ML20077A021
| ML20077A021 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1994 |
| From: | Spencer K IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20077A011 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-J-2038 TAC-M88674, NUDOCS 9411100174 | |
| Download: ML20077A021 (20) | |
Text
'
INTERIM This document was prepared primarily for preliminary or internal use. It has not received full review and a) proval. Since there may be substantive changes, this docent should not a considered final.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT Audit of Plant Specific License Conversions to Standard Technical Specifications crystal River Unit 3 Docket No. 50-298 K. M. Spencer Published October 1994 Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761001570 FIN No. 02038 Task No. 1 TAC No. M88674 I
f 9411100174 941103 DR ADOCK 05000298 PDR 1
"" suedsow Mun ud25:E0 rs, E: Do
CONTENTS 3
$UNNARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 PREFACE . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
- 1. INTRODUCTION ...........................
^
5
- 2. NRC SPECIFIED REQUESTED ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
- 3. EVALUATION ............................ 7 3.1. Safety Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8 3.2. Reactor Protection System . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 3.3. Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System . . . . . 8 .
3.4. Emergency Feedwater Initiation and Control Systems 9 3.5. Containment $ pray and Cooling Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.6. Containment Isolation Valves ................ .
11 3.7. RCS Pressure Isolation Valve (PIV) Leakage .. . . . . . . . 11 3.8. Electrical Power System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ... .. . 13 3.9. Administrative Changes to Technical Specifications 3.10. F5AR Text Containing Technical Specifications Ralocated 13 Material (Licensee Interoffice Correspondence] . . . ... .. .
19 3.11. Additional Avenues of Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
- 4. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- ' ******'* 20 l
- 5. REFERENCES .......
l i
l l
i i
i t
i l
j 2
Twey St#8908d 'ADJn WdES:E0 E ET 130
SUMMARY
INEL) audit This of thereport documents Crystal River Unit the Idaho Nation 3 improved 1 Engineering Laboratory chnicalifeciftpations,an (d appropriate associated documentation to ensure t at.the improved Aschnical fpecifications reflect the facility as described in the licensee Fi a1 Safet Analysis Report and docketed correspondence, and that the improved chnical scifications and licenses procedures and controls raflect all t e appropri te provisions or f conditions of the NRC approval as documented in the NRC Safety Evaluation Report. This report, finds the licensee has successfully implemented the improvedgechnicalppecifications.
l 1
)
l 3
P y'- ca w y ^ n o y e : g n t.c , e r 3 ,n
t PREFACE This report is supplied as part of the ' Technical Assistance in Support of Audits on Plant-specific License conversions to Standard Technical Specifications." It is being conducted for the U.S. Nuclear Rev ulatory - -
Connission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Ottee64an- /
komete-$upport, by Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company, Nat Operations Analysis Department.
i i
l r
I s
s 4 :
ro m a sueee cea /. Inn usts:so ps, et no
Audit of Plant Specific License Conversions to STS
- Crystal River Unit 3 (D_gcket_.No. 50-298)
- 1. INTRODUCTION During the low-power testing phases at the Grand Gulf 1 plant, it was found that some discrepancies existed between the plant Technical Specifications (TS) and the Final. Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Safety Evaluation Report (SER) or the as-built conditions for the plant. As a result of the discresancies, a program was initiated to audit the TS for Near-Term Operating .icense (NTOL) plants. Based on the NRC experience with these audit reviews and findings, the NRC has decided to initiate an independent audit process for the plants that are converting their TS to the improved Standard Technical Specifications (STS).
This report provides the results of an audit of the Crystal River Unit 3 improved TS, and appropriate associated documentation to ensure that the improved TS reflect the facility as described in the licensee FSAR and docketed correspondence, and that the improved TS and licensee procedures and controls reflect all the appropriate provisions or NRC SER conditions of gum theJRC_ approval as(s4-documented in the d g.g emer.m s
During the time period that Crystal River Unit 3 is implementing the improved TS, IW INEL performed a comparative audit of the Crystal River Unit 3 improved TS, the relocated requirements, the previous version of the Crystal River TS, the FSAR as amended, associated docketed correspondence, and the SF,K. The review specifically covered the limiting conditions for operation associated with the following TS sections:
- a. Safety Limits (all of Section (g- )
b.
c.
d.
Reactor Protection Engineered Safety System (RPS) ion Systems (ES Feature Actuat Emergency Feedwater Initiation and Control Systems
- e. Containment Spray and Cooling Systems !
- f. Containment Isolation Valves
- h. Electrical Power System
- 1. Administrative Controls :
l
- 2. NRC SPECIFIED REQUESTED ACTIONS l A comparison of the new TS to the old TS and the current u)date of the i FSAR was performed to develop an audit scope for each of t1e listed TS l sections. This identified a scope for the audit review to (1) include a I wide range of relocated and reformatted TS requirements. (2) cover material described in the staff SF,(, and (3) cover a variety of relocation complexity.
The subsequent performance of the site audit of licensee documents was to verify-that the liconee-complied with the following ___ s J23, 1
( W'Q' , .-
- s. y'R'elocated requirements are appropriately incorporated in applicable documents (e.g., FSAR i
l or precedures) as discussed in the staff SER.
VNMD
~-- s 5 j IWoN susgesa v pan u cs:E0 r6, E T 17J
i f-ws 0{
- b. ny relocatable requirements that were modified
, are properly justified and traceable.
- c. Verify that appropriate controls are applied to former TS requirements while they are seing relocated, and that plans for documenting the relocated requirements into the FSAR or applicable licensee-controlled documents are being implemented.
- d. Evaluate licenses methods for controlling implementation of and changes to relocated requirements.
- a. Assess licensee implementation of selected items from the staff evaluation, based on the audit scope.
- 3. EVALUATION The scope of the audit required nine specific areas of review. These nine (9) areas for review ares e
- a. Safety Limits (all of Section 2h S'
- c. Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS)
- d. Emergency Feedwater Initiation and control Systems (EFIC)
- e. Containment Spray and Cooling Systems
- f. Containment Isolation Valves
- g. RCS Pressure Isolation Valve (P!V) Leakage
- h. Electrical Power System
- 1. Administrative Changes removed from TS, specifically:
The revised Quality Assurance (QA) Plan addressing these old TS items: a) Review and Audits (6.5), b) Review and Approval Process, and Temporary Change Process (6.8.2 & 3', c) Record Retention
[6.10), and d) Process Control Program l6.14).
The INEL review included the documents listed in Section 5., References.
After the initial review of the documents, the reviewer generated a list of questions and/or additional avenues of inquiry for the on-site audit.
These items are listed in groups and the " itema number relates to the area of review listed above.
Sita Audit Verification Process The site audit was performed to verify that the relocated requirements are: ,
- s. a)propriatel incorporated in applicable documents as described in t1e staff 5 , i
- b. justified and traceable, I
- c. appropriately controlled during the relocation process, I
- d. implemented according to documentation requirements for relocated material,
- e. implemented with the same rigor as the previous TS items @ l
- f. implemented per the documentation requirements specified by thu ,
licensee. C poco,m e ,e,s n a,aco p m e u w s w w ,a rc una ^~ a w. ', u~ ~ -
N CHfuJ4rs ,Ts M RN M /hW 6
- M v wmu Amn ua:m s a no
Items found to be deficient required additional cvaluation to determine
.. where in the change control process the failure occurred and if a systematic error exists.
3.1. Safety Limits (section 2 of-the improved T5.)
D 3.1.1. The Safety Li T(SL) 2.1.1.1 for maximum local fuel pin centerline temperature is assured by the Reactor Protection System being as listed io(RPS) Instrumentation LC0 3.3.1 setpoints as specified in the COLA.
3.1.2. $L 2.1.1.2 for Departure from Nucleate Boiling Ratio.
(DN8R) is assured by operation within the RPS setpoint limits of LCD 3.3.1 as specified in the COLR.
3.1.3. $L 2.1.1.3 for reactor coolant system (RCS) core outlet temperature and pressure limits we-specified in Figure 2.1.1-2 of the improved TS. n The COLR addresses the following $Ls, Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs), and Surveillance Requirainent (SR),,atJumbered in the improved TS:
SL 2.1.1.I' Fue terline Temperature Limit SL 2.1.1.2 Departure from Nucleate Boiling 1(DNBR) -
LC0 3.1.1 Shutdown Margin Mm "
LC0 3.1.3 Moderator Temperature coefficient Limih SR 3.1.7.1 Absolute Position Indicator / Relative.
Indicator Agreement Limits LCO 3.2.1 Regulating Rod Insertion Limits LCO 3.2.2 Axial Power Shaping Rod Insertion Limits LC0 3.2.3 Axial Power Imbalance Operating Limits-LCO 3.2.4 Quadrant Power Tilt LCO 3.2.5 Power Peaking Factors LCO 3.3.1 Reactor Protection system Instrumentation r LCO 3.9.1 'b Sj g Boron concentration -
yT'ha site audit h de completed procedures used j to input the setpoints for the guelear overnower RCs
() e"7" 9 , -
' Flow and Measured Ax1al Power Imbalance. T1e reviow was to determine if the administrative controls (to.
input the setpoints of the Cycle g COLR, Rev. 1, page 3 [5L 2.1.1.1, $L 2.1.1.2, & LCO 3.3.1]) M the criteria identified above in the site Audit. Irm Verification Process. _ -
4 w e m , ace i L;~E h e T@,6 P l
Conclusion:
IrocedureSPIO0didnotcontainthe i limits in Rev. 1 of the COLR. The licensee's staff were knowledgeable of the deficiency and had a !'
corrective action plan in place to correct it and had reviewed the safety significance of the deficiency.
The scheduled correction date is December 1996.
7
- tve*a emm w n uo: r m a et en .
3.2. Reactor Protection. System-s
.% A a ngs
<p,,n, ).-- I'fhe relocatedsitein audit the FSAR. determined not all It was determined RPS some response response times times were
_/ (i.e. reactor coolant pump / powers over power - flow - axial power imbalance) were not in the FSAR, but were in design basis documentation. The licensee's staff agreed to add the response times to the FSAR.
^
3.3. Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System Sections 3.3.5 - ESAS Instrumentation 3.3.6 - ESAS Manual Initiation 3.3.7 - ESAS Automatic Actuation Logic 3.3.1. TheimprovedTSidentiffe his system as the Enaineered Safeauards Actuation System. SR 3.3.5.4 states, " Response time shall Je within limits." The Bases, on page B 3.3-56, states, " Response time testing acceptance criteria are on a Function bases and are included in Reference 1 (FSAR Chapter 7)."
The old technical specification Table 3.3-5, page 3/4 3-17, identified the values for the response times.
The site review was not to check the individual values -
of the setpoints, but to determine if the4 change 6am.~/
-m process + meets the criteria identified in the Site C-D ~
Audit Verification Process previously describod.
Conclusion:
The audit determined the relocated requirement (s)metthecriteria.
3.3.2. There were no questions for sections 3.3.6 and 3.3.7.
3.4. Emergency Foodwater Initiation and Control Systems Sections 3.3.11 - EFIC Instrumentation 3.3.12 - EFIC Manual Initiation 3.3.13 - EFIC Automatic Actuation Logic 3.3.14 - EFIC Emergency Feedwater (EFW) Vector Valve Logic 3.7.5 - Emergency Feedwater System 3.4.1. SR 3.3.11.4 states, " Verify EFIC RESPONSE TIME is within limits." Neither the Bases nor the FSAR specifically state the " limits.' ,
-~, g' ,
(~~~
.M.-JA_' licensee Ong_e the_r.esponse times were identified in current,..
documentation,+the site audit %as P r4 rmed-m_"J. .
t6 determine + 1f the4 change process mee4the criteria /~.;~p
, ~TdihntTriedYtWe Site Audit Verification 7rocess G-described previously.
Conclusion:
The audit determined the relocated requirement (s) met the criteria.
3.4.2. SR 3.7.5.3 requires, " Verify each EFW automatic valve that is not locked, sealed, or otherwise secured in position, actuates to the correct position on an 8
T M 'd SWO 90dd *',Iun Wa95:E0 r6. EI DO
l i
actual or simulated actuaticn signal'." .The Bases for .
- this surveillance states that this sR also verifies I the EFW control and block valves actuate on a simulated or actua1' vector valve control signal. i Neither the old TS, under section 3.7.1.2. nor the l bases made mention of the vector b;1c. l FSAR T 7.2.4.2 describes the " vector logic" OPEN/CLO$E coussands based,on. steam generator pressures and l 1evels. - . .
e y ru '.
Since the $R does not reference the vector logic A v o r*' - I actuation, during the site audit a review of the !
1 licensee's documentation for sR 3.7.5.3 was performed !
gooa/ ; to assure the vector logic signals are included and
- the* change,meett.the crateria listed in the Site Audit Qj VerificatTon Process identified previously, conclusion: The audit determined tne relocated l requirement (s)metthecriteria.
3.4.3. No questions br sections 3.3.12 & 3.3.13.
a i
3.5. Containment Spray and Cooling Systems i
Sections 3.6.4 - Containment Pressure i 3.6.5 - Containment Air Temperature !
3.6.6 - Reactor Building spray and containment i Cooling Systems i' 3.6.7 - Containment Emergercy. Sump pH Control System 3.5.1. SR 3.6.7.3 states, " Verify TSP-C solubility is within limits.' The F5AR T 6.2 does not contain the
" limits." The old TS had a limit of 0.5 lbs per to gallons of BWST liquid heated to 180' F to maintain a pH of 2 7.0 Once the " limits" were located in current licensee documents, the site audit was conducted to determine if the change process meets the criteria identified in the site Audit Verification Process described i previously. ;
l Additionally, F5AR Table 615. page 6-57, Iodine R-val Evaluation Reactor Bu11 dine Sorav System, '
identifies the amount of TSP-C as 13,000 lbs. The
$R 3.6.7.1 volume specification for TSP-C is 1246 ft' and s 254 ft'. ,
pom
@ hhe site audit ""ppfern ^<y9 ' te determine % if thi s p -r. M-dchange processe)neets the criteria identified in the Site Audit Verification Process described previously. i l
Conclusion:
The audit determined the relocated '
requirement (s) met the criteria.
1 g
l
\
tde0T*d WAW 'ATP Um/C:CO % II 1 Yi
3.5.2. n The itprcved is Bas:s B 3.6.4 dealing with c:ntainment pressure references FSAR T 14.2.2.5.9(Rev20). The cro w WW N -
previous revision of this paragraph stated. "The RB Ts m 59"" " ,
spray started flowing at approximately 56 seconds, k gueMy/ reaching full flow in approximately 71 seconds." The l
current revision states, 'The R8 spray is initiated and established at full flow within 120 seconds," No
%W 7 other changeLsoncarJ11ng AB spray timeLWentnoted. ;
Qwpm,w/:
- ~~ .Y fewesQ
/hesiteaudit4revi~eT4dthisdchangetodetermineifit l
(f" #"), M 5,*
~
gpee m the criteria listed under the Site Audit
~ Verification Process. Additionally, related changes to the maximum containment pressure of 53.g psig (design - 55.0 psig) were reviewed.
Conclusion:
After the review of several licensee documents associated with moving the reactor building ge od ? spray _puu s loading sequence, the audit team members pen **'"$ # conclude t # ysv4ew:was not prr.perly performed.
However, the licensee's administrative process
~
discovered this error before inlementation of the
- change. The F5AR is in error stating the full flow is l
/
r un
- e'
- #13 p.s' 7mn. attained in 120 seconds. Procedure SP-1350 uses the i
- c 3 Tl"'1,. r. p correct value of 56 seconds.j
'w e
\*# ._
- 3.5.3. Old TS surveillance 4.6.2.1, page 3/4 -11, identified a leak ratef and surveillance on the reactor building D- m -
spray rystem. The _ limit was s 6 gal /hr.
mr Aa,r* S (P'""Y 'ghesiteauditreviewedthe'currentapplicabilityof this requirement. The auditors applied the criteria listed in the Site Audit Verification Process paragraph to the.chage_prosess.
Qmm,,w/;
Conclusion:
The audit determined the relocated requirement (s) met the criteria.
3.5.4. SR 3.6.5.1 states, " Verify containment average air temperature is 5130'F." The Bases for this describes an arithmetic average calculated using measurements taken at locations in the containment. The old TS surveillance listed four (4) specific containment temperature locations to bLatithmetica11y averaged.__
.a 65 + ~j ) -G, we w .~ 9 During the au t thisfchange was reviewed'to determine
{ i i(
> " , %,c by ,.w- ,,o if WDeeKthe criteria listed under the Site Audit (Verification Process criteria. Also, the audj_ tors
~1 r wwo "- reviewed the procedures for deficiencies to var 1ly
~
C m ,o " 7 actT5ns are commensurate with the hazarcs.
p<, T /
Conclusion:
The audit determined the relocated requirement (s) met the criteria. However, the quality control of process computer mathematical calculations was found to be questionable. The audit team could not determine the standards used by the licensee for checking the calculation the computer performs to establish average containment temperature. As this 10
,,,,,,, m ._ , , . . . - .. .-., -. -
item was beyond th3 scope of the audit, tha audit team
. identified this to the Resident Inspector for follow up.
3.5.5. No questions for section 3.6.6 3.6. Containment Isolation Valves Section 3.6.3 - Containment Isolation Valves The area of concern is addressed above in T 3.4.2.
3.7. RCS Pressure Isolation Valve (PIV) Leakage Section 3.4.13 - RCS P!V Leakage 3.7.1. SR 3.4.13.2 & SR 3.4.1.3 are "new" to the technical specification ag 'y
/ */he site audit reviewed this dchange to determine if it d the criteria listed under the Site Audit ication Process. Also, the auditor conducted a review of the process for implementing "new" TS requirements.
Conclusion:
This item of the audit check list was in error. The audit did not evaluate this item because it was not a relocation.
3.8. Electrical Power System Sections 3.8.1 - AC Sources - Operating 3.8.3 - Diesel Fuel Oil, and $ tarting Air 3.8.4 - DC Sources - Operating 3.8.1. FSARChapter8,i8.2.2.3(Rev.20),page8-5, describes the 6g00v to the reactor coolant pumps as supplied from the Startup Transformer, with the auto transfer switch in the " manual" position.
Thepreviousrevision(Rev.Ig)saidthe6900vbuswas supplied from the Auxiliary Transformer, but the RCPs are not supplied by 1E power.
Although this is not a TS item, the audit was initially going to look at this change to assure appropriate review was completed, conclusion: The auditors did not evaluate this item as it is outside the scope of the audit.
3.8.2. Improved TS $R 3.8.1.4 requires verification that the Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) day tank contains a 245 gallons of fuel oil. The old TS placed this volume at 2 400 gallons.
i 11 T7MT ' A Ct M wM W J *AThe WOO.Cm .C CT 'V
The FSAR j 8.2.3.1 says that fuel oil storage for cach of the units is sufficient for a minimum of 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> at all nameplate ratings.
Rev. 20 of the FSAR increased the identified load on
-m the EDG "A" by 14_.6.KW2 LO 45Y.), %alshownja Table 8-1.
(y w f
pc m_.nn) .- nar nI Mhe site audit' reviewed this#c(hangods (i ermine if it the criteria listed u.nder the site Audit y ucrss7
{pVerification Process. '
Cone'usion The audit determined the relocated requ'rament(s)metthecriteria.
3.8.3. Improved T5 SR 3.8.3.1 requires the EDG fuel oil storage tank to contain a:18,589 gallons of fuel. The old TS identified a minimum volume of 20,300 gallons.
The FSAR T 8.2.3.1 states that minimum fuel oil storage be sufficient for either unit to supply post-accident power for 7 days.
Rev. 20 of the FSAR increased the identified load on
_ the EDG "A" by 14.6KW (0.457.) ~as shown in Table 8-1.
pg , ,,, c, i d e e ai 7rvc u tocerw/)
gfhe site audit freviewed this change,to determine if it M 'the criteria listed under the site Audit i Verification Process. '
conclusion _: The audit determined the relocated requirement (s) met the criteria.
Improved T3 $Rs 3.8.4.7 and 3.8.4.8 contain the pw s
N- 3.8.4 3 -
various battery tests and the relationships between se u 1 M them: the modified performance discharge test, the I n M """g, y . >
CN performance test._and_the battery service test. -
l gruva f Dsnas '
Q Aa,nQ qinsem.wtj
' ' I ghe site audit reviewed thisfchanget t o determine if it
@MpoetsVerification the criteria listed under the site Audit Process, conclusions The audit determined the relocated requirement (s)metthecriteria.
3.8.5. No questions for sections:
3.8.2 - AC Sources - Shutdown 3.8.5 - DC Sources - Shutdown 3.8.6 - Battery Cell Parameters 3.8.7 - Inverters - O mrating 3.8.8 - Inverters - Stutdown 3.8.9 - . Distribution System - 0)erating 3.8.10 - Distribution System - $1utdown 12
- - . , e, mmua or,,n iace.en -c et m
-i
~
3.9. l Administrative Changes to Tcchnicals4ecificatiens hv AaQ i Ihesiteaudit'reviewedthePlantReviewCommittee 3.g.1. d yMeeting minutes. Items of interest included:
K i 3.9.1.1. Quorum - Chairman (alternate) and five- :
members (alternates). ,
3.9.1.2. Unreviewed safety question determination !
of' reviewed material, j cone' union: The audit determined the relocated !
met 'l requLroment(:)dme_t_he_ nn iD criteria.
~
t A i 3.9.2.
p ,g d afhe usedsiteforaudit conducted training a review and qualifying of the procedures
" Qualified j Reviewers." ;
i
Conclusion:
The audit determined the relocated requirement (s)metthecriteria.
3.10. FSAR Text containing Technical Specifications Relocated Material .
[ Licensee Interoffice Correspondence] j 3.10.1. FSAR (Rev. 20)11.2.7, snubbers, states procedures define visual inspection and functional testing of the l snubbers.
discussed ,
The old TSdescribed snubbers, section 3.7.g.1 (page of the process 3/4visual 7-25) ins pections, !
and gave acceptance criteria. It also descr1 >ed the i functional test (excludinJL50,000 lbs). # 3 l p r w may g a m -r. w / ,3, ,J ;
-m /hesiteauditvreviewed this change to see if itws _s a I the criteria of the Site Audit Verification Process.
Conclusion:
The audit determined the relocated requirement (s)metthecriteria. }
P 3.10.2. FSAR (Rev. 20) 1 1.12 Renottina Commitments, was I formerly section 6.9.1 of TS. No cosmient. l r
3.10.3. FSAR (Rev. 20) 1 2.3.3.1, Meteoroloaical FmiliW i Goerations, states procedures exist to qua tat've1y !
assess and calibrate this inst;asentation. The old TS 3.3.3.4 required a minimum nunner of operable ,
channels, a daily (24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) channel checks, and a j semi-annual (6 months) calibration. The old bases i describes the instrumentation being consistent with I the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.23 Gngitt gggggroloaical Proarm== (Feb1972). The capability of the instrumentation is required to evaluate the needs ;
for initiating protective measures to protect the i health and safety _oLtheJublic. l
. g wa y$ g m m-r , --(). m,_, ;
i to see if it'seets i
' ~ d ufhe site audit reviewed this'changetthe criteria of the Site Audit V 13 SWOdDOdd 'AING Wd6S:E0 t'6, ET DO I T& tG 'd
conclusion: The audit dbtermined the rolocatCd !
. requ'rement(s)metthecriteria. ;
3.10.4. FSAR(Rev.20)12.4.2.4.1, Doerational Reauirements, '
'which is a new section, documents that procedures '
exist to monitor water level of the Gulf and obtain i meteorological forecasts when a Hurricane Watch or a i Hurricane Warning is in effect. ;
The old TS 3/4'.7.6.1 forced limits on operations based ,
on Gulf water level and Hurricane Warning. The 98' !
level is the maximum elevation at which facility flood !
control measures provide protection to safety related i equipment. l The FSAR T 2.4.2.4, Facihtion Ranuired for Flood-Protection, lists the foY ow'ng as equipment required to remain functional during the potential hurricanes
- On-site diesel power generators,.and their !
support equipment ,
- Reactor decay heat removal equipment: ;
Nuclear Services Closed Cycle Cooling System
- Decay Heat Removal System
- Decay Heat Closed Cycle Cooling System
- Nuclear Service & Decay Heat '
N Seawater systra _ ~.
favun ,a~/,). n-(^?M6[ /he site audit reviewed this'chasedo s conclusions The audit determined the relocated requirement (s)metthecriteria.
3.10.5. FSAR(Rev.20)T2.5.4.4SeismicMonitorinn i Instr - ntation, which is a new section, l'sts the range of various sensors & their locations. The FSAR states procedures exist to qualitatively assess, functionally test, and calibrate this instrumentation. '
The old T5 (3.3.3.3) required a special report to be l submitted after 30 days of the system / instrument being- :
inoperable. :~7 HAT) j ]
-. /he site audit reviewed this#changetto see if it Doets-
/
(pW6j- I t he criteria of the site Audit Verification Process.yEG conclusion: The audit determined the relocated requirement (s) met the criteria.
14
_ ___ *W . _
?? '" *U*[" "' " "
3.10.6. FSAR (Rev. 20) 12.6.4, Radiolonical Envirsr tal
- Monitorine Procram, requires the environment around the plant be mon' tored for radiological releases.
L ggg ,
old TS 6.8.4.b previously addressed this requirement.
17 16 ^ j'
Conclusion:
The audit determined the relocated requirement (s)metthecriteria. ,
- t 3.10.7. F5AR 5ections 4.2^.3.3, Hantun, and 4.2.3.4, Cooldown, address the pressurizer 1 mit of 100'F in any 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> :
~
period (heatup/cooldown). This change is consistent.
with the old T5 limit (3.4.g.2). Improved 75 3.4.3 identifies the limit to be in the PTLR (Pressure TemperatureLimitsReport). i Improved TS LC0 3.4.3, RCs Pressure & T==rature
.~ (P/Tl Limits, exclude presgz 3
/hesiteaudit iewed this changedo see if it .mehs m3 the criteria of the site Audit Verification-Process.- D Also, a review of the document' that " bounds" this-exclusion was going to be performed.
1 conclusion: The audit team determined that this item
, was outside the scope of the audity 6., a q is i 3.10.8. FSAR(Rev.20)T4.2.3.6.3,WaterQuality, states procedures exist to periodically verify compliance to-the chemistry limits listed in TABLE 4-10. These values are consistent with the old T5. The old T5 listed actions to be. performed if the chemistry was out of specifications %
( M m*O %.7,,,yd ys
' h ,x" y, hhe site audityiewed rev this changedo see if it ;
the criteria of the site Audit Verificat En Process.' Q } l Conclusion The audit determined the relocated t requirement (s) met the criteria. l 3.10.9. FSAR (Rev. 20) T 4.2.3.10, Reactor Coolant system Vents, documents that procedures exist to demonstrate l each of the flow paths are functional.
l l
OldT5 surveillance 4.4.11,page3/44-34, required 18 month operability / position checks of the open valves, cycling remote operated valves, and actual system flow ;
check. Additionally, the action statement curtailed !
~ operations if two_vont system came_insperable.
n pn..u Mow wr, v.y j hhesiteauditrevieweYdisA change K s g if it N L the criteria of the Site Audit Verification Process.
eanm conclusion The audit determined the relocated '
requirement (s) met the criteria.
15 wws .
mma w uanm vs. a en I
h/ Sat 1 A baconc yve cow m or yw sv p one, ne ve rw n> -rm s ret o um a n/cuau. rs ea s 1.- sa o v- se rirr 7He cE&an a+ rue S*w skob Va>6 4 r 0~ k uns. '
Jr.I Sala B y
5,a ce vnew was do c ua 4 r rs we eneviov s T5 acu s.u non w.m ao ecur n wtr etws s vnit et , !
i i
l I5A \
l l
c$
3.10.10. Revi20)1.4.2.4.3, Pressurizer 5sray,Ewas >
< FSAR:(d change to include the A410'F between tie pressurizer ;
steam temperature and the RCS cold leg temperature. .
The old TS bases describes the limit to be in the .
design criteria assumed for the fatigue analysis
^ performed in accor_ dance with ASME Code requirements..
fyr Avi,RO .)
hesiteaudit4eviewedtiIischange4pnockr.6/)if
~
to see s it
/,the criteria of the site Audit Verification Process. %
P<to cru '
conclusion: The audit determined the relocated
requirement (s)metthe. criteria.-
_ 3.10.11 FSAR-(Rev. 20)14.2.5.5 Emergency Boration C 3m t ., &touirements.is'new. This describes many limits for
~ tie boron injection systems and states that procedures
- ~
- E'
,7t' "f,t m,,,evra w SeO'* ,
exist to periodic L1. verify compliance with these '
\ er > OW ' '" " / limits. Sedian 1. of the old TS_preylgusly listed d* Y , Y 7 7 'these'requiremen g c(Eb cm.m/j )
'"" * *j ce m ghe site audit reviewed this changatto see if itJuelts.
the criteria of the site Audit Verification Process conclusion: The audit determined the relocated requirement (s)metthecriteria.
3.10.12. FSAR (Rev. 20) i 4.3.11.4, System Minimum Onarational u... . , addresses the pressurizer code safety valve requirements during N00E5 4 & 5 and prior to i criticality. This section describes the operational limits required iLno pressurizetsafety_ valves are 3
- 7) n an, '
%, w Aoi@ Qocer+/] <g Eg /he site audit reviewed this change 4to see if it. Ins %tt 4
the criteria of the site Audit Verification Process. . 4ucm.
conclusion: The audit determined the relocated requirement (s)metthecriteria.
3.10.13.
FSARIt new. (Rev. on descr ava'lable 20)ibes thefor17.3.3.4, gnerational Reau4r:mts, is instrumentat' !
surveillance of the axial power imbalance and quadrant f /n,, -r ., : "*" "" " , ' tilt. It states that procedures exist to qualitatively assess and calibrate the incere
- utD U ** . / C , detection system instrumentation.
ge" Y The COLR identifies improved TS LCOs 3.2.3 Agigl Power Inhalance Doeratina Limits, and 3.2.4, Guadrant Power Tsit. iaa,wg 4 G G
- Yhe site audit reviewed #
this# change,to see if it]nefets the criteria of the Site Audit Verification Process.7
%c2 #
Conclusion:
The audit determined the relocated requirement (s)metthecriteria.
16
, __ i
3.10.14. FSAR (Rev. 20) 1 g.1.2.5, Leakaos considerations (Maksun & Purification System), contains a new paragraph describing requirements for makeup pump availabilitv0md'various MODES. Old TS LCOs b3 3.1.i.4.1, 3.1.2.4.2, and 3.1.2.3 previously identified these requirements / actions. This item f_
a relates with numberEktoca _3.10_.11. x
.s above.)_.__
b[ p,/
frasAvar~Q
[thecriteriaoftheSiteAuditVerificationProcesshe conclusion: The audit determined the relocated requirement (s) met the criteria.
3.10.15. FSAR (Ray 20) T g 4.2.7, onorational Recuirmts (Decav Heat Removal System), contains a new paragraph to describe requirements for Decay Heat pump availability and various MODES. Old TS LC0 3.1.2.5 previously identified these requirements / actions.
(This item relates to numbers 3.'.0.11. and 3.10.14.
_ above.) 76GJm+) rQgwr~/') ,
hitmdts.
- /ie f site audit reviewed this changed the criteria of the site Audit Verification Process.
Conclusion:
The audit determined the relocated requirement (s) met the criteria.
3.10.16. FSAR (Rey 20) T g.6.2.4, Onorational Recuirements, is a new paragraph describing procedures for assessing- .
Various crane interlocks, communications, and ventilation filter trains for fuel handling. Old TS Section 3.9, Refuelino Operations, previously had these requirements.
The site audit reviewed this change to see if it meets '
the criteria of the Site Audit Verification Process, conclusient The audit determined the relocated requirement (s) met the criteria.
^
3.10.16.1 a Improved TS LCO 3.g.1 places limits on the r/m f
n 5 ^" d" ' boron concentrations in the RCS and the rs Ao 5""*" refueling canal as_.specified b be C01R.
+ m ,w g mco m/)
,,c' p/-
/he site audit reviewed this chan edoJet ^
S e d if it#1sesti the criteria of the $ te Audit " Is f Verification Process.
Conclusions The audit determined the relocatedrequirement(s)metthecriteria.
3.10.17. FSAR (Rev 20) 1 g.7.2.7, ODerational Raouirements (Plant Ventilation Syst=<), now contains a paragraph describing the Auxiliary Building Ventilation Exhaust -
requirements during ' operational modes.' The old TS Section 3/4 7.8, Auxi'inry Buildino Ventilation Exhaust System, contatned numerous surveillance 17 em mt .. Cen.l# %lJ
- A T 6 ln t IED e e G **C 77 1 "th
-, . - - ~- -~. . . _ .. - . . =.
I
. 4 requirements en inspection and testing. F$AR (Rev 20) s Section j 9.7.4.2, Auxiliary Buildine Exhausq Air & ;
Adsorotion Filters increased the specificat' on on ,
efficiency from 2 99% of the D0P (dioctyl phthalate) to "less:than 0.05%." Old T$ surveillance 4.7.8.1.b '
specified a flow rate of 156,680 cfm while D0P testing. Old Ts surveillance 4.7.8.1.s specified the same flow of 39,110 cfm_as identified jnjev., to of
^ the FSAR. m m,* /,; . ya >
')wua4
/he site of theaudit] Q A Process.
a@
j reviewed this change'grfr#'it to see if pM, a.
3 the criteria Site Audit Verification ,
conclusion: The audit determined the relocated I requirement (s) met the criteria.
3.10.17.1. The FSAR specifies the A pressure across ps the HEPA;and absorbers to be less than 6 in. of water when tested at a flow rate of 39,170 cfm. Old T5 Surveillance 4.7.8.1.d specified 156,680 cfm. r6rA this allitil_M a flow rate of--
@t*N"/j _
pawg j MUE5r '
- g/hesiteauditreviewedthis#chancefoles t C ~, if it_W the criteria of the Site Audit Verification Process.
conclusion: The audit determined the relocated requirement (s) met the criteria.
3.10.18. FsAR (Rev 20) T 9.7.3.1, Chlorine and sulfur comrational Rect 1. .ts, specifies alarm setpoints for chlorine anc sulfur dioxide. This paragraph states procedures exist to qualitatively assess, functionally test, and calibrate these instruments.
Old TS LCOs 3.3.3.11.1 and 3.3.3.11.2 actions statement required control roop_ventilatipn in the QcW/ 'Qs
^
recirculation mod h s ,
oas & pun,L; ! .
J d The site audit reviewed this changel o see N A Y t the criteria of the Site Audit Verification Process. ,
conclusion The audit determined the relocated requirement (s) met the criteria. i 3.10.19. FSAR (Rev 20) i 10.1.3, hztional Limitations (Steam and Power conversion System), now states a procedure exists to assess compliance to the limit of the secondary temperature greater than 110'F in the steam generators when the secondary pressure is greater than 273 psig.
Old TS 3/4 7.2 required hourly surveillance after secondary coolant in each steam generator has been determined to be greater than 110*F.
18 mes e.mm a o m wn .e .,c n m
~=
h - p ,rutd ' k itucsta ,
p F }<u,n g g -,
' c t,
' f/h3siteauditrcviewedthis# change'tosce it tejt:
v the criteria of the Site Audit Verification Fracer.s. ,
Conclusion:
The audit determined the relocated ,
requirement (s)netthecriteria. t 3.10.20. FSAR (Rev 20)~T 11.4.2.1.1, Area Gasmsa Monitor *as iggigg, now states procedures exist to nualitatiMy :
assess,. functionally test, and calibrate the fuel Q_ )
coa c, - storage pool areain y A_radigtdon a ,ro q monitor._c/j gw cun u
/ ufhe site audit) reviewed this changeoto see if it m(ets.
the criteria e' the site Audit Verification Process. ewas; - ~
fdmghtshnt. The edit determined the relocated requirerent(s) met the criteria.
3.10.21. F5AR (Rev 20) j 14J.6.4.7, coerational Requirements (Evaluatjon of Pura,an an a Means of contro111na Post-accidant.tLigrocim Accumu' ation), is new to the F5AR.
It identifies that procedures exist to verify proper l function of the ventilation and filtration aspects of 1 the hydrogen purge system.
The hydrogen purge system is better described as a-purge " process.' The purge process uses these systems: Containment Monitoring, Reactor Building Leak Rate Testing, and Reactor Building Pur9e Exhaust. ,
The filter efficiency listed in the FSAR (page g-64b) has been increased from the old.T5 value of 1 99% to less than 0.05% g nett gi n. p h-nJ~ { .
vfhesiteauditreviewedthischangfNionProcess.
to see if it Ms '
the criteria of the site Audit Ver _
rwu ~
conc usion: The audit determined the relocated requ1rement(s)metthecriteria. ,
3.11. Additional Avenues of Inquiry 3.11.1 Review any completed licensee sponsored audits / reviews of the implementation of the in roved Ts and the action plans these reviews may 1 ave generated. .
Cc r clusion: The licensee had completed at least one ac<itional review of the 55 and implementation documentation and generated a revision to internal documentation to address three deficiencies.
l 3.11.2. If available, review the NRC response addressing the anomalies identified by the licensee in interoffice correspondence dated 3/3/94, NL94-0010, FSAR Text Containina Tech Snec Relocated Material. ,
l l
l l
, 19 l
" e'
- o n wc.e.us smin iisen. n +c et
3.11.2.1. If available, rsview the addressee's
,. action to the above correspondence.
conclus4cn:- _ Additional correspondence was ~
not ava'lable.
- 4. CONCLUSIONS Florida Power Corporation (FPC) has'successfully impleattad the ,
improved 75s at CR-3. The audit identified no safety relate? '
deficiencies. The deficiencies noted were: )
- a. The process of implementing revisions of the core Operatino Limits Report (COLA) to operating procedures needs enhancement. The !
staff at CR-3 was knowledgeable of this deficiency and had.an action plan in place to correct it. (see Section 3.1. AAfsty i Limits.) l i
- b. ' The old technical specifications gave values for various Aeactor J protection System response times. .The improved T5 response time
-7
~
f limitsgr-t br )(the F5AR. Theresponsetimesfor1) reactor f W hw (mts' coolant pump / power, and 2) over power - flow - axial power imbalance, were not in the F5AR, but were in other design basis i documentation. The FPC staff agreed to add the response times to 1 the F5AR. (see Section 3.2. Reactor Prataction 5 ntem.) l 4
- c. A revision to Section 14.2.2.5.9 of the FSAR added 49 seconds to I the reactor building full flow response time. . Evaluation of this-change revealed the change was not adequately reviewed, however. l the change had not been implemented because the error had been I discovered by the licensee. (SeeSection3.5.2.). I
- d. An item discovered during this audit but, outside the scope, was -
identified to the Resident Inspector for follow up. This item concerned the quality control of the process computer generated mathematical calculations. (See section 3.5.4.). ;
1
- 5. REFERENCE 5
- a. Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Ranu' at' on Related to Amendment No.149 to Coeratine License No. DaR-72,
- b. Final Draft of crystal River Unit 3 Innroved Technical Soecifications (improved TS),
- c. "Old" Crystal River Unit 3 Technical Snacifications,
- d. Florida Power Corporation interoffice correspondence F5AR Text Containine Tech Spec Relocated Material, March 3, 1994,
- e. Florida Power Corporation letter Cycle 9 Core Doeratina Limits Renort. Revision 1 (COLR), March 28, 1994, and
- f. The Final Safety Analysis Reoort (Revision 20).
20 twN 9M>fMd ' AIun WdEO:PO e6, ET DO