ML19317G320
| ML19317G320 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 11/28/1975 |
| From: | Jape F, Robert Lewis, Whitt K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317G316 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-75-16, NUDOCS 8002280929 | |
| Download: ML19317G320 (26) | |
See also: IR 05000302/1975016
Text
.
_ _ _ _
- - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ - _ _ . _
.:.~..-
-
.-
- .. .
.
- - ,
1 UNITED cTATES
.
,
.
.. NUCLEAR REGULN ORY - COMMISSION
\\
-
nEGloN li
'
230 PEACHTFtEE STRCET. N. W.. SUITE 818
.
ATLANTA. GEO RCI A 30303
e
,
IE Inspect'
'eport No. 50-302/75-16
,
Licensee:
Florida Pouer Corporation
3201 34th Street, South
'
Post Office Box 14042
St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
-
Fccility Name:
Crystal River 3
e
Docket No.:
50-302
License No.:
CPPR-51
-
Category:
B1
Location:
Crystal River, Florida
.
Type of License:
Type of Inspection:
Routine, unann]unced
Dates of Inspection:
October 22-24, 1975; October 28-30, 1975, and
November 4-7, 1975
Dates of Previoua Inspercion: October 7-10, 1975
Principal Inspector:
K. W. Whitt, Reactor Inspector
Reactor Projects Section No. 2
Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
Accompanying Inspecto 2:
F. Jape, Reactor Inspector
Reactor Projects Section No. 1
Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
.
R. F. Ragers, Reactor Inspector
Nuclear Support Section No. 1
Reactor Operations and Nuclear Sup irt Branch
-
S. D. Ebneter, Reactor Inspector
Engineering Support Section
Reactor Construction and Ep..ineering Support Branch
G. L. Troup, Radiat!9n Specialist
Radiation Support Section
Fuel Facility and Materials Snfety Branch
S'purio,A
' t.O.
b
L' $F.zx)$,
W
g.
.
1 N$. '
8oo2280fJf
"'e '9*
..-.
. _ -
-
-
'
.- . ..
. . _ ,
.
. . _ . . -
g
.
..
.
,
J
IE Rp...
,;o. 50-302/75-16
-2-
.
!
.
.J.~W. Hufham, Radiation Specialist
<
.
Environmental and Special Projecta Section
,
I
Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch
!
Other Accompanying Personnel: None
,
C
//
Y'*4
f
Principal ~ 1nspectori
' '
- "
-
j.
K.'W. E ct, "cactor Inspector
Date
,
,
Reactor Project Section No. 2
Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
7 ,.
.
/
e
,
~
// // 75
b .' ' / *'
'
l' t /s
.e .4 i
l
Reviewed by:
.-Lewis, Section Leader.
/ Date
'
R. C
.
'
Reactor Projects Section No. 2
--
-
4
Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
i
i
i
'
.
-
-
i
i
!
!
l
t
l
I
1
i
e
I
$
l
l
1
!
.
1
-
1
!
I
1
.
.
-
s
a
!
!
!
!-
e
'
- - .- .
. . _ . . .,,,..-.,.---._.-;..-
, . - . . . - , . , , .
. - . - . . , . _ . . - . . . . _ -
. . . . - - . - . .
. - . . . - . .
7;
_
e,
~
- -<
-
- --
'
~
- ~
'
< ,
_
a .
- - . .
,.
-
.
[.
Tj ~
S'
<
u
- .
"
- IE 1.p t. = No. .'50-302/75-16 -
3-'
D
-
,
'
<
. . .
SU MARY OF FINDINGS-
' I
'
.
. -
,
'
. I '. Enforcement Matterr
r
~
-
There were no items of. noncompliance.idc
d during the ine ection.
'
_-
52
II.
Licensee Action on-Previousiv Identified' Enforcement Matters'
.
,
_ A.
Violations
,
j
There were no previously identified viciations requiring resolution.
,;
,
i
B.
Infractions'
-
4
75-12-Al(II)
Control of Specin.1 Pre asses
!
4
The inspector reviewed the actions taken by the
'
licensee to correct the infraction relating to
!,
the recording of nondestructive examination-
data. The procedure revisions and' administrative
controls defined in the corrective action appeared-
!
to be adequate and implement
.on wr.c verified.by-
a review of data records.
This item ts closed.'
,
j
(Details II, paragraph 3)
i
C.
Deficien les
y
1
.
,
There were no previously identified deficiencies requiring resolution.
III.
New Unresolved Items
i
75-16/1
Nondestructive Examination Procedure 0::alification -
'
,
, ' .
g
The licensee's agent (B&W) could not produce adequate docu
1.
mentarlof verifying that penetrant test- (PT) procedures ut ad
j
in baseline no.ndestructive examinations were qualified as
required by.the ASME. Code and B&W procedures. ' (Details II. .
f
paragraph 4)
.
75-16/2 - Traint g Completion and Documentation
.
i
Completion of all the training related activitics desceibet.
In section 12.2 of.the FSAR has not been documented.
(Detail: V, paragraph'3).
!
'
t
75-16/3
Integr.i.ed Leak' Rate-Test
i
!
,,/ -
.Certain aspects of_ integrated leak rate testing as described
in the test procedure . (Tl' 7 1 150~02) are not: consistent
g
9
4
- with the commitment'of e etion 5.6.3.of-the FSAR. - (Details V,
paragraph 5)
,
!
9
r.,
y
-
->,-+e.
.
- v
~
e
+,%,
e-n,t
e
-e-v-
w-v e
.v-
,
e
v
ve-r--
t - -- =
vvrw
4
+
w - --
-*-e-~,*
- *
.
.
.
- .- . . ._ ,
_
_ ..
__
--_
.-
gm
,
i
.
.n-
Iig)
IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-16-
-4-
.-
IV.
Status af1Previously Identified-Unresolved Items
,
74-11/1
3erational' Procedures
All required operational procedures have now been identified by
'
-
the licensee.
This item is closed.
(Details IV, paragraph 2)
'
75-2/1
Audits of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Contractors
i
Audits of the contractors have been completed. This item is
closed.
(Details I, paragraph-2)
.
.
75-2/3
Periodic Calibration of Meteorology Facility
Calibration procedures'hav2 not been prepared and approved.
This
item remains open.
(Details I, ,aragraph 3)
.
75-8'/5
Floor Surfaces in the Radiochemistry Laboratory and Counting Room
Lict .see has determined that floor surfaces are in accordance with
design requirements.
This item is closed.
(Details I, paragraph 4)
\\
V.
Unusual Occurrences
None
VI.
Other Sirpificant Findines
None
VII. Managi unt Interview
A management interview was held on October 24, 1975, witt. Mr. G. P. Beatty,
Pirnt Superintendent, and members of his staff.
Inspection findings relating
to inservice inspection and radiological controls were-discussed.
A management interview was held on October 30, 1975, with Mr. J. Alberdi,
Project Manager,_and members of his staff.
Inspection findings relating to
the emergency plan were discussed.
A managem 't interview was held on November 7, 1975, with Mr. G. P. Beatty,
.
2
Plant Supt intendent, and members of his s:mff.
Inspection findings relating
to plant operations and preoperational testing were dist :ssed.
,
(m)
-
,
-
,
<
..
2
~~.._.i
- -
.-
()
~)
.
J
.
(%L}'
/"
IE 24 r o No. 50-302/75-16
.I-1
,$
DETT.17.J I
Prepared by:
M
t_.a.o
7(~
,
G. L. Troup, Rcdiation Specialist
Date
Facility Radiological Protection -Section
Radiological and Envir,onmental
,
Protection Branch
Dates of Inspectioni
October 21-24, 1975
r.
l'[O[7 5
Reviewed by:
-
-
.
A. F. ' Gibst a, Senio. Health Physicist
Date
Facility Radiological Protection Section~
e
Radiological and Environmental
-
Protection Branch
-
1.
Individuals Contacted
.
.
J. Alberdi - Project Manager
.
G'.P.
Beatty, Jr. - Nuciear-Plant Superintendent
.
D. W. Pedrick, IV - Compliance Engineer
J. R. Wright - Chemical and Radiation Protection Engineer
J. L. Harrison - Assistant Chemical and Radiation Protection Engineer
.I
\\
G. D. Perkins - Health Physics Supervisor
\\s_ l
J. Ruszala - Startup Engineer
E. E. Froats - Manager, Site Surveillance
J. C. Clapp - Manage., Site Quality Surveillance
A. W. Morneault - Supervisor, Surveillance Affairs
,
2.
Aud*ts of Radiological Enviro mentcl Monitoring Contractors
This item was originally discussed in IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-2,
a.
Details I, paragra.h 2 and dealt with audits of the two radiolo-
.
gical environmental ce ntractors.
As noted in rd Rpt. No. 50-
302/75-8, Details III, paragraph 8 one contractor was inspected
on' April 28, 1975.
During the inspection a licensee representa-
l
tive advised ~the inspector thc; an audit was conducted of the
'
second contractor on September 5, 1975.
Results were reported-
in plant audit report 75/11.
The inspector reviewed this
report an.d advised licensee management that based on this
audit, this item was closed.
b.
As discussed in IE R'ts. No. 50-302/75-2, Details I, paragraph
p
2 and 50-302/75-8, Details III, paragraph 8, licensee management
had :tated that the operational environmental monitoring
program would be under the operational quality assurance
program.
Ilowever, during the operational quality assurance
pg
progran inspection (IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-15) it was noted
I
that the operational e nvironmental monitoring pror; cam was not
t, G
,
.
- . - . . .
.
.
.,
.
._. ,
L.-
-
L
-
-
L
3
.
,
.
"
-
rh
(
)'
IE Rpt..Ua. 50-302/75-16-
I-2
'
W
.
addressed by the quality assurance program. The inspector.
emnhasized'te licensee representatives the need to establish
'
the quality assurance requirements for the environmental
!
monitoring program to assure that the administrative requirements
of the Environmental Technical Specifications will be implemented
-
upon-issuance of the operating license.
,
4
f
3.
Periodic Calibration of the Meteorology Facility
-
This item was originally discussed in IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-2,
,
Details I, paragraph 4 and dealt with the establishment of a_ quarterly
calibration program for the meteorology fa: tlity.in accordance with
-
FSAR Section 2.3.3.
Licensee representatives informed the inspector
that the facility was calibrated-by a contractor in August 1si5 but
acknowledged that the procedures have not been prepared for periodic
calibration of the facility by plant personnel.
The inspector
,
info.rmed licensee r tagement that this item remained open pending -
approval and implem atation of the procedures.
4.
Floor Surfaces in the Radiochemistry Laboratory and Counting Room
)
Thic item was originally discussed in IE Rpt. No. 50-302/75-8,
\\~
Details TII, paragraph 4 and dealt with the roughness of the floor
surfacea and gaps between the floor and installed cabinets and work
benches.
During a tour of the plant the inspector noted that
coaming had been installed around the bottom of the cabincts and
work benches and that the edges had been sealed.
A licensee
representative advised the inspector that the floor surfaces are
coated with a nuclear-tfpe floor covering which is readily decontami-
-
ntted and that the roughness of the surface was to prevent slipping
<
of y_rsonnel. The licensee representative further stated that the
floor ~ surface covering had been reviewed and recommended by the
architect-engineer for this application. The inspector advised
licensee management that based on this review and corrective actions
taken, this item was" closed.
5.
Plant Procedures
J
The inspector reviewed the training outlines and completed
a.
examinations given to plant personnel.for radi.' tion protection
training and noted that the outlines were handwritten documents
with no supervisory approval. The inspector pointed out to
licensee managem nt that this training formed the basis for
c1 caring per.~nnel for entry into he radiation control area
as-well as meeting the requirement of FSAR _ action 12.2.2.4,
)
l
and, as n ch, the outline or course cont.at should have a
.('~'N
formal m: .agement approval.
Licensee management acknowledged
v).
~ l
,
,
.
.
_ _..
_ . . _
_ . . _ .
l}
'
.
.
-
/<~sT
lE.hpt.'No. 50-302/75-16-
.
.
.
.
I-3
.
1
.this comment and stated that the requirements for radiation
'
. protection training would be incorporated into.AI-1200 or
w id be separately approved,
c.
Personnel dosimeters are presently being used in the fuel
'
handling area and when radioactive materials are handled.. The
inspector reviewed the documentation for the calibration and
,
drift tests of the dosimeters and found t. tem acceptable.
Ilovever, it was noted that the drtft test was not covered in
,
the procedure although this is a necessary test to determine
the acceptability of the dosimeter.
Licensee management
,
acknowledged that the drift test should be included'in the
procedure and stated that it would be included in the revision
of the procedure which is presently being prepared.
c.
Personnel radic' ion exposures will be monitored using thermo-
luminescence dosimeters (TLD) which will be supplied and
'
evaluated by a contractor.
In response to a question a
licensee representative informe~ the inspector that it is the
plant's intentien to send TLD's which have been exposed to
knc vi doses of radiation to the contractor for evaluatLon
along eith re:;ular TLD's.
This will provide a quality control
check oi. 'he contractor by permittin; evaluation of known
s
doses against reported results.
The licensee representative.
advised the inspector that a procedure would be prepared to
cover this activity but, as yet, it has not been issued.
5
e
W
i
o.
-
-
-
,
.
.
_.
-
~-
-
(m .
,
,,
. . _
.y
A
'
C'\\
.(v /-
IE4uport No.. 50-302/7'5-16
II-1
DETAILS II
Prepared by:
/
.-(
M!*
S..D.
Ebneter,-Rcactor Inspector
Date
Engineering Section
. Facilities Construction Branch
..
j
Dates of Inspection: October- 22-24,'1975
7
Reviewed by: -I / b uJ'dT
- -#-7#
'
L.-L.
Beratan,. Senior-Incpector
'Date
-
Engineering Section
Facilities Construction Branch
-
,
,
. . -
1.
Persons Contacted
,
Florida Power Corporation (FPt[
a.
E. E. Froats - Manager, Site Quality Assurance
i
~
J. C. Clapp - Manager, Site-Quality Surveillance
p
D. W. '31enhowski - Mechanical Engineer
(
W. G. Wellborn - Plant Engineer
b.
Contractor Organizations
!
Babo qk and Wilcox Construction Company (36W)
G. Terning - Site Manager, Preservice Inspectf.on Team
l
2.
Preservice Inspection (PSI) Recuirements
,
The PSI requirements are contained in the FSAR Tec'hnical
Specifications and AE E codes as referenced in IE Reports
50-302/75-10 and.50-3e2/75-12.
3.
Actica on Previous Enforcement Items
l
IE Report 50-302/75-12 identified an apparent noncompliance with'
regard to the recording of calibration and nondestructive exami-
. nation data of preservice inspection (PSI) activities.
The
licensee outlined the corr:ctive action to be taken in a written
response to the NRC dated October 16, 1975.
Revision 8 to SP-304,
"Preservice-Inspection" incorporates in the procedure provisions.
to assure that calibration data and test data enn be correlated.
This revision was appproved by the Plant' Review Committee.
BUJ
{'"'
revised' Procedure ISI-64, Administrative Proced.ce for Handling
v
!
,
k
,
O
m
.
.
-
,
-
a&
s
-
.
q
p
.-
,
,
,
- -
.
)
4
)
IE" Pat.!No. 50-302/75-16
II-2
3- - .
.
Nondestructive Examination Data for Preoperational or Inservice
.
,
Examinations, Revision 3 to includeLprovisions to enter examination
dates and applicabl: calibration dates on the data sheets.
.
-The inspector. reviewed the' corrective action and verified imple-
mentation of the procedural revisions.
Effectiven'ess of the
corrective action was demonstrated by review of the' examination
',
records for Steam Generator B.
The corrective action appeared
to be satisfactory.and within this area the inspector had no
'
-
further' questions.
.
4.
Records Review
.~
I
The inspector reviewed the data package of Steam-Generator B
which includen all NDE records and calibration data for this
component with the excep; ion of the eddy current test data for,
,
1-
the tubes.
This latter item will be performed at a later date.-
l
The steam
ncrator NDE was performed in accordance uith
i'
applicable A:ME codes 1s delineated in PSI plan Figures 3.1
through 3.7 for Class 1 areas.
Requirements for Class 2 welds,
.
')
nozzles, studs, etc., are contained in Sections C.l.1,-C.l.2,
g
C.l.3, and C.l.4. Written procedures enumerated in the PSI plan,
.
were used to perform the examinations per ASME code requirements.
The calibration and date rceords are contained in FPC Q38-5 and
Q38-6 inspection d .a packages.
.
The inspector auditet the data packages to vcrify compliance wich
ASME code, FSAR requirements, and implementing procedures.
It
appeared that all FSAR and code requirements had been mc and the
examinations had been performed by qualified pc lonnel in accor-
dance with applicabl; procedures.
No code rejectable indications
4-
-
were detected in St tm Generater B.
The inspector noted rhat no
discrepancies wete round during the audit of the calibration data
and examination data records thus substantiating the efiectiveness
of corrective action implemented to correct .oncompliance 75-12-
.
=i
Al(II).
In addition, much more attention has been placed on the
analysis of geometrical reflections which further increase the
confidence that can be placed in the examination data.
1
.The inspector reviewed data records applicable to the weld from
MKA61 to MK55, pipe-to-safe-end weld cataloged in the PSI plan
uas Figures 4.112, 4.113, and 4.1.114.
The data records, calibra-
,
' tion sheets, and personnel certifications appeared to be in
-
cenformance with requirements.
However,'there were incomplete
['Nx ,,) '
recordt. of the qualification data for procedure ISI-220, Pene-
trant Inspection.
The inspector could not' determine if the
l
.
.--.y
<
n,
_ ,
.. - . -
.
-
-
D- v
'
. g,
,y
-
-
N
-
W
IE T,
. No. 50-302/75-16
II-3
.
. procedure was qualified ba: 2d on the existing records.
B(W
~
'
site p sonnel d(srussed this with the ISI pers:nnel at
Copley. Ohio, and complete data will be for'arded to the site.
This is identified as Unresolved Item 75-1o/1 and will be the
-
subject of a future audit.
5.
Reverification
'.
'
'
The original ultrasonic. test (U-T) performed on control rod drive-
motor tube 213 detected a code reportable indication in a weld
in a tube transition area.
B&W returned the motor tube to the supplier ,
for disposition.
Subsequently, the supplier returned the tube.,.,
r
to Cry::tal River with limited documentation stating the tube was
acceptable per ASME requirements based on NDE performed by the
supplier.
.
The l'tspector witnessed a retest of-th.. motor tube by B&W
personnel.
The test was performed in accordance with ISI-102
and ISI-109.
The data obtained on this retest exhibited
good repeatability, correlated with the original baseline data,
[
\\
and the indication was readily detectable.
B&W has referred this
\\s_/
indie ton to their Level 11 for disposition.
4
!
l
l
1
!
i
e
Wh
(
i
~->
>
. - - .
,.
.-
,
,.
, - , ._
_
,
. -
~.
_ - . _ . -
-
--_--,o
.,
.
-
-
=
,
-g
-
n,
+
}
q ,/
IE !.yort No. 50 '02/75-16
.III-l
.
DETJ.!;S III-
Prepared by:
1. 3,
..lb..)
\\ ff
'/ *>
J. W. Ilufham, padiation Specialist
Da'te
-
En' ironmental.p:td Special Projects
etion, Fuel. Facility and Mat. rials
'
hafetyBranch
Dates of Inspec-lon: October 2^-31, 1975
Reviewed by:
%
.
/ h-3 m
// 56 !'/i
'
R. L. Bangart,/ ection Leader
Date'
S
,
Environmencal a, nd Special Projects
Section, Fuel Facility and Materials
Safety Branch
'
1.
Individuc
Contacted
'
(a)
Florida Pouer Corporation - Crystal River Nuclear Plant
i
J. Alberdi - Project Manager
E. E. :roatz - Manager Si.e Surveillance
( _
G. P. Beatty - r. clear Plant Superintendent
!
J. R. Wright - Chem / Rad Engineer
G. D. Perkins
':ealth Physics Supervisor
'
P. D. Breedlove - Administrative Supervisor
J. L. Buckm
- Recurity Supervisor
i
T. C. Lutke:iaus
Maintenance Engineer
G. R. Ucstafer - Technical Support Engineer
(b)
Citrus County Florida
.
!
G. J. Allen - Citrus County Civil Defense Director
!
]
2.
Coordination of t'he Crystal River ijergency Plan with Offsit
Support Agencies
(a) Agreements With Offsite Agencies
.
The inspector met with a representative of the licensee to
-determine that the licensee had coordinated the Crystal
~
'
River Emergency Plan with the offsite support agencies.
The
inspector discussed with the representative the emergency
-
responsibilities of each agency and their respective notifi-
catlon precedures.
The coordination of the following agencies
wr. + discussed with the representative.
v,
,
.
4-
1
1
3
.l e
. . .
,
,
, _ _ ,
,
_
. - . . ,
- -.--
-
,
4
f
,.
.
-w
y
sq
(
j
IE-twpbrt No. 50-302/75-16-
III-2
Ay
.
(1): State of Florida -
,
Division ~of Health - Department of Health-and Rehabili-
tative Services.
,
Division of Dicaster-Preparedness Department of Community
Affairs.
[ '-
-(2) Citrus County
-
Citrus County Civil Defense
,
Citrus County Sheriff
<-
(3)
U. S. Coast Guard
The information that the inspector receive' from the licensee .
,
representative concerning the support agency agreements indicated
.
that all agencies were prepared to support the licensee in
emergency conj 1tions relative to the Crystal River Nucler.r
Plant.
In meeting with the Citrus County Civil Defense Director,
the inspector was informed that the county civil defense
si
agency was prepared to support the plant but the agency had'
.
s_,/
not received a copy of the plant emergency plan.
The defense.
director verified that he had met with representatives of the
plant to. discuss the em c ency responsibilities of his agency
-but he had not received a copy of the plan. A representative
of the licensee confirmed that a copy of-the Crystal River
Nuclear Plar: Emergency Plan would ce given to the civil-
defense director.
(b)
E:'argency Dril'.s Involving Of f 'ite Support Agencies
During the inspection the inspector briefly discussed the
emergency drfil that was held in early 1975 to determine the
effect'veness of the .mergency ag.eements with the designated
offsite agencies.
The inspector-explained to representatives
of the licensee that state, federal, and local agencies had
requested participation in another emergency drill that would
be held prior to the plant being operational.
(c)
U. S. Nuclent Regulatory Comnission - Office of Internationa,1,
and Sta':e ProPrarm
The insnector informed the represent tives of the licensee that
the U. S. NRC - Office of Inspection
i Enforcement has the
/'~'N
responsibility of assuring that the IL..asee provides emergency
(Na)
planning for the plant site and coordinates and maintains agre.-
.,,
n
.
.
.
' ~ ' '
.IE J$iport No.150-302/75-16
III-3
.
.
ments with all offsite' agencies de:',"nated in the emergency
-)
ran.
The inspector clarified for L:e licensee representatives-
t.:st 'any problems concerning the State of Florida Emergency
Plan or any local agency's emergency plan should be referred
'
to the U. S. NRC - Office of International an'd State Programs
in Bethesda, Maryland.
,
3.
Emergency Facilities and Equipment-
,
(a)
Emergency Kits
,
.
The availability of the emergency kits was discussed with.a
representative of the licensee.
The inspector was informed
that the emergency kits did not have complet - inventories at
the time of the inspection nor were they located in the
,
designated positions.
The representative confirmed that the
emergency kits 'muld have' complete inventories and be appro-
priately locat.
before the preoperational emergency drill.
,
(b)
Emergency Control Center
'
s
I
s_ /
The inspector discussed with a representative of the licensee
the emergency control center (nuclear control room)
tat is
described in the emergency plan.
The inspector was informed
that the center was constructed but certain specified equip-
-
ment was not installed at the time of the inspection.- Tha
licensee representative confirmed tha- the control room would
be equipped in accordance with'the emergency plan with the
i
exception of the area radiation monitors and process moaitors
before the preoperational emergency drill.
The licensee repre-
sentative confirmed that the following equipment would be
,'
installed by the designated d.111 date:
)
(1) HEPA filters ar charcoal filters in the . emergency ver.-
ti.1ation system
'
1
(2)
Readout panel for the meteorological instrumentation
I
(3)
Emergency kits
(4)
Respiratory equipment
.(5) Procedures and overlays for determin
>g offsi 2 dose
H
'
estimates
O
(
l'
x- ?
1
l
. - -
.
,
L
-
-
.
.,
.
\\
.-
- /
i.v) .
IIEiepoet No.150-302/75-16
III -4'-
.
(c)
Emergency Assem'qv_pynter
.
Constructionfof the emergency asaembly.centerLwas not completed
at the time of the. inspection. The inspector discussed a tenta-
.
tive construction completion date withia representative of the
licensee.but no commitment uas made for completion. However,
the representative did confirm that the primary emergency
'~
assembly center may not be completed-by the date of the pre-
operational drill but a suitable structure would be availabic to-
-
be used as the emergency assembly center.
O
(d) Onsite Medica]
" cility (First Aid Station)
~
.
.
The onsite first aid station was not visually inspected during
this inspection but the facility was thoroughly discussed.with
a representative of the licensee.
The inspector was informed-
,
-
that the facility was constructed but not equipped at this time.
The licensee representative confirmed that the facility would
be equipped in accordance wich'the erargency plan befora the
preoperation i emergency drill.
('~')
i
(e)
Emergency Medical Traascortation
3s/
'
m
,
The arrangements for the emergency medical transportation were
discussed with a reiresentative of the licensee.
The inspector
was informed that more extensive medical transportaalon would be
provided than the method described in the emergency plan.
The
represent:'lve confirmed that final arrangements for equipping
the medics vehicle were not complete but the vehicle should
be completed by the preoperational
rill date.
.
(f)
Of fsite Medical Trc .tment Facilities
,
During this inspection the inspector dircussed the offcite
medical arrangement that are established with the Shands
Teaching Hospital in Gainesville, Florida, that is designated
as the offsite-medical facility.
There was no inspection per-
formed Of the facility during this inspection due to physical
location of the facility from the plant site.
.
The local medical facility was discussed with a representative
of the licensee.
The Citrus County Memorial Hospital is de-
signated as this facility but it will only be used in plant
medical emergencies for individuals with only minor injuries
who are not contaminated.
There was no evaluation of this-
('~'N
facility during this inspection.
-
.
-
- -
.
-
..
,
.-
-*(
,
.
)
(A
x,,);
IE 2cport'No. 50-302/75-16
III-5
e
4.
Training
,
(a)
Fire Brigade Training
.
The inspector was infor x1 that selected maintenance personnel
had been trained in industrial fire protection at a training _
facility in-Ocala,-Florida.- The inspector discussed the aspects
' '
of this fire training but the training records'were not reviewed
during the inspection.
Verification of the fire training with
-
the appropriate training records will be performed after the
training supervisor coordinates the total training procram.
-
The inspect-
was informed that r.he training supervisor would
assume the t .ining coordinator position in December 1975."-
(b)
Firnt Aid' Training
The inspector was informed that first aid training had beEn
.
presented to all supervisors and radiation protection personnel.
No' records were reviewed for the documentation of this training
because the training supervisor had not assumed his position at
the time of the inspection.
I
\\~ -
(c) Offsite Fire Training
4
The inspector was informed that the offsite fire agency was
an all volunteer agency and their resources were limited.
Theref :c, the plant emergency pla.i does no. rely upon this
agency for any fire support.
Since no reliance has been placed
upon this agency, no training has been sponsored by the plant
for this agency.
(d)
Fire Training of Genera "* ant Personnel
The inspector discussed with a liccasee representative the
statement in f etion 7.0, Paragraph 7.2.2 o-
the emergency
plan that states tha all plant personnel will be trained
in the use of all fire equipment maintaincd at the plant end
the types of fi- i for which the equipment is designed.
The
inspector was iniormed that very litcle effort h:d b-cn given
toward completing this requirement. A licensee repres<.n u.c ive
confirmed that definite action would be taken concerning thi-
statement.
.
,
(e)
Emergency Teams
l
The inspector questioned the development o.' the emergency . teams
.
s
!
}
that are described in Section 2.2.3 of the Emergen-v P:an.
The
.V
1
L
i
-
1
_
. _
_ _ _
.,
-.
-
- _-
e
4
-
_'
'q
]
..
[N -
[
' IE' T... po r t No . - 50-302/75-16
III-6
'
.
Jnspector was' informed that individuals _had been assigned to.
~ c respective emergency teams..but the individual team' members
h d not been trained.
'A licensee represcntative confirmed-that
the teams would be trained in the-team responsibilities.
.
5.
Accountability
-
,
..
The inspector met with the security supervisor to discuss the
..
accountability procedure of the plant personnel as well.as for~the~
-
construction personnel.
The inspector was informed that the accoun-
tability procedures had been written and the security force'was
-
-
responsible for accountability; however, very little effort had
been given at this time toward implementing the accountability *~
procedures.
The licensee representative confirmed that the-
procedure would be exercised during the preoperational emergency
. drill to determine the effectiveness _of the procedure.
.
.
6.
Emer
icy Drill
The inspector discussed the aspects of an emergency drill that-
['"'N
should be sponsored by the plant beforc the plant begins operating.
-
( ,/
The inspector explained that the details of the c-ill would be
developed by the plant and not the U. S. NRC.
Th inspector
informed _ the licensee representar te that the U. S. NRC woul/ be
.
concerned about the drill involving the emergency organization
of the total plant
ite as well as participation of the offsite
agencies._ The licensee representative confirmed that the .cill
would be sponsored forty-five (45) to thirty (30) days prior to
the fuel loading date.
7.
Emergency Implementine Procedures
At the time of this inspection ~the inspector veriflad that the
emergency impledenting procedures were completed but the inspector
~
did not review the procedures or discuss any procedure changes.
'
l
l
.
i
l
s,
i
!
i
!~
..
.
_
-
- .
. .
---
.
.
-
.
a.
.
.
.
~m.
'
-
'
Le-
,
\\
-
.
L
-
[I
}
IE Rp!_. No. 50-30-/75-16
IV-11
\\~ /
.
.
/
.
9/
b!
'
N
'o I 'lb'l NI
// -k
e
DETAIIS IV
Prepared by:
K. W. Whitt, Reactor Inspector
Date
Reactor Projects Section 2:
Reactor Operations and Nuclear
.
Support Branch
.
'
Dates of Inspection: November 3-7, 1975
.
.
.
- i
Reviewed by: 7? ! / V '?t l' <, / i
-
It/
/ -' -7I
'
-
~~
R..C. Lewis, Section ender
Date
f
Reactor Projects Section No. 2
e
,
Reacter Operations and Nuclear
"
Support Branch
1.
Individuals contacted
.
.
.
Florida Power Cornoration (FPC)
J. Alberdi - Project Manager
'~'g
G. P. Beatty - Plant 4 perintendent
l
E. E. Froats - Manager, Site Surveillance
T. C. Lutkchaus - Maintenance Engineer
'
D. W. Pedrick, IV - Compliance Engineer
"
C. R. Pope - Administrative Supervisor
u. R. Westafer - Technical Support Engineer
.
2.
Ooeratior.al Procedures (Unresolved Item 74-11/1)
This unresolved item was identified in RC Report No. Su-302/74-11,
Details I, paragraph 2.
Toe administrative nd amergency procedures
,
that had been identified and prepared by the ,lant staff were
compared with the minimum recommendations of lections A and F of
Apperdix A to Regclatory Guide 1.33, " Quality Assurance Program
Requirem?nts (Operational)".
Disccepancies identified and licensee
su'> sequent corrective actions are:
a.
Administ7ative Instructions (AI)
i
AI's had not.bcea identified and developed for "Equipuent
Control", " Procedure Review and Approval", and " Bypass of
Safety Functions and Jumper Control". A procedure review
during'this inspection indicated that an administrative or
compliance procedure had been prepared to provide guidance in
these areas, or un existing instruction h.d been expanded to
}
provide the necessary guidance.
/
. n/ :'
-
-
,-
. , - ,
.
.
L-
.
-
_
..
. .
- .
A
~
)
IE ..p;. No. 50-302/73-16
IV -2
s--)
-
.
.
b.
Emergency and Abnormal P'ucedures (EP & AP)'
,
EP's or AN's had not'been developed for handling the followin
types of. emergency conditions:
[
[
(1)
" Degraded Powe - Scurces"
(2)
" Inability to Drive Control Rods"
(3) '" Expected Transients"
'
i
(4)- " Tornados and Other Acts of Nature" (Execot an EP had
.
,
"
heen prepared for hurricanes and flooding)
-
(5)
" Irradiated Fuel Damage While Refueling"
.
Procedure revie" durin; this inspection indicated that EP's or
~
AP's have been developed to; prow'.le instruction for handling ~
q
these emergencies, or existing procedures have been expanded
to provide the necessa.
Instruction.
l
<
I
This item is closed.
s
.
!
3.
Oper;*ional P*ocedure Review
'
This item was identified in RO Report No. 50-302/74-11, Details I,
O
'
paragraph 3 and Details II, paragraph 2.
that had-been approved at the time of the inspection and selected
!
operating procedures (OP) were reviewed.
Comments on the following
procedures were presented to licensee management personnel:
't
AI-40f., " Plant Operating Quality Assurance Mar.ual Control Document"
AI-500, " Conduct of Operations"
AI-900, " Conduct of Technical Support"
AI 1.000, "Canduct of Compliance"
EP-103, " Loss of Reactor Coolant Flow /RCP Trip"
1
-
OP-201, " Plant Precritical Check"
,
OP-202, " Plant lleatup"
OP-417, " Containment Operating Procedure"
11n addition to the specific comments on the above procedures,
O'
several general ce aente relating to opcrating procedures were~
made.
.,.
m
P
W
M
j
f
M--T
9--=
@
w
P
_. _
._
+
- N
[ ]l
7,E ' n '. . - No. 50-302/75-16
IV-3
'
4
\\s_,
.
.
' h. ring this inspection, the Corrective Action that the licensee has
L. ken in response to the comments was reviewed. All commentn have-
b.en rv ilved and appropriate changes have been made to the instructions
en d pre 2dures. This item is closed.
.
4.
[jant Procedures
.
$
'
T:.e licensee's management controls for implementing and maintaining
.
a procedece system were reviewed, including the content and scope
of the plx;t procedures system for control of safety related operations.
Within the area of procedure administrative controls, the following
specific items were inspected:
'
Management philosophy with respect to the procedure system."
a.
b.
Controls for reviewing, app _oving, and changing procedure .
et
Controls for maintaining plant procedures cur:cnt and up-to-
date.
d.
Instructions for control of procedure copies.
("~s
j
)
e.
Instruction for control of completed procedural rec:
1.
f.
Controls for verification of procedure format.
The inspector had no further questions in this area at this time,
5.
Safety Committee Activity
The activitier of the plant review commi:cce (PRC) and nuclear
general review cont.ittee (NGRC) were inspected to verif:' r' tat these
committees had beca formally established and were functioning in
their assigned respo.zibilities.
The charters of both committees
were revieu.d and compared with the requirements of the Technical
.
,
Specifications.
PRC and NGRC meeting minutca were selected on a
+
sampling basis and reviewed to determine whether the committees
were functioning in accordance with the chartered instructionr and
Technical Spec'Ification requirements.
The inspect'r had no further
questions concerning the e rablishment or functional activities of
these committees.
6..
Plant Tour
'
The plant was toured to determine the testing and operational
i
status ofLvariou systems.
,
j'~'N
_,
i
1
.
9
Y
- w
f
" *
J-
.
r
s m - n
m
i
}
.
'
y
i
IE - c. No. 50-302/7f-16
V-l'
N
/7Nov75
DET.CLS V
Prepared by:
.r a.,%
.
R. F. Rogers,- b actor Inspector
'Date
Nucicar Support Section
Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch'
.
Dates of Inspec ion: ,Novem1 e 4-7, 1975
7 2 [
Reviewed by:
-
\\@@
//
.
H. C. Dance, Section Leader
'Date
-
Nuclear Support Section
Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
'
.
1.
Personnel Contacted
,
W. P. Stuart - Director, Powc Production
J. C. Hobbs, Jr. - Manage , Gs. notation Testing
D. W. Pedrick, IV - Compliance Cagineer
.
.
D. B. Black - Test Supervisor
-
R. A. Shirk - Test Engineer
G. P. Beatty,'Jr. - Nuclear Plant Superintendent
W. R. Nichols - Operations Supervisor
2.
Qualification of Persor g
The adequacy of staff qualifications for their designat'd assignments
was inspected.
A comparison of individual persounc1 records for
approximately 45 licenscd and unlicensed key staff positions with
ANSI N18.1 -1971 " Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant
Personnel" requirements was made to assure that they had sufficient
experience and a.ademic backgrounds as re, aired by FSAR Section 12.1.3.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
.
3.
Staf f Training
The staff trainitig program descri"..cd in FSAR Section 12.2 was
inspected to confirm that the licensee had completed the training
of the operating staff.
It was also verified uhether staff replacements
have received, train;,ng equivalent to that required for originally
sc1ceted personnel as required by FSAR Section 12.2.4.
Within the
areas inspected, the.following problems were identified:
Documentation of training completed by the Plant Superintendent
a.
and Technical Support Supervisor could not be located.
Documents--
tion is required by ANSI N18.1-1971 Section 5.6.
.,
-
_.
-
.
-(
-
,
,
/
[}
IE R.L.
No. 50-302/75-16
V-2
V-
b.
The , Technical Stoport Engineer has not attended'the simulator-
.
as required by FSAR FLgure 12.2.1.
.
'The Operations Supervir,or and Reactor Engineer (now hires)
c.
don't have training records established nor training docu-
mentel which meets the req trements of FSAR Section 12.2.4
,
concerning replacement personnel.
d.
The Maintenance Engineer's training file was missing documentction
',
of completion of Phase 1 Training (Academic), Phase IV D&W Training
and Design Training described in FSAR Figure 12.2.1.
i
.
Items a through d above concerning training documentation ar
s
4
!
completion ara unresolved and collectively constitute unresolved
'
Item 75-16/2.
~
4.
Evaluatioe of Operator Traf,ing
'
[
An examination was made of the individual performance of selected
operator license candidates during the cold licensing training
program described in FSAR Section 12.2.2.1.
It was noted by the
inspector that some license candidates exhibited marginal perfor-
["'}
mance in one or more phases cf the six phase program.
Discussions
I,
with responsible licensee representatives indicated that a routine
'
program to upgrad- n2rginal performance in the area of weaknesa
thre
,h additional study or testing is not being carried out.
Man.
ment attention in this area appears warranted.
This n~tter
was
lentified to the responsible licen: lng examiner for Crystal River
personnel.
,
5.
Review of Integrated Leak Rate Test
The inspector reviewed the contain: it integrated lea: rate test
TP 7 1 150 02 for consistency with 10 CFR 50 Appendix J - Primary
React or Containment Leakage Testing for Water Cooled Reactors,
'
ANSI N45.4 - 1972-- Leakage-Rate Testing of Conts' ment Structures
for Nuclear Reactors, and FSAR Section 5.6.3.
The following problems
were noted:
a.
Step 7.17 and 7.14 of the procedure allow loss o; all humidity
indicators (10) and 8 of 24 recistance temperature detectors.
This is in variance with FSAR 5;ction 5.6.3. which requires
all the i .strume station to be or ara' ale.
y
.
\\
\\
~~,)
..
-.
-.
.
'
'
e
~
m,
,,
i
'N
IE /p . No.'50-302/75-16
V-3
.
.
b.
The maximum tent pressure Pa (49.6 psig) described in the test
prtce_ure is in variance with the pressure (55 ps";) described
in :'SAR Section 5.6.3.
1: ems a and b collectively constitute unresolved item 75-16/3.
.
6.
Review of Preoperational Test Program
t
A review was conducted of 10 of the approximately 250 Class I and
Class III test procedures to deteraine compliance with R .,ulatory
-
Guide 1.68 and FSAR Section 13.2.5.
Testr were selected to be
representatite of the total scope of the test program. .For the
-
selected tests it was verified that a procedure existed which was
properly revic
.1 and approved by plant personnel. Approximately
~
one-fourth of the procc '.tres sels eted had not yet been approved for
use.
These procedures will be inscected when approved.
.
.
$
W
m-
g
\\
^
.
..
.
.
.
,
h
n
'
,
,
(v)-
, ire No. 50-302/75-16
VI-l
4
.
,
/
G~'/'2C
'
4
/
DETi.O S VI
Prepared by:
bf 6 &#J
F. Jape, Reactvr Inspector'
Date
Reacter Proj.. cts Sectfon No. 1
Reactor Operations and Nucicar
,
Support-Branch
Dates of Inspection: November 4-7, 1975
,
/)
/ ,-
',
u
'/'~
.
,
'!
Reviewed by:
>'
,. W. C. Seidle, St . tion Leader
Date
.
,
I
Reacte- Project,s Section No. 1
,
'
t
Reactor Operations and Nuclear
-
Support Branch
--
i
1.
Individuals Contacted
.
F irida Power Corporation (FPC)
W. G. Wellborn - Plant Engineer
P. D. Breedlove - Administrative Superintendent (Acting)
- .
P. F. McKee - Assistant Plant Superintendent
E. E. Fro ts - Manager, Site Surveillance
D. W. Pedrick, IV - Compliance Engineer
T. C. Luthchaus - Maintenance Engineer
D. W. Bienkouski -QA Engineer
f.
2.
Rylew of Onerat in Proced' res
t
l
Procedures for the operation and riintenance of plant structures,
systems and cor ponents were reviewed.
The index of the '.icensce's
'
procedures, whic have been prepared or are under picparation, was
ompared with Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, " Quality Assurarce
Program Requirements,.(Operation)," and the list contained in Section
12.4 of the FSAR.
No discrepancies were noted.
A representative sample of procedures was selected for review of
content to determine if applicable operating limit.s and regulatory
requirement:. were covered.
A list of these procedures and the
inspectors cocc:ents, which were discussed with licensee management,
are summari::ed below:
(a)
OP 401,-
Core Flooding S, 'g
(1)
Several inconsistencies were noted.
For enanple,
h
the maximum boron concentration stated in Step
-
.
-
-
_
__
_
--
.-
=
=-
'
O
]
,
.
(-
~
'
,t. No. 50-302/75-16
VI-2
.
.
,
4.7 is 2500 ppm and in Step 5.3 is'3475 ppm; the
pressurization rate given in. Step.7.1.3 is 100
psig per 10 minutes and 100 psig per 15 minutes
.
'
in Step 8.2.2; and the NDTT limit is given as
100F and 19.0 psig in Step 10.1.2 which differs
from 100F and 140 psig as given in Step 4.6.
,
(2)
Instructions for adjusting core flood pressure,
,
,
level, and boron concentration during power
i
operation are not included within this procedure.
,
(3)
System status is. unclear;
For example, when proc-
gressing " rom action Step 8.2.6 to 8.2.7, it is
not clear whether or not the isolation valves,
CFV-5 und CFV-6, are open or closed.
.
.
'(b)
, tcoun and Purification System
Action items are contained in the Limits and Pre-
cautions ~Section of the procedure.
P 2r. e:: ample,
i
the substitution of one makeup pump for anoth.r,
[
as stated in Sec.J 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12, appea c to
belong in some section of the procedure, oth;.r
t!.an 4.0.
(c) OP 406,
Spent Fuel Cooling Systen
No comments.
(d) OP 408,
Nuclear Services Cooline System
,
i
No comments.
.
(e) -CP 10.,
Td's t Instruments, Standards and Calibration Control
,
'No comments.
!
~
(f)
CP 404,
Decay Heat Rc oval Synem
No comments.
^
(g)
CP 114,
Procedure for Coe rol of Permanent Modifications,
Tempar- ry Modi, ie..tions and D. 6
ations
No comments.
,
'
)
.
-y
-- +,
-,
y--,
. , -
, - , , , - ,
~ > , , . , .
_-
m-
g4=
sa
w k
am.
.
.h
-
.
'
.
?N
m
/
/N '
.
~
J
.I h c;.-No. 50-302/75-16
VI-3
.
The comments listed above were discussed'with the licensee' manage ,
rent,
So stated that each-item would'be revicued and appropriate
correc
ve action would be taken.
.
,
1
3.
Fire Prevention and Protection
A review of work control procedures was conducted to determine
'
If special emphasis.for the prevention of and protection against
tires has been incorporated into these procedurec as described
- -
in IE Bulletin 75-04 and 75-04A.
In general, the inspector found
that inclusion of special fire prevention measures have not been
..ompletej7 Full implementation of items resulting from a review
'
,
reported- in a previous int.
ction report has not been completed.
"
items for inclusion in work control measures for prevention ^ and
control of fires related to construction, modification and'
maintenance activities within vital areas wer- discussed with
.
licensee management. Measures to be considerud included the
following:
-
j
g
(a)
controlling use of open flame end welding in certain plant
1
areas, by using a sps.cial work permit,
(b)
ecta'.Lishing a fire wa'tch if determined appropriate,
(c)
determining a policy regarding use of water ta extinguish
fires involving electrical equipment,
4
(d) . reviewing emergency procedures or plans' covering fires to
i
include alternate methods for reactor cooldown in case of
loss of normal or perferred method, and
,
(e)
establishing an audit program to verify that control me suras
are properly.being implemented.
. Licensee management stated, at the conclusion of the discussion,
that'these-items will be reviewed and a position on~each item would
be determined ,
,
,l_/ IE' Inn ection Report 5 002/75-14, Details I, pa agraph 2.
t
' '
%_,Y
.
wy
-
, , , -
, , , ,
,
-
,
-
--m,
,_-. , g
, - ---n
, ,
-m
-
..,
.
-
.
. . . ,
. .__ _ . _ _ . _.
. . _ . _ _
_ _ _ _ _ . _ . . ,
.
,
-
. . -
. . .
. _ .
. . .
..
.
,
f[. :
'
)]
.S
.
,
,
~'
J
.f
f
J
.
.
.
VI-4
.
j
.1E B;t.- No. 50-302/75'-16
.
I
An inspection of the control room and other selected vital arcas
i
.
'
l'
of:the fac -Lty was conducted with a licensee representative.
j.
Attention was directed to housekeeping and' fire prevention cquip-
f-
'nent.
No discrepancies were-identified.
The inspector noted~
.
l
that installation of fire preven; ion and protection equipment R
-in construction status and the licensee's.preoperational. test plans
'
i
include a test of the fire protective system upon completion
b
of work.
.!
I
!~
.
.
,
.
r
.
6
-
4
'
j.
4-
i
i
i
i
i
i
f
i .
l -:
-
,
!
,
!
i-
l
. - .
. .
. .
. . .
.
.
.
. .
_ _ - _ _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ , - _ . _ _ _ -