IR 05000029/1988014
| ML20151Y178 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 08/11/1988 |
| From: | Eapen P, Joe Golla NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151Y175 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-029-88-14, 50-29-88-14, IEIN-86-005, IEIN-86-5, NUDOCS 8808260265 | |
| Download: ML20151Y178 (8) | |
Text
-
-
,-
.
.
'
.
-
..
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
-Report No.
50-029/88-14 Docket No.-50-029 License No. OPR-3 Priority Category -
Licensee: Yankee Atomic Electric Company 1671 Worcester Rosd Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 Facility Name: Yankee Nuclear Power Station Inspection At:
Rowe, Massachusetts Inspection Conducted: July 18-22, 1988 Inspector:
Os M
_
[/ / 8[
. '
A
~
p ph A /Golla, ReactBr Engineer, STPS, EB date Approved
8 - // -87 -
-
r Dr. P. K. Eapen, Chief //Special Test date Programs Section, EB, DRS Inspection Summary:
Inspection on July 18-22, 1988 (Inspection Report No.
50-029/88-14).
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of implementation of the provir, tons of the Inservice Test (IST) Program for pumps and valves.
The inspe; tion included a review of test procedures and results, interviews with cognfzant personnel and test witnessing. Also, a review of-the results of the May 1987 Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test (CILRT) was performed.
Results: An open item was identified concerning the inadequacy of content of the May 1987 CILRT summary technical report.
The licensee was found to be effectively implementing their IST program.
88os2g00 PDR O
-
-
- - - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
'
.
.
~
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted 1.1 Yankee Atomic Electric Company L. Bozek, Quality Services Supervisor C. Clark, Training Manager N. Fethersten, Engineer Maintenance Support M. Gilmore, Technical Services J
T. Henderson, Assistant Plant Superintendent
>
D. King, Maintenance Support Supervisor G. Mcdonald, Quality Services Manager
.
R. Mellor, Technical Director R. Mitchell, Maintenance Manager F. Williams, Reactor Engineering Manager I
1.2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission C. Carpenter, Resident Inspector Note: All persons listed above were present at the exit meeting held July 22, 1988.
2.0 Inservice Testing of Pumps and Valves This inspection was conducted to review and assess the licensee's implementation of their Inservice Test (IST) pump and valve test program I
commitments and other activities associated with IST implementation.
Verification of adherence to regulatory requirements, ASME Section XI requirements and licensee's commitments as well as consideration of safety consequences, organizational structure and interfacing of other departmental groups were addressed as part of the inspection.
The inspector reviewed the licensee'- current IST pump and valve program and held discussions concerning the program with cognizant IST personnel.
It was determined by the inspector that the IST Program has been approved in its present format and content by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR).
The IST program for pumps and valves is required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g) to comply with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI.
For Yankee Rowe the applicable version of the ASME Section XI Code is the 1977 Edition through the sumcJ r 1978 Addenda. The plant is in its third 10 year interval Inservice Testing Program.
,
.%
-
-y
.r
, _
-
,., -,
, - --
.
.
.
The ISI Engineer at Yankee Rowe serves also as the IST Coordinator and works under the plant maintenance manager. Othar individuals involved in IST 1rnplementation such as I&C technicians and plant mechanics also work under the plant maintenance manager.
Control Room Operators and Auxiliary Operators are involved in inservice testing and work under the Shift Supervisors who report to the Plant _0perations Manager.
The onsite plant engineering group is comprised of individuals in the' maintenance depart-ment, therefore close interfacing exists between engineering and the IST Coordinator.
The inspector discussed performance trending with the licensee. The licensee is prese'itly trending the performance of pumps utilizing a spectrum analyzer which obtains displacement and velocity measurements from an accelerometer which is mounted directly on the pump casings.
The inspector observed these accelerometers on both trains of the safety injection pumps. The licensee indicated that these accelerometers are also moucted on the Emergency Auxiliary Feedwater pumps.
These pumps (S.I. and Aux. Feed) comprise all of the pumps tested under the provisions of the IST program. The licensee is also considering a new technique for monitoring pump bearing noise which gives a readout (spike energy) on accelerations. The licensee obtains data also by utilizing a hand held probe at marked locations on the pumps.
This information is compared with that obtained from the spectrum analysis.
A preventive maintenance engineer has the responsibility of monitoring and evaluating the pump vibration data with respect to preventive maintenance.
In addition to pump trend monitoring, valve stroke times are mo.11tored and evaluated by the IST coordinator.
l The inspector discussed the requirem.cs for determining valve stroke
'
time degradation with the licensee.
It was noted that the licensees'
maximum stroke times were derived from actual valve performance plus a reasonable factor. This is consistent with the NRC position that the IST limit should be derived from actual valve performance.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
2.1 Test Witnessing and Procedure Review The inspector witnessed the following inservice tests: On July 20, 1988 valve stroke timing of chemical shutdown valve CS-MOV-529 and on July 21, 1988 train 3 of the Safety Injection pumps, one low and one high head pump.
In all casas the test personnel
,
performed competently and were familiar with the procedures and how to implement them.
It was noted that procedural sign-offs were properly completed and that review of the completed test procedure by the Shift Supervisor and IST Coordinator were performed in a timely manner.
The inspector verified that the pump operability
..
-
-.
-
--
.
.
'
.
.
criteria and valve stroke time for the above tests were satisfied.
The inspector also verified that the test-instruments utilized met the instrument accuracy requirements of ASME Code Sectiv XI and were in current calibration. The inspector determined through a review of records that the licensee is meeting surveillance
,
frequency requirements for inservice " sting including those components on increased frequency test.ng due to previous test results in "alert" range.
It was also noted that the licensee's procedures were of high technical quality and included provisions for good cdministrative control of activities.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
3.0 Main Steam Safety Valves The inspector reviewed the licensees' activities related to IE Information Notice No. 86-05.
This notice was provided by the NRC to alert recipients of a potentially significant problem pertaining to spring-actuated m in steam safety valves that may possess less than the full-rated flow capacity.
The Yankee Rowe facility has four main steam lines, with three MSSVs installed on each main steam line, for a total of 12 MSSVs. All valves were supplied by the Crosby Valve and Gage Company.
The following is a list of the Technical Specifications for Yankees'
Set Quanity Size Style Pressure (psi)
Capacity lb/hr
2 1/2 K6 HC-65 935 80,872
2 1/2 K 6 HC-65 985 124,2C3
-
4 608 HC-55 1,035 519,242-l Each of the safety valves listed above were installed with factory ring settings which were interpolated from smaller safety valve full flow tests performed by Crosby Valve and/or the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessels. Therefore, the issue regarding interpolated MSSV factory ring settings applies to the Yankee Rowe MSSVs.
The licensee, in response to IE Information Notice No. 86-05, has to date tested six of their Main Steam Safety Valves.
The test program involved the steam testing of each 6Q8 HC-55 valve to determine the proper ring settings for blowdown and full capacity lift verification within the design setpoint tolerance.
In addition, one 2 1/2 K6 HC-65 and one 2 1/2 i
K 6 HC-65 valve were each tested to determine generic ring settings for
i
-
- - -
-
-
- - -
- -
-
- - -
-
-
- -
- -
-
-
-
-
.
.
the remaining valves of the same. design. Since this testing occurred in June, 1987 the licensee has decided to full flow test the remaining six MSSV's for added assurance. Currently the six MSSV's, three 2 1/2 K6 HC-65 and three 2 1/2 K 6 HC-65 valves, are set to generic ring setting
adjustments obtained through full flow testing of one each of these types at the Yankee Rowe Plant.
It has been recommended that this testing be done during the next scheduled refueling c atage. Additionally, the licensee has stated that a program for ful. flow testing of the Primary Safety Valves will be developed.
4.0 QA/QC Involvement in Inservice Testing The inspector discussed involvement of the QA organization in the arca of Inservice Testing with QA management.
It was determined that QA does a program review of ISI (including IST) annually and that a QA surveillance plan is written which the department works to monthly or quarterly. QA gives attention to Technical Specification surveillances including inservice tests which includes an evaluation of the performance by the test personnel. Quality Assurance also performs mandatory inspections for any work at the facility requiring a maintenance request.
This includes maintenance performed on components which did not meet IST acceptance criteria. The attention QA is giving to IST appears to be adequate.
The inspector had no further questions.
5.0 Contairment Integrated Leak Rate Test Results Evaluation The inspector reviewed the licensees' May 1987 Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test (CILRT) results documented in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix J paragraph V.B.3.
These results were summarized in a technical document entitled "Reactor Containment Building Integrated Leak Rate Test" and attached to the licensees' letter dated December 16, 1987.
The report contains a test summary, general plant data, and presentation of test results. The Mass Point calculation method was used for the test. The licensee had received an NRC license exemption to Appendix J of 10 CFR 50, Paragraph III A.3 to allow usage of the Mass Point Method as provided in ANSI /ANS 56.8-1981.
The actual test was conduced for P.4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> at peak accident pressure with a 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> stabilization period at the beginning of the test-and a 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> verification test afterward. Data was taker for a total of 32 hours3.703704e-4 days <br />0.00889 hours <br />5.291005e-5 weeks <br />1.2176e-5 months <br />.
The purpose of the test was to demonstrate that leakages through the vapor containment and systems penetrating the vapor containment do not exceed that allowed by plant Technical Specifications.
The test was conducted with containment isolation valves and pressure boundaries in an as-found condition.
The as-found Type A test failed to meet the acceptance criterion prescribed by the Technical Specifications.
The excessive leakage rate
-
-
-
.-
...
.
.
.
was attributable to systems leakage and most notably to the Fuel. Chute Dewatering System isolation blank flange.
These leakages were shown to be reduced.to an acceptable amount through repair and subsequent Type B.and C testing, i.e., the as-left overall leak rate is shown-to be acceptable.
Pertinent test parameters and results are presented below:
A.
Type A Test Parameters 1.
Tes Method Absolute 2.
Calculational Method Mass Point (per ANSI /ANS 56.8-1981)
3.
Test Pressure 32 psig (full pressure tast)
4.
Test Duration:
Stabilization Period 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> Data Gathering for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> Leakage Calculation Verification Test 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> B.
Test Results Wt. %/ day 1.
Acceptance,.75 La 0.1500 2.
Measured Leak 0.1010 Rate (Lam) at 95%
Upper Confidence Level (UCL)
3.
Lam at 95% UCL 0.1213 (As-Left)
Plus Corrections. (Note: This No. Represents The As-Left Leak Rate)
4.
Conclusion Acceptable As-Left Value The inspector independently calculated the as-left CILRT leak rate utilizing an approved NRC computer code. A comparison of licensee and i
intsector computed results is given below.
Results are in weight %/ day.
. _ _.
.
.. - -.. -
--
-. - -. _ - _ - - - - -. -.. -., - -
-- -,_
..
_
.
-
.
.
24 Hr. CILRT Mass Point Method As-Left License MC Maasured (Lam)
0.0797 0.0773 Lam + UCL 0.1010 0.1024 Lam + UCL + Corrections 0.1213 0;1227 Acceptance Limit 0.1500 0.1500 The results show close agreement.
The inspector made the following observations concerning the summary technical report submitted by the licensee:
1.
The level of detail was inadequate.
It was unclear as to whether the final leak rate value reported represented the as-found or as-left containment leakage.
Through discussions with the licensee and scrutinization of data in the licensees' records it was determined that the reported value was the as-found value. The as-left value was completely omitted from the report.
This should be included to demonstrate containment leak tightness and adherence to Technical Specifications prior to plant startup after refueling.
As stated in 10 CFR 50 Appendix J Section V.B.3; "For each periodic test, leakage test results from Type A, B, and C tests shall be reported.
The report shall contain an analysis and interpretation of the Type A test results... "The report did not provide adequate information in that analysis and interpretation of the test results were not given as stated above.
2.
Types B&C leakage test results were not included in the report.
According to 10 CFR 50, Appendix J Section V.B.3; "For_each peri dic test, leakage test results from Type A, B, and C tests shall be reported.
The report shall (additionally) contain... a summary analysis of periodic Type B and Type C tests that were performed since the last Type A test."
It is the staffs position that this summary include a table of actual as-found and as-left type B&C leakages.
'
Results of the four hour supplemental verification test were not 3.
,
fully documented ir. the report. Also stipulated by 10 CFR 50 Appendix J, Section V.B.3; "Results and analyses of the supplemental verification test employed to demonstrate the validity of the leakage rate test measurements shall also be included."
..
.
.
.
4.
The report was not issued in a timely manner.
The test was concluded on May 8, 1987. The cover letter which transmitted the report was dated December 16, 1987. This represents a time span of over seven (7) months from the conclusion of the test to the issuance of the report on the test. As stated in 10 CFR 50 Appendix J Section V.B.1;
"The... periodic tests must be the subject of a summary technical report submitted to the Commission... approximately three months after the ronduct of each test."
A review of the licensees past submittals on Containment Integrated Leak Rate Tests show consistency of coatent.
Further, the licensee had available in their records for the inspectors review all pertinent infor-mation discussed above, The staff has requested that the licensee address this issue before the next scheduled CILRT with corrective action which will ensure adequacy of content in future summary technical reports. The licensee has stated that instructions will be written into the CILRT procedure which will specify reporting requirements.
This is an open item pending corrective action by the licensee (50-029/88-14-01).
6.0 Exit Meeting Licensee management was informed of the purpose and scope of the inspection at the entrance interview. The findings of the inspection were periodically discussed and were summarized at the exit meeting on July 22,1988. Attendees at the exit meeting are listed in Section 1.0 of this report. At no time durir.g the inspection was written material
'
provided to the licensee by the inspectors.
The licensee did not indicate that the inspection involved any proprietary information.
<
l
1
,
--
-.
, _-
.. _ _ _ _
-.