IR 05000271/1988016
| ML20207K842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/04/1988 |
| From: | Eapen P, Joe Golla NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207K823 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-271-88-16, NUDOCS 8810170055 | |
| Download: ML20207K842 (7) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
,.
.
[
,
-
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-271/88-16 Docket No.
50-271 License No, OPR-28 Licensee:
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation-l RD 5 Box 16_9 Ferry Road u
Brattlecoro, Vermont 01301 Facility Name:
Vermont _ Yankee Nuclear power Station Inspection At:
Vernon, Vermont Inspection Conducted:
September 12 - 16, 1938 Inspectors:
N.
_
6hdT Josepn A. Golla, eactor Engineer cate
!
N N_
lo[/tM7 Approved by:
Dr. P. K. Eapen', w_ Chief, Special Test
~
'
cate Programs Section, EB, DRS Inspection Summary:
Inspection on September 12 - 16, 1988 (Inspection Report No. 507 71/88-16).
~
Areas Inspected:
Routine announced inspection of implemer.tition of the provisions of the Vermont Yankee Inservice Test program for safety related i
pumps and valves. The inspection included a review of test procedures and
[
results, interviews with cognizant personnel, test witnessing, and follow-up
of previously identified open items.
I Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
Inservice Testing
[
[TSTTGasfoundtobeimplementedadequately. Two open items were ssed.
i i
I
,
a
8810170055 881006 l
PDR ADOCK 05000271
>
]
Q PNV
,
'
f i
i I
-
___ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
-
.
.
,
i l
.
l
!
Details l
1.0 Persons Contacted l
1.1 Vermont Yankee Nuclear power Corporation R. Branch Operations
'
- R. Grippardi, QA Supervisor
- S. Jefferson, Assistant Plant Manager i
J. Kinsey, IST Coordinator Engineering Support Department
"
'
0. Legere, Maintenance
'R. Pagodin, Technical Services Superintendent l
- R. Wanczyk, Operations Superintendent l
1.2 Nuclear Regul_atory Commission f
- J. Macdonald, Resident Inspector VYNPS f
I
- Indicates those present at the exit meeting held on i
September 16, 1988 i
2,0 Inservice Testing of Pumps and Valves
,
This inspection was conducted to review and assess the licensee's f
implementation of their Inservice Test (IST) pump and valve test program
commitments and other accivities associated ith IST implementation.
i Verificaticn of adherence to regulatory re..rements, ASME Section XI f
'
requirements and licensee's commitments as well as consideration of safety consequences, organizational f,tructure and interfacing of other j
departmental groups were addressed as part of the inspection. The l
inspector reviewed the licensee's current IST pump and valve program and (
held discussions concerning the program with cognizant IST personnel.
It
!
was determined by the inspector that thG IST program has recently been
!
revised (revision 9) and is under review by the NRC Office of Nuclear
!
Reactor Regulation (NRR).
The IST program for safety related pumps and
valves is required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g) to comply with the ASME Botler and
!
Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI.
For Vermont Yankee the applicable i
version of the ASME Section XI Code is the 1980 edition through and
!
including the winter 1980 addenda. The plant is in its second 10 year i
interval Inservice Testing program.
[
!
The IST coordinator at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) works i
l in the Engineering Support Department. This individual is charged mainly I
with IST program responsibilities, such as, preparing revisions to the i
program and maintaining records of base line (referen.e) data for pumps
!
and valves, rather than implementation.
Itiividuals in the Maintenance
[
Oepartment are responsible for taking pump vibration data.
The Operations l
Department reasures pump flow parameters and valve closure times. Addi-I tionally, the Operations Department is currently responsible for scheduling
!
tests and evaluating all test data.
I i
- - - -
-
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - _. - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _
.
-
.
,
.
Program implenentation, however, is now in a period of transition at VYNPS. New procedures which will shift responsibilities for governing the implementation of the program are in the draft stage.
In the near future the Operations Department will be responsible for evaluating pump hydraulic parameters and valve stroke tining for tests performed under Operations Departfrent procedures.
The menuring, evaluating, and trending of pump vibration data will be performed by the Maintenance Department.
The IST coordinator, in the Engineering Support Department, will function essentially as before with mainly prografn rather than implementation responsibilities.
The inspector discussed the effectiveness of the future plan with the licensee representatives, The licensee indicated that the future reorgani-zation will serve to centralize responsibilities in that the department responsible for a certain test parameter will also be responsible for evaluating and trending it.
The inspector discussed performance tranding with the licensee and reviewed previous records of trending analysis.
This review of records showed that in depth performance trending was done only rarely and that it had been discontinued recently.
The inspector stated that more sopN sticated methods of performance trending and predictive maintenance are being adopted by the industry and inquired about the licensees plans in this regard.
The licensee referenced their draft IST procedures which stipu-lates that test results be visually trended.
This visual trending as described in the procedures is limited tr a comparison of current data with the data previously measured to visually trend the test results in anticipation of future test resuits.
The procedures state that if this trending of the test results indicate that the next test will produce unacceptable results, the cognizant department shall consider taking corrective action prior to the next regularly scheduled test. The inspector discussed possible enhancements to this performance trending program with the licensee, lhe licensee has recently purchased and started using two new machinery analyzers for taking vibration measure-ments of pumps.
The instruments utilize a velocity probe which integrates its inputs to yield vibration displacement in mils. These instruments are sophisticated state-of-the-art devices which are capable of instantaneous spectrum analysis.
The licensee therefore is capable of mor;i in-depth performance trending utilizing the data attainable with these instruments.
The licensee indicated that improvements to their performance t. rending program would be investigated.
This will be reviewed by the NRC in a follow-up inspection.
The inspector discussed the requirnents f or determining valve stroke time degradation with the licensee.
It was noted that the licensees'
maximum stroke times were derived f rom 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 inspc: tor witnessed on September 14, 1938 a test by the licensee of the main turbine rotor for vibration.
The test wr. an "informational" and the main turbine is not required by ASME Code Section XI to be in the IST program, i.e., it is not a safety related piece of equipment. However,
,
the licensee uses the same vibration monitoring mettod for safety related components.
The test personnel performed competently.
They were familiar with the test equipment (spectrum analy:er described above) its usage, and readily anssered all inspector questions. The inspector verified that the test instruments used for this test and others being used for Inservice Testing w t the instrument accuracy requirements of ASSE Code Section XI, are in cur cnt calibration, and were calibrated with standards which are traceable to the Nstional Bureau of Standards (NBS).
It was noted that a QA engineer was also present during this activity.
j The inspector determined through a review of records that the licensee is meeting surveillance frequency requirements for inservice testing includ-ing those components on increased frequency testing due to previous test results in "alert" range.
It war also noted that the licensee's proce-dures were of high technical quality and included provisions for good administra*.ive control of activities.
No unacceptable conditions were identified, 3.0 personnel Training and Qualifications The qualification and training of selected test personnel were discussed with a licensee representative.
In addition, the inspector evaluated the performance of test technicians during the test witnessing.
It was determined that IST personnel in the Maintenance Department, who take l
pump vibration readings, are qualified plant mechanics and receive l
specific training in the usage of the new machinery analy:er discussed
)
in Section 2.0.
personnel in the Operations Department responsible for l
valve stroke timing and pump hydraulic measurements are qualified I
auxiliary operators.
The inspector determined that the test technicians qualifications met the requirements specified in ANSI N 18.! - 1971
"Selection and Training of Nuclear Power plant Personnel."
4.0 Plant _ Tour The inspector made several tours of the plant facilities including the reactor building, turbine building, control room, and plant exterior to monitor the licensees activities and housekeeping. All areas inspected were exceptionally clean.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
- _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
o
.
j
,
,
t 5.0 QA/QC Involvement in Inservice Testing l
The inspector discussed involvement of the QA Organization in the area of
'
Inservice Testing with QA management.
Several quality assurance
,
l'
surveillance reports covering inservice testing this year were reviewed by the inspector.
It is noted that the QA organization conducted an IST
-
program effectiveness surveillance in February 1988.
The QA personnel l
identified several significant findings during these surveillances.
The i
,
surveillance reports were well written and QA findings were clearly com-
municated to the licensee's cognizant departments who were responsive to
'
the findings.
Based on discussions with onsite QA management and review of the above surveillance reports, the inspector concludes that tha
!
Quality Assurance organization is giving an appropriate level of attention J
to IST and has an effective communication channel with the licensee for i
resolving QA concerns.
It was stated to the inspector that quality j
control functions at Vereont Yankee are fulfilled by an independent party
in the cognizant department performing the work. No unacceptable conditions were identified.
,
I
!
!
6.0 Follow-Up of Previously Identified Open Items
__
j (Closed) Unresolved Item 50-271/86-10-03: NRC Review of_ Licensee
'
Actions for Motor Operated Valves
f l
The licensee informed the resident inspector on June 13, 1936 of actions f
in progress to address motor operated valves (MOV's) that were overhauled
l during that outage to assure a potentially. adverse enndition was
,
eliminatsd on safety system valves.
The inspector at that time reviewed t
'
I the licensee's actions to investigate and resolve the problem and opened i
j this unresolved item to track further actions by the licensee regarding
it.
j (
i
!
i A synopsis of the issue is as follows:
Following failure of the "B"
'
recirculation pump suction valve (V2-43B) on June 4, 1986, the licensee's
!
I investigation determined the root cause of the failure to be a "hydraulic t
lock" condition in thr. limitorque spring pack that prevented the torque
'
switch from operating properly. Actions were ccmpleted under MR 86-1114
l to replace the motor.
The licensee noted that grease from the gear box
{
l entered the spring pack area, and af ter filling the spring pack chamber,
'
the grease interfered with compression of the Belville spring washers. A new less viscous grease, Exxon EP-0, recommended by the valve manufacturer which was used during overhaul of 40 M')V's during the outage apparently i
incresses the likelihood of grease buildup in the spring pack chamber.
A modification package available from the vendor which providas a fix for i
the condition, consists of installing vent tubing from the spring pack chamber back to the limitorque gear box, Actions were completed by the licensee to install the vent tubing on all 40 valves described above
_. _ _ _ _ _.
__
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
o
.
,
,
-
which received the Exxon EP-0 grease. All valves were functionally tested satisfactorily by stroking in both directions following instal-lation of the tubing.
The inspector at that time determined that the licensee's actions to identify the root caust for the potential failure mode and to correct the condition on affected valves were appropriate.
This action adequately addressed the concerns identified in NRC Inpection No. 50-271/86-10.
Since that time the licensee has deve' s d a schedule for installing the modification described above for all s fety related valves.
The inspector, during this inspection discussed progress of the modification work with members of the Maintenance Department and reviewed the licensees schedule for performing the maintenance.
The licensev stated that 80 safety related valves would be modified during the spring 1989 outage and that 12 would remain on the schedule to be done the following outage.
Progress toward completion of the modifications by the licensee appears to be substantial given the tetal number of valves on the schedule.
The actions taken by the licensee are adequate to correct the problem.
The resident ir.spector also identified a need for further NRC review of the adequacy of the licensee's system to receive updated product informa-tion from vendors. This item has since been idantified as a SALP issue and is being separated from this unresolved item to be reviewed by the resident inspectors.
This item is closed.
(Closed) Violation 50-271/86-25-01:
IST Core Spray _ B_P_ ump _ Vibrations Measurements in Required Action Range of ASME Code section X1 Table livP9 Tb0;2 and Pump Was Not Declared Inoperable Inservice test (IST) data for the B core spray pump from testing at 9:00 a.m. on November 25, 1986 showed high vibration levels at 1 of 5 points monitored in the program.
The vibratinn mea.ured at pump location X2 (pump to motor shaft coupling) was 11.0 mils, which was above the
"Required action" range of S.0 mils as determined by ASME Code Section XI, 1980 Edition, Winter Addenda.
(The vibration limits for the B pump established per Table IWP-3200-2 were: Alert range - 6 to 8 mils; Required Action range - greater than 8 mils.) The licensee did not declare the pump inoperable pending further review of the pump vibrations during an additional test on the 4-12 shift on November 25, 1986.
The licensee based this action on his interpretation of the code which allows 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> to evaluate IST data.
The licensee started the 96 hour0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> clock when the data was identified to be in the "Required actien" range and used the subsequent 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> to determine whether the pump was inoperable. The additional test run was used to valtdate the 9:00 a.m. results.
This is allowable per IWP-3230(a) if IST vibration data is analyzed and found to fall within the "Alert" range of Tabla IWP-3100-2.
There is no 96 hour0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> period allcwed for evaluation of cLrponent cperability when data is determined to be in the "Required Action" range.
Failure to follow the
. _ -
_.
_
__ _ ____ ________ ____
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. - _ _ - _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
O
,
.
,
requirements of IWP-3230(b) for pumps in the "Required Action" range of Table IWP-3100-2 was a violation of Technical Specification 4.6.E which states that inservice inspection of safety-related components shall be performed in accordance with Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
The inspector reviewed the licensees final -esponse to the NRC regarding this violation and found it acceptable for closure. The licensee in a letter to the NRC dated March 25, 1988 has stated their belief that their previous practice regarding the interpretation of the 96 hour0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> criterion of IWP-3220 was in full compliance with the ASME Code.
However, they have hgreed to enhance their program to be consistent with the NRC position.
In their letter, the licensee has committed, for test results showing pump parameters in the "Required Action" range, to immediately declare the pump inoperable and initiate a maintenance request for corrective maintenance or justify new reference parameters.
In addition, Vermont Yankee has upgraded their vibration measurement instrumentation and has overhauled and repaired the B core spray pump.
The overhaul included a new thrust bearing, resleaved shaft, and balanced rotor.
The inspector reviewed the maintenance documentation which completed this work. NRC inspection report. 50-271/85-06 reviewed the proposed improve-ments to the licensee's 151 program. However, this item remained open pending NRC verification of the implementation of the proposed improvements under violation 50-271/86-25-01.
This inspection verified implementation of the proposed IST program improvements.
This violation is closed.
7.0 Ex1_t 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 sunmarized at the exit meeting on September 16, 1983. Attendees at the exit meeting are listed in Section 1.0 of this report. At no time during the irspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspector. The licensee did not indicate that the inspection involved any proprietary information.