ML19308D428
| ML19308D428 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 12/13/1971 |
| From: | Kelley W, Moseley N, Warnick R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19308D426 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-71-04, 50-302-71-4, NUDOCS 8002280731 | |
| Download: ML19308D428 (11) | |
Text
-
,n UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION ~
+
e I
DIVISION OF COMPLIANCE REGION 11 - SUITE 816 233 PEACHYREE STREET. NORTHWEST ATI. ANT 4. GEORGI A 30303 CONSTRUCTION _ INSPECTION REPORT C0 Report No. 50-302/71 h
Subject:
Florida Power. Corporation Docket No. 50-302 Crystal River Unit 3 License No. CPPR-51 Crystal River, Florida.
Priority ---
Category A2 Dates of Inspection:
October 6-8, 1971 Dates of Previous Inspection:
July 12-15., 1971 I
Type _.of Licensee: B&W, PWR, 855 nie
=
}
Type of Inspection:
Routi e, Announced.
I
,Pr/L M.
22-2-7/
Principal Inspector:
R. F. Warnick, Reactor Inspector Date s
/2 7/
Accompanying Inspector:
y W. D. Kellef, Ifeac Inspector Date Other Accompanying Personnel: None
/
/ 5/7/ ~
Reviewed By:
N. C. Moseley, Senior Reactoi Insp_ector
/ Date
~
Proprietary Information: None O
8002 280 /3j i
I
p
= -
SECTION I Enforcement Action A.
Noncompliance Items 1.
Equipment storage and inspection program is. not.being conducted as required by Appendix B, 10 CFR 50.
(See Section II, Paragraph 4.)
2.
Minimum vall thickness. of 14-inch,1,500-pound check valve appears less than allowed by code.
(See Section III, Paragraph 2.)
B.
Nonconformance Items Mone.
t C.
Safety Items None.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters V
There;are no previously identified. enforcement matters.
Unresolved Items A.
Steam generator support anchor bolts.
(See Section III, Paragraph 3.)
B.
Spent fuel piping spool piece SF-61.
(See Section III, Paragraph h. )
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items A.
Available documentation concerning substitution of runout tabs for radiography on the nuclear service heat exchanger was reviewed.
There are no further comments.
(See Section III, Paragraph 5.)
B.
Forty-one fabricated Class I pipe spool pieces were returned to the vendor's shop for rework. The inspector spot checked the piping and the
~
unresolved question was satisfied.
(See Section III, Paragraph 6. )
C.
The other two unresolved items are still outstanding.
(See Section II, Paragraphs 5 and 6.)
Design Changes None.
m
,n V
a '
Unusual Occurrences None.
w Persons Centacted
- H. L. Bennett, Director - Generation Construction
- M. H. Kleinman, Manager - Quality. Programs and Standards
- E. E. Froats, Quality Engineer
- D. W. Pedrick, Engineer P. G. Davis, Manager - Power Testing J.. Alberdi, Nuclear. Plant. Superintendent
- These individuals also attended the maaagement interview.
Management Interview A.
The inspector explained that this was.a turnover inspection and that Warnick was-the new principal. reactor inspector for Crystal River 3.
It was stated that. Kelley will be the principal inspector for Crptal p
River k and that he. will. periodically assist with the inspection of t v1 Unit 3.
(See Section II, Paragraph 3.)
V B.
The inspector stated.FPC's. equipment storage.and inspection program appeared to be in noncompliance.with Criterien XIII. of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
The inspector.then.. cited specific deficiencies. These defi-ciencies were acknowledged by. Froats. and Kleinman. Bennett stated that corrective action would be taken on all items.
(See Section II, Paragraph
- h. )
C.
Ultrasonic testing of reactor coolant pump flywheels was discussed.
Kleinman said the flywheels.will.be ultrasonically. tested in place.
The inspector informed Bennett that this item would remain unrosolved.
(See Section II, Paragraph 5.)
D.
The inspector indicated that precoating of tendon wires vill remain as an unresolved item.until the. greasing procedure becomes available and is reviewed by Compliance.
(See Section II, Paragraph 6.)
E.
The inspector stated that he had reviewed the new format of FPC's deficiency report and.that there were no further comments.
(See Section II, Paragraph 7.)
\\
- l'
. r(
_h-4 F.
FPC was informed that the vall thickne.ts of a.1k-inch,.1,500-pound Crane check valve was as.much..as 5/8 inch.less.than..the minimum specified in USAS B16.5 Kleinman stated.that..the vall. thickness of.all. cast valves onsite would be. measured..uatiLaufficient information was available to develop a statistical. analysis. for an inspection program.
(See Section III, Paragraph 2.)
G.
FPC was informed that the. design..ani velding-.of the steam generator anchor bolts was questioned by: the.. inspector; however, insufficient information was available to.ccmplete_ the. audit. FPC (Kleinman) stated they would review the item.and_.have the information.available for the next inspection.
(See Section III,. Paragraph $. )
H.
FPC (Froats) stated.spooLpiece.SF-6L veld _B vould.be ground and reinspected in 30 days for rust.
(See Section III, Paragraph h.)
I.
FPC was. informed. substitutica of. weld. runout. tab in lieu of radio-graphy.vas acceptable. since_ fabricator. had.used. 65% joint efficiency for the design of the nuclear service.. heat exchanger and item is closed.
(See Section III, Pad. graph 5. )
J.
FPC was informed the reworkeilk W. Kellogg. fabricated piping spool v
piece had been inspected and records. audited and. item was c' osed.
(See Section III, Paragraph 6.)
~
d
/V _
SECTION II - Prepared.by R. F. Warnick ADDITIONAL SUBJECTS. INSPECTED,.ECT_ IDENTIFIED IIL SECTION I, WHERE N0 DEFICIENCIES OR UNRESOLVED _ ITEMS WERE FOUND 1.
General FPC reports construction.is 38f complete..
At the. time of the inspection, guy wires were being.. install aa.to. anchor the hoist, that. will be used to set the reactor vessel ani steam. generators..in place.. The reactor vessel is scheduled for. installation _the. Week..of November 15, 1971.
Bennett reports core loading,.is. scheduled. for late.May 1973 and commercial operation is scheduled for September 1973.
Effective November 1,1971., R. B. Johnson,. an electrical engineer, will transfer to FPC's quality surveillance group reporting to Froats.
Gilbert Associates, Incorporated. (GAI), FPC's. quality assurance contractor, has added.SaboLto_their staff as the project engineer.
He will be in St. Petersburg and.will report to FPC's Kleinman. The three GAI people onsite will report to Sabol.
d 2.
Reactor Vessel a.
Followup record review of storage inspections.
b.
Follevup observation of the protection afforded the reactor vessel in storage.
DETAILS OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN SECTION I 3.
Reactor Inspector Assignments Effective September 13, 1971, R. F. Warnick was assigned as principal reactor inspector for FPC's Crystal River Unit 3.
W. D. Kelley, formerly assigned to Crystal River Unit 3, was assigned to FPC's Crystal River Unit h.
~
h.
Equipment Storage and Inspections -
The inspector reviewed the inspection reports for the following majo* nieces of equipment which were stored onsite: reactor vessel, bcwn stu a generators, all three makeup (HP injection) pumps, both decay heat (LP injection) pumps, both letdown coolers, and the pressurizer.
In addition, the inspector physically observed the reactor vessel, both steam generators, the three makeup pumps, and the two decay heat pumps.
v
r
/*
& d FPC's storage. and inspection.. program appears to be in noncompliance with Criterion XIII of. Appendix B, 10 CFR 50, which states:
" Measures shall be established to control the handling, storage, shipping, cleaning, and preservation of material and equipment in. accordance with vork and. inspection instructions to prevent damage or deterioration. When necessary for particular products, special protective environments, such as inert gas atmosphere, specific moisture content levels, and ~ temperat"re levels, shall be specified and provided."
The following deficiencies were identified.by the inspector and discussed in the. management interview.
Bennett stated that corrective action would be taken on all items, a.
FPC's storage and inspection instructions appear to be inadequate.
i The storage and inspection requirements for certain equipment could not be determined.
Although the equipment receiving inspection reports did specify the " applicable field procedure," it was difficult to find the storage 9
and inspection requirements in the specified " applicable field procedure."
l It was not obvious that equipment manufacturers' stora6e and inspection recommendations were known to FPC or incorporated in the existing instructions.
In particular, the letdown coolers were received on October 9,1970.
D.ey were never uncrated and the. receiving inspection report stated:
" Actual condition of equipment inside crate is unknown." The letdown coolers had not been inspected as of October 8,1971. The inspector asked Froats how he knew the equipment was correctly stored and whether or not it should receive in-storage inspections. These questions were not answered during Compliance's inspection.
b.
Measures established to control the storage and preservation of equipment to prevent damage or deterioration appear to be inadequate.
In particular, the makeup pumps MU-PlA,1B, and 1C vere received in September 1970. All three were inspected by site personnel on September 15, 1970, with satisfactory results. The-pumps were mounted in the auxiliary building. The installation inspection report of June 1,1971, stated: " Inspected and rotated pumps.
Pumps rotated freely.
Infrared heat lamps under protection and covers over pumps.
Heaters operating.
Appearance of pumps satisfactory."
v
='
O
-7.-
=
The inspection report dated July 15, 1971, was marked unsatisfactory
- and stated:
" Makeup. pumps.and. drives.on foundation in. auxiliary building.
Heat lamps on pumps and. strip he'aters on motors in operation.
.j Pumps and motors covered with a combination of wood, poly-ethylene, and tarpaulins. Water always 1-3 inches deep-in area of pumps. Polyethylene should be taped to pump base and grout holes covered to-prevent moisture entering under polyethylene and becoming trapped. Lubricating oil reser-voir should be filled with a rust inhibiting oil."
1 Deviation Report No. 7 was issued to document this problem.
-]
Deviation Report No. 7 was written on July 15, 1971, documenting the storage conditions for the makeup pumps. On September 24, 1971, the conditions were recorded in the storage inspection report as follows:
"All pumps and motors were rotated.
Plastic covering pumps and motors was not. tight. Tape had come loose in several locations. Grout holes in pump base were not j
taped making it easy for moisture to get into plastic cover.
Desiccant bags.could be visually observed to be 9
depleted and should be replaced."
t The reactor inspector observed the makeup pumps in stcrage.
They were covered with plastic.but the plastic was not sealed. The bags of desiccant looked and felt dry, although it was not obvious whether or not they were actually depleted.
Tt. motor heaters and pump heat lamps were on.
Desiccant was stored inside the pumps but the condition of the drying agent was unknown.. Froats indicated the pump flange covers had i -
not been removed to enable checking the desiccant.
Water was puddled on the floor which was some two feet belov j
f the pumps.
The Region II inspector questioned Froats about the deviation j
report, its contents, follevup, and closeout.
Froats did not have a
-I copy of the report.
He indicated that when corrective action has been l
l completed anther inspection. report will be issued and the corrective action vill be. documented in the report.
As of October 8,1971, no follovup or corrective action for Deviation Report No. _7 had been completed.
It was. not apparent that O
any corrective action had been initiated and Freats was not aware of any.
V
sU =
c.
Improvement is needed in adherence to certain existing instructions.
In particular, the decay heat pumps were re eived and inspected on May k, 1971.
In-storage inspection reports indicated they were inspected again on June 15, 1971, and July 15, 1971. The reactor inspec-tor observed the pumps in warehouse storage. Tags attached.to the pump crates indicated both decay heat pumps were inspected on May 10, June 2, July 1, August 3, September 8, and October 15, 1971. No inspection reports had been filled out. _ Neitner Froats nor Bennett were aware that inspections were being made without completing the documenting paperwork.
FPC's field procedures require the reactor vessel, steam generators,
makeup pumps, and decay heat pumps. to be inspected.at periodic intervals which are not to exceed 30 days.
Froats acknowledged.that this was the requirement. The inspector identified at least one violation of this requirement for every piece of equipment that was looked at.
Specific time. periods without inspection were:
MU-P1A, 1B, and 1C 9/15/70 to 6/1/71 6/1/T1 to T/15/T1 T/15/71 to 9/2h/T1
\\
DH-P1A and 1B 5/h/71 to 6/15/T1 7/15/T1 to 10/8/71 Steam Generator No. 1 6/29/71 to 8/2/71 9/3/71 to 10/8/T1 Steam Generator No. 2 6/29/71 to 8/2/T1 Reactor Vessel 9/2/T1 to 10/h/T1 b!
5 Ultrasonic Testing of Reactor Coolant Pump Flywheels FPC reports the pump flywheels were ultrasonically tested prior to machining but not since.. They plan to F trasonically test the flywheels in place. The inspector questioned whether or not this was satisfactory and indicated he would seek further guidance on this matter and discuss it during the next inspection.
~
6.
Precoating of Tendon Wire The fabricated tendons to be supplied by Prescon Corporation are required to be greased prior to shipment. The specification r each individual wire in a tendon to be greased independently. guires 1/ CO Report No. 50-302/71-3,Section II, Paragraph h.
2] CO Report No. 50-302/71-3,Section II, Paragraph 2.
v
e The inspector informed Bennett. that this iten will remain open until
. the gressing procedure.becomes available and is reviewed by Region II.
-7 Deficiency Report Format The inspector observed.that.the work order form issued to correct deficiencies had been. changed _to identify the company, as well as the individual, who initiated.it. The form also identifies the company and the individual closig.out the item.
This. resolves the question, raised last inspection.
e
==
1/ CO Report No. 50-302/71-3,Section I, Paragraph.B, under Management Inte niev.
s
n 9
o(&'
SECTION III - Prepared by W. D. Kelley ADDITIONAL SUBJECTS INSPECTED,.NOT IDENTIFIED.IN SECTION I, WHERE NO DEFICIENCIES.OR UNRESOLVED. ITEMS WERE FOUND
.s
.l.
General Areas.. examined.where no. deficiencies. vere noted. vere spent fuel. pit -
liner velding and testing, and. rigging of the. stiff leg derrick for setting of reactor. vessel and steam generators.
DETAILS.0F SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN SECTION I
- 2.. Valve. Wall Verification Program FPC (Kleinman) had taken the position that they would measure only one valve of a pattern.for.vall. thickness.
The inspector selected a lb-inch,1,'300-pound,. Crane pressure seal check valve and measured the vall thickness which was as much as 5/8 inch less than minimum vall specified in B16.5 FPC (Kleinman) then took the position that all cast valve vall thickness onsite would be measured until sufficient information p
was available to develop a_statical analysis for an inspection program.
The inspector reminded FPC that whoever inspected the valve must be j
knowledgeable in valve design.
3.
Steam Generator Anchor Bolts Assembly The steam generator anchor bolt assembly was fabricated by Kline Iron and Steel Company, Columbia, South Carolina, of A kh9 (122,000 psi yield) bolts te A-283 Gr C plate with E7018 electrodes using a full panetration weld of the bolt material. There was insufficient data at the site to determine if the design required a full penetration veld of A kh9 bolts or the A-283 Gr C plate.
FPC (Kleinman) stated that the design and welding requirements would be reviewed with GAI and the data vould be available for the next inspection.
4.
Spent Fuel Piping Spool. Piece SF 61 Weld.B of spent fuel piping. spool piece SF-61 was observed to be rusty but not the adjacent pipe or fitting.
FPC (Pedrick) measured the ferrite using a Severn gage in six areas and.it ranged between 7-1/2 to 10%.
FPC (Froats) stated the veld would be ground with a flapper disc and reinspected for rust in 30 days.
v L.
,,s f
9 OU
-n-
=
5 Nuclear Service Heat Exchanger The fabricator (Struthers Wells - Gulfport, Incorporated) had used runout veld tube in. lieu of radiography because the design of the longi-tudinal seam made. radiography difficult. The Struther Wells - Gulfport letter dated May.25,1970,- stated..the joint was designed.to Section VIII, Paragraph UW-12, Table.UW-12 No. 2 which requires. a joint efficiency of 65% and does not. require. nondestructive testing.. The ASME U-1 form stated the joint efficiency was. 6)%; however,. it.vas confirmed in a telecon between FPC and.Strutbsrs Wells - Gulfport as being a typogrsphical error and corrected U-l forme were being forwarded to FPC.
6.
Class I Piping
. Fabricated _by M. W. Kellogg A_ total of 41 fabricated piping spool. pieces.were returned to M.. W. Kellogg for.revork because.they did not. meet B31.1 or B31.7.
The reworked pipe was inspected at the shop 100% by the GAI inspector prior to shipment and 100% by a Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory inspector when received at the site. The inspector spot checked the piping and the unresolved item is closed.
O
.