipment and components, RO:II
'
requested in our letter of January 27, 1972, copies of both volumes
of FPC 's Quality Program Manual, MW Construction Compen'/'s Quality
g
Control Manual, and E&W Construction Company's Field Specifications
!
s
for I;SS Components.
J
. _ .
. - -
-
- - .
,
-
- -
.
..
.
_
,
-
,a .
[v}
.
II-2
,
-
Receipt of the manuals was acknowledged in our letter of July 24, 1972.
In this seme letter, additional problems pertaining to the ' receipt,
storage, and inspection of certain Closs I valves vere identified.
FPC's letter of August 23, 1972, responded to the specific problems
concerning thne valves. Their corrective actions were verified
,
and found to be appropriate for the specific proble=a cited.
FPC's letter of November 7, 1972, described further actions to
strengthen the quality control program and to help prevent recur-
rences. The actions taken and the actions proposed have been
reviewed and satisfy our cencerns. These previously idt .tified
enforcement matters are closed.
-
3
Meterial and Fabrication Certifications
During the inspection of December 7-10, 1971, deficiencies in the
material and fabrication certifications for Class I components were
identified by the RO:II inspector and reported as an item of
nonccmpliance.V
During the inspection of February 1-4, 1972, FPC info med the
D
inspector that FPC was auditing the MW supplied quality assur?nce
(-]
(QA) data packages containing material and fabrication certifica-
tiens. Although the audit was not complete, FPC management said
that they would request E&W to upgrade the QA data packages.2/
The inspector was infomed that following FPC notification, E&W
also audited the QA data packages.
On July 20, 1972, MW requested
that FPC ship the QA data packages to them so that they could
compare the centents of FPC's QA data packages with the master
file and upgrade them as required.
On August 11, 1972, FPC shipped
to MW the QA data packages which were ensite at the time and
which had been supplied by MU.
The ship =ent covered approxi-
mately 70 purchase orders.
The documentation packages have been returned to the Crystal
River site. The inspector reviewed the packages for decay heat
pumps la and 1B and for the reactor building spray pumps lA and
1B.
No deficiencies or discrepancies were noted.
y See R0 Inspection Report No. 50-302/71-5, Secticn II, Paragraph 6.
2/ See RO Inspection Report No. 50-302/72-1,Section II, Paragraph 8.
O)
iV
-
.
.
,3
-
.
.
,
,~ .
(
)
II-3
s-
.
The inspector has no further questions at this time. In the
course of the nonnal AEC inspection progrsm, QA data packages
for certain other Class I components will be reviewed.
4.
Identification of B&W Construction Comcanv's Quality Centrol
Requirements for Crystal River 3
The inspection of August 15-17 and 29-31, 1972, revealed deficiencies
in the identification of B&W Construction Company's qualtiy assurance
and quality control programs.1/
FPC's corrective actions are described in their letter dated Noveriber 7,
1972.
These have been reviewed and are discussed below.
The inspector was informed that B&W Construction Company and FPC
agreed that the entire B&W Construction Company Quality Centrol
Manual was applicable to B&W Construction Company activities
although revisions were needed in certain sections.
FPC also
imposed additional requirements on certain sections,
g)
B&W Ccnstruction Comporry had informed FPC that they intended to
change the Field Cpecifications to make it applicable to the
(\\s_,/
various site conditions and that ec=nensurate with this upgrading,
they would make a concerted effort to enforce compliance and
documentation.
The inspector looked at B&W Construction Ccmpany's copy of their
Field Specification book and verified that changes had been made.
Nonapplicable portiens had been deleted by red felt tip pen and
additions had been made in ink.
The Field Specifications have been revised to provide the minimum
requirements for assuring the safe and acceptable method and
requirements for handling, storing, inspecting, and installing
B&W supplied equignent.
The. inspector considers these items closed.
Additional inspection
effort is planned as part of the nonnal AEC inspection program.
'
1/ See RO Inspection Report No. 5C-302/72-3,Section II, Paragraph 8,
and Section IV, Paragraph 1.
,r8
t
)
v
L
.
--
-
-.-
-- . -
.
. _
_ .
. . . .
. . . .
'
l
m
l
'
~
,
,
-
,
..
.
,
i
.
-
II-A
5.
Deccv Heat Pumn 1A Motor
,
During the inspection of August 15-17, 1972, the inspector
observed the motors from decay heat pumps 1A and 1B being
<
removed frcm the decay heat pits for motor strip heater
i -
replacement. The' documentation for the repairs to the
.=
motor for DHP-1B was found to be in order; however, the
i
documentation for the change to the DHP-1A motor was not
available.y
This inspection of the documentation of the engineering
change (replacing 120V strip heaters with 480V strip heaters)
was reviewed and observed to be in order. The inspector has
[
no additional questions at this time and considers this
item resolved.
t
,
.
I
.
y See RO Inspection Report No. 50-302/72-3,Section II, Paragraph 9.
i
l
.
4
!
.
O
9
-- --
u
< , .
-
,n
n--. . - - , - ,. . , , , . , , ,
,,-v--n,
,,m,,v...--
- - - , , . , - -
---en,
-.,m,-.,,,-.,,.
n
--n...,,
, , , - - ,- , , - , , , , ~ . -
-
.
~ . ,
.
.~.
.
.
'
S
.
-
-
-
p.
.
DETAILS III
Prepared by:
[
M/
.
A. R. Herdt
Date'
l
Metallurgical Engineer
Engineering Section
Facilities Construction Branch
Dates of Inspection: November 20-21, 1972
Reviewed by:
/2 /v/fL
g. ~C. Brfa'nt
Date'
.
Senior Inspector
'
Engineering Section
Facilities Construction Branch
1.
Persons Contacted
a.
Florida Power Corporation (FPC)
C. E. Jackson - Construction Superintendent
E. E. Froats - Supervisor, Quality and Standards
i
D. W. Pedrick - Quality Engineer
R. B. Johnson - Engineer
R. S. Dorrie - Engineer
b.
Contractor Organizations
(1) J. A. Jones Construction Company (JAJ)
J. R. Amundson - Site Quality Control Supervisor
(2) Babcock and Wilcox Construction Company (B&W)
L. M. Watson - Field Project Manager
2.
Weld Rod Control Procedure
While observing welds being performed onsite, the inspector noticed
that a welder had kept weld fillt.r material in his tool box after the
end of the previous day's shift. FPC and JAJ personnel agreed that
this was a violation of FPC's Weld Rod Control Procedure W-21.
However,
after a review of the procedure, FPC and JAJ concurred that the welder
was not in'arrect in his interpretation of the procedure which stated
in part, ". . . return weld filler material either at the end of the
job or at shift change." Since the welder was not finished with the
job, he kept the weld filler material.
,
The FPC representative sa.id that the intent of the procedure was that
whichever event occurred first should govern the control of the material.
p
He agreed that the meaning was ambiguous and stated that the proce-
dure would be clarified. Clarification will be examined on the next
inspection.
l
l
l
'
r
_ _
_ _ .
.
.
f.
-
-
.
_
-
3
~
.
.
.
,
- ,g .
~
-2-
3.
Welding Procedure Review
a.
The inspector reviewed welding procedure SS-1-TIG and no' dis-
crepancies were found.
b.
The inspector reviewed welding procedures CS-1-TIG-SMA and
,
CS-2-TIG-SNA and the procedure qualification records. The pro-
cadures were qualified using a material with thickness'of 0.712
4
inch, thereby qualifying the procedure for P-1 materials with
thickness from 3/16 inch to 2T (1.424 inches). Post-weld heat
j
treatment was not performed when the procedure was qualified.
The inspector pointed out that USAS B31.7 requires heat treat-
ment for pressure piping of P-1 materials thicker than 3/4 inch.
Also, according to ASNE Section IX, which is referenced by USAS
4
B31.7, heat treatment is an essential variable which requires
i
that weld procedure qualification must be made individually fers
(a) where no post-weld heat treatment is used; and (b) where post-
.
weld heat treatment is used.
1
The licensee stated that since the material thickness used in the
qualification did not require post-weld heat treatment and the-
qualified thickness range is 3/16 inch to 2T, the procedure is
fully qualified for that range. The inspector disagreed. The
licensee stated that, to date, these procedures have not been
used for material thickness greater than 3/4 inch, and that he
4
would investigate the matter further prior to using them on such
material.
J
i
Resolution will be examined on the next inspection.
t
4.
Makeup and Purification System Documentation
~
The inspector examined the welding and nondestructive test'documen-
,
tation and the radiographs on makeup and purification system assembly,
MU-241. The inspector found during the review of the radiographs on
!
this assembly, that the sensitivity level of the 2T hole and the
film side penetrameter thickness was not in accordance with USAS.
B31.7, Appendix B, paragraph B-1-120.2.
A review of the M. W. Kellogg nondestructive procedure, ES-403,
showed that according to the procedure, the required sensitivity
level was the 4T hole and the 0.012-inch penetrameter thickness.
Further investigation showed that M. W. Kellogg is using Code case
72 dated August 1970 as its basis in the deviation in sensitivity
- _
and penetrameter requirements.
!
This code case has not been included in USAS B31.7 even though a
subsequent addendum, USAS B31.7 C (1971), has been issued.
.
4S .
_
.
,
.
l
-
)
'
,
-
-
.
r'
.
(
-
.
-3-
'
'
The licensee had also identified this item in an internal audit
and is locking into the acceptability of this code case. The inspec-
tor stated that the acceptability of the code case must be resolved
and since the code case is not part of the FSAR, it must be included
if found to be acceptable. The licensee said that this will be done.
5.
Makeup and Purification System Weld Joint Examination
'
After visually examining welus MU-05 and 66, the inspector reviewed
the welding and nondestructive testing records and radiographs.
MU-66 had been RT inspected and rejected due to incomplete penetration.
The repair cycle had not yet begun. The documentation was reviewed with
no further questions. MU-65 had also been RT inspected, and the in-
spector stated that a reevaluation of the RT should be performed for
root blending and for visual acceptability for RT.
The remaining docu-
mentation was reviewed with no further questions. The licensee agreed
that the review would be made and any necessary corrective act ion would
be taken on MU-65. He added that this weld had not gone through the
internal audit cycle.
,
i
l
l
-
. -.__
.
. . . .
-.
,-
- - _ _
-
-
.
.
.-
. - - . - - -
.
- _ . _
-
.. . .
.. -.
_..
.
.
.
- .
. _ -
- -.
.
.
'
.
.
..,
.
,
..
,
.
.
,
i
Ler to Florida Power Corporation
i
JAN 161973
.
!
cc w/ encl:
30
J. B. Henderson, RO
RO:HQ (4)
!
Directorate of Licensing (4)
'
DR Central Files
,
,
cc w/o encl:
.
j
Local PDR
OIS, OR
!
.
,
.
I
i
>
!
.
!
!
!
.)
I
!
4
(
,
!
!
!
.
,
- . - - .
.-.
.,
-
.
-
_,
..,,
._. _
._ . , . .. - .- . .______ .- _. _ ...
.
.-.
-