IR 05000302/1993024

Insp Rept 50-302/93-24 on 931010-1105.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Plant Operations,Maintenance,Security, Surveillance,Radiological Controls & ESF Walkdown

ML20058J872
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	11/19/1993
From:	Butcher R, Cooper T, Holmesray P, Landis K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20058J840	List: IR 05000302/1993024 ML20058J837
References
50-302-93-24, NUDOCS 9312140277
Download: ML20058J872 (11)

Text

. - . . . . . - . . . . . . - . . ..

UNITED STATES

,##p nrah* NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• y*. .

• 4 REGloN II

- S 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W., SUITE 2900 I g ;

y ATLANTA, GEORGIA 303234199

'k ***.*

j/

,

I Report No.: 50-302/93-24 Licensee: Florida Power Corporation 3201 34th Street, South l St. Petersburg, FL 33733 i Docket No.: 50-302 License No.: DPR-72

'

Facility Name: Crystal River 3

,

-

Inspection Conducted: October 10 thru November 5, 1993 ,

Inspector: O. R.6 4 R. Butcher, Sendpr Resident Inspector li ih3 Date . signed i

'

Inspector: Q. N . l 9 Or li N 93 P. Holmes-Ray, Senior Resident Inspector Date Signed i

.

Inspector: G. R. % b T. Cooper, Resident Inspector

hh3 l

,

Date Signed l Approved by: / .(' I U /1 13 K. Landis, Section Chief Date Signed '

Division of Reactor Projects

SUMMARY Scope:

This routine inspection was conducted by the resident inspectors in the areas <

of plant operations, maintenance, surveillance, security, radiological controls, engineered safety features walkdown, licensee event reports, facility modifications, and licensee action on previous inspection item Numerous facility tours were conducted and facility operations observe l Backshift inspections were conducted on October 23, 28, 30, November 1, 3, and 5, 199 Results:

During this inspection period, the inspectors had comments in the following i Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance functional areas:

y312140277931119 R

G ADOCK 05000302

-

PDR

.. . ._ . _ . . . _ _ . . _ . _ _

e i

-

i

,

. ,

2 ,

,

'

Plant Operations:

Operators practiced good communications when performing operations in the field. There was clear reading of steps in the procedure and good readback from the field. (paragraph 4.a)

!

Maintenance: (Surveillance)

A weakness was identified when the licensee discovered that the oil. in  ;

the Woodward Governor on the emergency feedwater pump 2 had not been changed in three years. This preventive maintenance task had been  !

inadvertently dropped from the program. (paragraph 5.a) l t

Enoineerino: ,

Nuclear Plant Technical Support issued two excellent reports on plant' I system status: (1) Quarterly report of plant systems performance, and (2) Quarterly report of rotating equipment condition monitoring. This  ;

was considered a strength,

An inspector followup item was identified to evaluate the adequacy of l'

control room drawings. The flow diagrams used in the control room are graphical representations of the flow within or between systems but do j not accurately reflect the physical piping configuration. (paragraph 6)

Plant Suocort: (Radiation Controls, Emergency Preparedness, Security, Chemistry, Fire Protection, Fitness for Duty,-and Housekeeping Controls) .

A strength was identified in the improvement in plant material condition due to the refinishing of floors and walls in the auxiliary buildin J (paragraph 4.e)

The following items were reviewed-

-

(Closed) LER 91-06, Both Equipment Hatch Airlock Doors Open Simultaneously Due to Loose Door Chain Mechanism. (paragraph 7)

-

(Closed) LER 92-07, Inadequate Level of Detail of Initial Plant Design Calculations Causes Operation Outside Design Basi (paragraph 7)

!

. - . _ _ - . . . . -

,

-

.

,  !

REPORT DETAILS

) Persons Contacted Licensee Employees ,

J. Alberdi, Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations  !

• G. Boldt, Vice President Nuclear Production

!

R. Davis, Manager, Nuclear Plant Maintenance  !

E. Froats, Manager, Nuclear Compliance l G. Halnon, Manager, Nuclear Plant Systems Engineering

• B. Hickle, Director, Nuclear Plant Operations

"

W. Marshall, Nuclear Operations Superintendent ,

• P. McKee, Director, Quality Programs .

• R. McLaughlin, Nuclear Regulatory Specialist B. Moore, Manager, Nuclear Integrated Scheduling W. Neuman, Supervisor, Inservice Inspection ,

V. Roppel, Nuclear Engineering Services Supervisor W. Rossfeld, Manager, Site Nuclear Services

• R. Widell, Director, Nuclear Operations. Site Support ,

• K. Wilson, Manager, Nuclear Licensing

!

Other licensee employees contacted included office, operations, engineering, maintenance, chemi-stry/ radiation, and corporate personne ,

i NRC Resident Inspectors

• R. Butcher, Senior Resident Inspector P. Holmes-Ray, Senior Resident Inspector -

• T. Cooper, Resident Inspector Other NRC personnel on site  !

K. Landis, Section Chief, Projects Branch 2, Region II l

• Attended exit interview ,

Acronyms and initialisms used throughout this report are listed in the last paragrap I Plant Status At the beginning of this report period the plant was operating at l approximately 100% power and had been on line since September 20, 199 l The following evolutions occurred during this assessment perio i

- On October 16, 1993, at 5:47 a.m. reactor power was reduced'to approximately 80% and the IC CWP was removed from service to facilitate maintenance on the C waterbox due to a suspected lea On October 20, 1993, at 4:30 a.m. reactor power was increased to 100% following repairs to the IC CW I

- ._ __ - _ . _ . _ . . .

-

-

-

3. Other NRC Inspections Performed During This Perio ,

INSPECTION REPORT INSPECTION PERIOD AREA INSPECTED 50-302/93-25 October 18 thru 22, Engineering 1993 Design Changes and'

Hodifications ,

50-302/93-20 Novembei 1 thru 5, Operator  :

1993 Requalification l Preparation

>

4. Plant Operations (71707, 93702, & 40500) 1 Throughout the inspection period, facility tours were conducted to ,

observe operations and maintenance activities in progress. The tours includi ' entries into the protected areas and the radiologically ;

controlled areas of the plant. During these inspections, discussions were held with operators, health physics and instrument and controls technicians, mechanics, security personnel, engineers, supervisors, and i plant management. Some operations and maintenance activity observations i were conducted during backshifts. Licensee meetings were attended by ;

'

the inspector to observe planning and management activities. The inspections confirmed FPC's compliance with 10 CFR, Technical Specifications, License Conditions, and Administrative Procedure l Operational Events

'

- On October 15, 1993, at 8:58 a.m. the IB HUP was removed from service to perform maintenance on the pump outboar .

bearing cap due to a small oil leak. The 1A MVP was placed in service and selected for ES. The inspectors observed the '

operators as the IB MVP was removed from service and the 1A '

MVP placed in service. The control room operators followed procedures, were in communications with the local operators and procedural steps were read off to the local operator with repeat back from the local operator. Control room !'

operations during this evolution was considered a strengt The inspectors verified that tagging order (93-10-076) was properly hung and signed of On October 26, 1993, at 5:00 a.m. the A and D MSR high pressure bundles were removed from service to allow maintenance on valve IV-8 on the A HSR. Valve IV-8 l developed a steam leak and had to be repitced. IV-8 was cut l out and a new valve installed. The inspectors observed portions of this maintenance. The A and D HSRs were heated up and placed back in service during the day shift on October 27, 199 .

-

-

f

-

.

,

t

-

,

,

u

-

On November 2, 1993, at 11:00 p.m. the A ECCS train was removed from service to incorporate MAR 90-04-13-01, FCN 1, DHP-1A Support. This KAR modified the mounting support for the pump frame on the DHP-1A to reduce the overall vibration below the alert range. The major benefit gained from '

performing the modification on-line during a system outage was to improve system reliability through the reduced vibration level of the 1A DHP. Additionally, several- system :

leaks were to be repaired. Some of the major system outage tasks were as follows:

-

Repair leaks on DHP-1A;

- Install wobble foot stiffener per MAR 90-04-13-01;

-

Repack DHV-39;  ;

-

Repair / repack DHV-57;

-

Adjust packing on DHV-34;  ;

-

Repair bonnet leak on DHV-120; .

-

Open and inspect check valve RWV-37;

-

Clean DCHE-1A;

-

Replace studs on DCHE-1A;

-

Repack RWP-3A; and  ;

-

Perform cleanup of BSP-1 The applicable TS action statements all required restoration l within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> and were satisfied as follows:

'

Il Component Entry date/ time Exit date/ time 3. DHP-1A 11-2-93/11:00 p.m. 11-4-93/10:00 .7. RWP-3A 11-2-93/11:00 p.m. 11-4-93/10:00 .6. BSP-1A 11-2-93/11:00 p.m. 11-4-93/10:00 .7. DCP-1A 11-3-93/03:54 a.m. 11-4-93/1:50 The inspectors followed the activities noted above and ,

considered the A-train outage to be well planned and controlled. The system outage objectives were accomplished i for most tasks, as allowed by time constraints. (See paragraph 8 for more information.) Radiological Protection Program Radiation protection control activities were observed to verify that these activities were in conformance with the facility policies and procedures, and in compliance with regulatory requirements. These observations included:

-

Entry to and exit from contaminated areas, including step-off pad conditions and disposal of contaminated clothing;

-

Area postings and controls;

-

Work activity within radiation, high radiation, and contaminated areas;

-

RCA exiting practices; and

. - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -

_

.

,

-

Proper wearing of personnel monitoring equipment, protective clothing, and respiratory equipmen The implementation of radiological controls observed during this inspection period were proper and conservativ Security Control In the course of the monthly activities, the inspector included a review of the licensee's physical security program. The performance of various shifts of the security force was observed in the conduct of daily activities to include: protected and vital areas access controls; searching of personnel, packages, and vehicles; badge issuance and retrieval; escorting of visitors; patrols; and compensatory posts. In addition, the inspector observed the operational status of protected area lighting, protected and vital areas barrier integrity, and the security organization interface with operations and maintenance. No performance discrepancies were identified by the inspector Fire Protection Fire protection activities, staffing, and equipment were observed to verify that fire brigade staffing was appropriate and that f;re alarms, extinguishing equipment, actuating controls, fire fighting equipment, emergency equipment, and fire barriers were operabl Violations or deviations were not identifie Housekeeping The inspectors observed that the licensee was putting significant effort into the material upgrade in the auxiliary building. The  ;

licensee had refinished the walls and floors in several area i This was considered a strengt . Maintenance and Surveillance Activities (62703 & 61726)

Surveillance tests were observed to verify that approved procedures were j being used; qualified personnel were conducting the tests; tests were adequate to verify equipment operability; calibrated equipment was  ;

utilized; and TS requirements appropriately implemente '

The following tes+s were observed and/or data reviewed:

- SP-181, Containment Air Lock Test (Semi-Annual), Revision 24;

- SP-3408, DHP-1A, BSP-1A and Valve Surveillance, Revision 24; and

- SP-349B, EFP-2 and Valve Surveillarce, Revision 24.

.. .-

__-__-________ _ _ - _ _ _

.. . - - . ._ -

-

.

.

5  ;

In addition, the inspector observed maintenance activities to verify that correct equipment clearances were in effect; work requests and fire ,

'

prevention work permits, as required, were issued and being followed; quality control personnel performed inspection activities as required; ;

'

and TS requirements were being followe Maintenance was observed and work packages were reviewed for the I

'

following maintenance activities-

- WR 0266787, lubricate and reassemble DHV-39; I

- WR 0314820, perform M0 VATS testing on CFV-II; and

'

- WR 0314823, perform oil change and flush on Woodward governor EFP- The following items were considered noteworthy:

l WR 0314823, perform oil change and flush on Woodward governor i EFP- During surveillance testing of emergency feedwater pump 2 on !

October 18, 1993, the operation's staff noted discrepant behavior ,

in the response of the pump. Reviewing maintenance history of the .

'

system, it was determined that the last scheduled preventiv maintenance on the governor had been deferred and that it had been approximately three years since the oil had been changed on the :

Woodward governor. At the time of the inspection, there was no existing requirement to periodically change the oil in the Woodward governor. The licensee had planned to add a requirement i to periodically test the governor oil to determine if an oil ,

change is required, but this had not been implemented. The i inspectors will follow up on the licensee's action in this are l

.

'

The inspectors observed the performance of clearance 93-10-101 in preparation for beginning WR 0314823, which flushed and changed the oil in the governor. The technicians successfully completed the flush and change of the oil, and also tightened a loose Allen i screw on the trip and throttle valve linkag Retest of the pump was completed with no problems note Several days later, while performing a routine walk-down, the inspectors ,

noted that the oil level on the governor sight glass was above the '

top of the glass. This was brought to the attention of the operation's shift and the system engineer. The system engineer determined that the proper level should be full, but not above the sight glass. The operators drained 20 milliliters of oil to restore level just below the top of the sight glas On October 21, 1993, the licensee was informed that Copes-Vulcan Co. had identified the torque arm on the makeup HPI valves, MUV- l 23, 24, 25 and 26 as the limiting component on the M0V actuator !

I I

, --

.

.

-

.

.

6 I

'

These valves are designed to open to support HPI. This component had a continuous thrust rating cf approximately 14,000 psi. This ,

value is below the current thrust settings for the MOVs of l approximately 24,000 ps It was determined that exceeding the i allowable thrust limit could lead to premature failure of the '

torque arm (anti-rotation device). ,

The licensee performed an operability evaluation and determined that the valves were operable. This was based on visual inspection, which found no signs of deformation and the fact that the valves have been in-service DP tested and have no history of .

torque arm failures. The licensee has ordered replacement torque arms, rated at a larger continuous thrust rating than the MOVs i develo The inspectors visually examined these valves and verified that no visible degradation of the torque arms was present. The inspectors verified that the operability evaluation was complete and adequat Overall, surveillance and maintenance activities observed and discussed above were performed in a satisfactory manner in accordance with ,

procedural requirements and met the requirements of the T Violations or deviations were not identifie . Engineered Safety Features Walkdown (71710)

The inspectors performed an inspection designed to verify the status of-the nuclear services closed cycle cooling system. This was accomplished ;

by performing a complete walkdown of all accessible equipment. The ;

following criteria were used, as appropriate, during this inspection: ,

--

systems lineup procedures matched plant drawings and as-built configuration;

-

housekeeping was adequate, and appropriate levels of clear'4aass were being maintained;  ;

-

valves in the system were correctly installed and did not ext .. ,t signs of gross packing leakage, bent stems, missing handwheels, or improper labeling;

-

hangers and supports were made up properly and aligned correctly;

-

valves in the flow paths were in correct position as required by ;

the applicable procedures with power available, and valves were i locked / lock wired as required, <

-

local and remote position indication was compared, and remote instrumentation was functional; and

!

t l

t l

,

-

.

- l

-

major system components were properly labele The inspectors observed that the 302 series flow diagrams are graphical representations of the flow within or between piping systems but are not physical representations of the piping arrangement. These flow diagrams are the designated control room drawings and are used by operations in emergencies and for such tasks as valve or component identificatio '

The inspectors will evaluate the adequacy of the control room drawings during a subsequent inspection. This will be tracked as an inspector followup item, 50-302/93-24-01, Evaluate the Adequacy of the Control Room Drawing Violations or deviations were not identifie . Review of Licensee Event Reports (92700)

LERs were reviewed for potential generic impact, to detect trends, and to determine whether corrective actions appeared appropriate. Events that were reported immediately were reviewed as they occurred to determine if the TS were satisfied. LERs were also reviewed in accordance with the current NRC Enforcement Polic (Closed) LER 91-06: Both Equipment Hatch Airlock Doors Open Simultaneously Due to Loose Door Chain Mechanis This event was reviewed in NRC report 50-302/91-11 and the LER was left open in NRC report 50-302/91-14 pending review of the planned supplement to LER 91-0 *

Supplement I to LER 91-06 amplified on the cause of the event and .

concluded that the door chain should be adjusted periodicall :

Also, engineering was tasked to evaluate the door position ,

indication for possible improvement. Corrective actions taken were:

-

The door closure chain was tightened and the airlock reteste !

- The surveillance procedure was revised to provide for more positive assurance that the doors are sequencing properl A MAR was written to modify the airlock door position indication to provide a more positive indication (MAR-92-02-17-01). This MAR is scheduled to be completed in the next refueling outage which is to commence in April 199 This item is close i (Closed) LER 92-07: Inadequate Level of Detail of Initial Plant ,

Design Calculations Causes Operation Outside Design Basi '

On May 1,1992, the licensee determined that the calculated input voltage to the motor operators on the two steam admission valves l

,

r .

!

-

,.

'

!

0  !

for the steam driven emergency feedwater pump were below the :

required voltage for operation during a design basis even ;

i As corrective actions, the unit ratio for the motor operators, which determines the torque output that can be delivered to the i valve stem, was increased from 30.0 to 77.0. The springpack size l of the motor operators was increased from 145 ft.-lbs. to 240 ft.- :

lbs. This provides a wider thrust band for the actuator, allowing j an increase in the torque switch settings. With this j modification, the input voltage is sufficient to meet required ;

torque settings for the operation of the valves. Following the

modification, testing was performed to ensure all TS requirements for the valves were me The inspectors verified that all work requests for the i modification were implemented. Appropriate post maintenance '

testing, including TS surveillances, were successfully complete '

This LER is close l Violations or deviations were not identifie !

!

8. Installation and Testing Modifications (37828)

Installation of new or modified systems were reviewed to verify that the changes were reviewed and approved in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, that the changes were performed in accordance with technically adequate and approved procedures, that subsequent testing and test results met-acceptance criteria or deviations were resolved in an acceptable manner, ,

and that appropriate drawings and facility procedures were revised as -

necessary. This review inc'aded selected observations of modifications and/or testing in progres i The following MAR was reviewed and associated testing observed:

-

The inspectors reviewed MAR 90-04-13-01, FCN 1, DHP-1A suppor DHP-1A had high vibrations that were in the alert range. In order to increase system reliability, MAR 90-04-13-01, FCN 1, was incorporated to reduce pump vibrations. This change was previously incorporated on DHP-1B and had successfully reduced its vibration level to an acceptable range. Following incorporation of the MAR, DHP-1A was operated per SP-340B, DHP-1A and Valve Surveillance, and vibration readings were reduced to the normal range. The MAR successfully accomplished the design inten Violations or deviations were not identifie . Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on November 5, 1993 with those persons indicated in paragraph One inspector followup

._ . _ _

_ _ __-

..

-

.

'

.

item was identified. Proprietary information is not contained in this report. Dissenting comments were not received from the license Item Number Status Description and Reference IFI 50-302/93-24-01 Open Evaluate the Adequacy of the Control Room Drawings (paragraph 6)

LER 91-06 Closed Both Equipment Hatch Airlock Doors Open Simultaneously Due to Loose Door Chain Mechanism (paragraph 7.a)

LER 92-07 Closed Inadequate Level of Detail of Initial Plant Design Calculations Causes Operation Outside Design Basis (paragraph 7.b)

12. Acronyms and Abbreviations ante meridiem DSP - Building Spray Pump

'6&W - Babcock & Wilcox CFR - Code of Federal Regulations CFV - Core Flood Valve CWP - Cooling Water Pump DCHE - Decay Heat Cooling Hear Exchanger DCP - Decay Heat Closed Cycle Cooling Pump DHP - Decay Heat Pump DHV - Decay Heat Valve ECCS - Emergency Core Cooling System (s)

EFP - Emergency Feedwater Pump ES - Emergency Safeguards ft-lb - foot - pound FFC - Florida Power Corporation HPI - High Pressure Injection IV - Independent Verification LER - Licensee Event Report MAR - Modification Approval Record MOV - Motor Operated Valve MSR - Moisture Separator and Reheater MVP - Make-up Pump MUV - Make-up Valve NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission post meridiem

.

psi - pounds per square inch l RCA - Radiation Control Area l RWP - Raw Water Pump

!

RWV - Raw Water Valve SP - Surveillance Procedure

,

TS - Technical Specification I WR - Work Request L.