IR 05000155/1990014
| ML20059A170 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1990 |
| From: | Danielson D, Huber M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059A168 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-155-90-14, GL-89-04, GL-89-4, IEB-88-004, IEB-88-4, NUDOCS 9008220149 | |
| Download: ML20059A170 (6) | |
Text
]
d
.
..
.
.
.
.
-.
U. S. NVCLEAR-REGULATORY' COMMISSION REGION 111 Report No.:
50-155/90014(DRS)
Docket No.:
50-155 License No.:
-
l.
-
DPR-6 l'
Licencee-Consumers Power Company
l 1945 West Parnall Road Jacksoc, MI 49201~
Facility Name:
Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant
'
L Inspection At:- Big Rock. Point Site, Charlevoix, MI. 49720
.
Inspection Conducted: ' July 30 through August 3,.1990
[
.
t Inspector:
Ml
/6 TO M, P. Huber Date
'
..
,
Approved By: odNi k
18 /6 Sb
'
D. H. Danielson,' Chief Fate Materials and Processes Section l
'
Inspection Summary
l
'
Inspection on July 30 through August'3, 1990 (Report No. 50-155/90014(DRS))
Are s Inspected: Routine, unannounced saf ety inspection of maintenance and l
inservice testing (IST) of pumps and valvesi(73756).- Areas 1 covered in this
'
inspection included a review of administrative. procedures, implementation procedures, and a review of.previously recorded:IST data.-
Results: Within the areas inspected, no violations,-deviations,~or other items were identified.
Based on the areas' inspected,!the NRC-inspector noted
-
the following:
L
IST program implementation was good. Testing methodologies were in
,
l accordance with applicable codes and standards, t
1 '
Changes were incorporated in the program in response to Generic Letter
'
i.
(GL) 89-04, " Guidance on Developing Acceptable Inservice Testing Programs" and were generally noted to be acceptable.
,
l
~i
.
!!
'
jge2gggggggggs
,
PDb
,
$
-
E
.t
.
,
.
.
...
.
-!
DETAILS s
o
'
l '.
. Persons Contacted Consumers Power Company (CPCo)
L*W. L. Beckman, Plant Manager..
!
- R.. J. Alexander, Technical Engineer
- G. C. Withrow, Engineering Superintendent
.R. C. Krchmar, Acting' Quality Assurance:(QA) Superintendent-
- Mr W. Acker, Inservice -Inspection (ISI); Coordinator-t
,.
-t U. S. Nuclear Rsgulatory Commission (USNRC)-
'
'
- E. A.'Plettner, Senior Resident inspector.
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting. held onEAugust.3, 1990..
The.NRC inspector also contacted other licensee personnel.during the
- [
course of the inspection.-
,
,
~2.
Pump and Valve IST Program Implementation (73756')
'
The' licensee's-IST program was based on the requiremerits fof Section-XI-of-
~1 the ASME Code, 1977 Edition, Summer 1978 Addenda,-and GL 89-04.
a.
. Administrative Controls of IST The NRC inspector confirmed that administrative controls were in
. place'to satisfy the requirements of;the licensee's IST program and that specific ~IST duties had been; assigned to' personnel..The inspector. reviewed portionsjof administrative and' technical documents
- t-forcontentandforcompliancewith:theCodeandGLL89-04-(see
'
Enclosure 2).'
It was the responsibil'ity of the Big Rock Point. Plant Engineering-c,-
Superintendent for management of thetIST, Program and the.lSf.
~
Coordinator to implement the IST Program - Most of.the required testing was accomplished by performance of the: applicable
-
surveillance by operations personnel.
.
Findings and Conclusions
'
-
,
The NRC' inspector discussed the. scheduling:of.various IST tests to-meet'the frequr ~y @ guirements of the' Code and GL~89-04'.. The
>
testing of the two Core:$ pray'Pamps;and the Dieseltand Electreic Fire-
Pumps is done on 6 shutdown frequency; Valve -testing is done quarterly
>
-or at cold shutd9wn or refueling,4s applicablec
.
.
'
t
,
..
.c
,,
,
s,
a
-
'
$
.
!
.
.
.
-..
The timeliness of the review of IST surveillance data was also discussed with: engineering and operations personnel.- GL 89-04, Position 8, is summarized to state that "... as soon as data is recognized as being within the required action range for pumps or exceeding the limiting value of full stroke time for valves, the associated component must be declared inoperable and-the TS action time must be started."
Abnormalities identified during tests are addressed immediately by licensed shift personnel.- When the results of a component test did j
not meet the established acceptance criteria. the component was j
declared inoperable..The administrative procedures were being
!
revised to clarify the timeliness of the operability. determinations j
to conform with-the requirements specified in'GL 89-04. References
-to GL 89-04 as a source of. requirements for the IST program were
'
also being included in the procedure revision.
O
_
k The inspector determined that from an IST programmatic standpoin.t.
t;'e licensee was. performing the testing within the required frequencies-
ano the required IST data was obtained and reviewed consistently-by l
~
.the licensee..
)
)
b.
Pump Testing l
The pump testing requirements were implemented through the performance j
.of surveillance tests. conducted during cold shutdown conditions.- The.
licensee's pump program included four pumps, the Core' Spray Pumps and.
the Diesel and-Electric Fire Pumps. The surveillance procedures.were j
clearly written and easy to follow.
Acceptance criteria were included i
as an attachment to the surveillcnce procedures and were clearly'
j defined.
Each pump had an associated attachment which' contained the -
IST data for the pumps. individually.
j
,
i Observations made by the NRC inspector regarding the pump testing are
{
detailed below.
-'
Findings Is Prior to the issuance of GL 89-04, pump testing at-Big Rock Point was
conducted by measuring the vibration levels and discharge and suction
'
pressures using the system resistance as.the baseline.from test to
,
test. The measured. par ceters were then recorded and. compared with
'
the acceptance criteria to determine the adequacy of the pump operation and recorded for trending purposes.
Instrt. mentation'for
measuring pump flow was not installed in the testing circu't and the IST could not be performed as required by ASME Code Section XI, Paragraph IWP-3100, in response to GL 89-04 IWP-3100 requires that
,
the system resistance be varied until either the measured pressure or
!
flow rate equals the reference value and that the other parameter be measured. The licensee had requested relief from the requirements of
IWP-3100 because the testing could not be done using the method
described by the Code due to the lack of installed flow instrumentation.
j i
?
'
j I
-
-
!
..
-
.
.
.
j n
GL 89-04, Position 9,. discusses pump testing under, condition with or without flow measuring devices in min ~. mum flow lines and basically-requires licensees to install the instrumentation.. The licensee committed to installing the required flow instrumentation.
This modification was scheduled to be performed ~during the 1990 refueling outage. Surveillance procedures.~were also going to be revised to reflect the new system configuration ~and reflect the
_
i test; method as required by the Code.
NRC' Bulletin _88-04, dated May 5,1988, advised licensees of the -
potential for pump damage while running pumps in-the minimum flow
>
condition. The guidelines outlined in Position-9 for meeting the Code or performing alternative testing was not intended to-supersede
~
the thrust of NRC Bulletin 88-04.
Licensees should ensure:that if.
pumps-were tested in the low flow condition, the flow would be
sufficient to prevent damage to the pump.
Big Rock ~ Point' Plant has addressed NRC Bulletin 88-04.
Physical inspections of. the diesel and electric fire pumps are scheduled-for the'next refueling outages.
Pump operating characteristics were routinely l checked to verify that the pumps continue to match the original pump. pertomance cones.
The NRC inspector reviewed several pump surveillance data sheets
.i attached to the procedures for the testing of: pumps and valves in the
'
IST program. The acceptance ranges were specified and acceptable.
-
Also, the data recorded was within acceptabl*.imits.
>
c.
alve Testing Program The valve testing was implemented througn-surveillance tests.
Acceptance criteria were clearly; defined,in the' procedures. The-NRC inspector reviewed the completed _ proc'edures listed.in Enclosure 2'
l and determined, in general, that acceptance, criteria were met.
l Proper review and approvals were obtained andfevaluation'.of the' data was performed.
The NRC inspector reviewed a sample-of the licensee's, relief requests to determine if the justification for relief was a'dequate.
!
"
Findings i
Stroke testiag of. valves incorporated' thermal overload circuit protection.. Protection of the motor from excessive cycling that may be seen during testing or maintenance was achieved through the'use of
>
,
the thermal overloads. The overload circuitry was bypassed ~during normal operations which prevented the thermal overloads from q
inadvertently tripping and preventing the valve from performing'its-
intended safety function.
'
'
'
Stroke timing was performed from initiation of' the actuation signal ~
until the end.of stroke, which was the light indication. Discussions with the licensee indicated that the practice concerning the maximum i
1
,
l'
L h
-
.
'
.:
.
<
.
allowable stroke times'for. power operated valves was reasonable. The licensee met the guidelinesLof Positions 5 and 6 of GL 89-04 regarding-the: limiting values of full-stroke times for power operated valves and stroke time measurements for rapid-acting valves.
Regarding' the review of the relief requests of the _ licensee's: program, Ethe NRC _ inspector questioned'the testing of the Emergency Condenser Isolation. Valves. Testing of these valves was done:on a cold shutdown-frequencyLinstead of quarterly. A review of_ the normal operating configuration revealed that the inlet valves were normally. open and the outlet valves were norma 11y' closed. The. licensee requested; relief onithe basis that the cycling of-the_ valves would induce unacceptable' thermal stresseston the condenser. However. since the inlet valves'were already in the open position during power operation,
-
the conde'.ser was already warmed-to prevent ~ thermal-shock; Discussions, with the. licensee revealed that1these valves were stroked'previously during: power-operation with no adverse affects.
'
The licensee initiated the necessary changes'to'the-program to remove,
~
the relief request-and cycle the valves on a1 quarterly basis.
5.
Exit Interview'
'
Theinspectormetwithlicenseerepresentativr>(denotedinParagraoh-1))
on *,ugust 3, 1990, and summarized the scope'and findings of the+ inspection activities. The_ licensee acknowledged these_ findings..The inspector:
also discussed the likely informational content of the. inspection report with regard to documents / processes reviewed by the inspector during the'
~
inspection. The -licensee did not identify any such' documents or processes as proprietary.-
...
>
.
.., ~
'
....,
.
' ENCLOSURE 2:
,
Documents' Reviewed
,
,
1.
- Administrative' Procedures
,
Procedure No. 3.1.5.1.. Revision 1, " Inservice Testing of Valves"-
-
Procedure No.- 3.1;5.2., Revision 1, "I'nservice -Testing: of Selected Safety-Related Pumps"
-
Procedure TV-30, Revision 026,:"ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel-Code, Section'XI, IWV and -lWP Testing Program" 2..
Surveillance Procedures ~
<
l
TSD-01,-Revision 12, " Fire Pump Operating Characteristics" I
.;
TSD-07, Revision 5, " Core Spray-Pump Run-and Test LoopL0peration" l
03, Revision 9, " Cold-lRDS-Isolation Val've Testing"
TSD-09, Revision 3, " Emergency Con' enser Valve 0perability Test" d
' TSD-02, Revision '2, !' Exercising'of-Liquid Poison System? Shutoff Valve"
'
3.
Pump and Valve Test Data
-
TSD-01, Fire Pump Operating Parameters,' July 16, 1989'
'
.TSD-07, Pump' Operating Parameters, Core Spray Pumps;1 and 2,-
July 18, 1989 q
i TSD-02, CV-4020 and Equalizing Line Check Valve VPp300, July. 20, l
1990 l
-
- )]
TSD-03, July 19,'1990 TSD-09, July 30,1990
"!
.
6