IR 05000309/1988015

Insp Rept 50-309/88-15 on 880822-26.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Inservice Testing of Pumps & Valves, Including Test Results & Procedures,Schedule Adherence & Trending of Results

ML20155F457
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	09/29/1988
From:	Eapen P, Gregg P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20155F455	List: IR 05000309/1988015 ML20155F452
References
50-309-88-15, NUDOCS 8810130271
Download: ML20155F457 (6)

Text

.

.. ..

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

_

REGION I

Report N /88-15 Docket N License N OPR-36 _

Licensee: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 83 Edison Drive Augusta, Maine 04336 Facility Name: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station Inspection At: Wiscasset, Maine Inspection Conducted: August 22 - 26, 1988 Inspectors:c  % &' $4hdku2'l;/M8 H. T. Gregg, Sevier Reactor Engineer idate Approved by: kk a P. K. Eapen, Chief, Special Test Programs 9/d7/PP

' date ~~

Section In.spection Summary: Inspection en August 22-26, '88 (Inspection Report N /88-15).

Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of the licensee's Inservice Testing (IST) of pumps and valves. This included review of organizational structure, test procedures, results of testing, schedule adherence, trending of results, vibration measurements and other pertinent matters relating to IS Results: No violations were identified. Three unresolved items were identified and relate to: 1) omission of a monthly stroke t est of a valve in I the alert range, 2) not testing parallel train discharge eneck valves in I closed position, and 3) inconsistencies in defining requirements for analysis of leakage and corrective actions for RCS/LPSI barrier valves and a program and relief request omission in identifying IST valves being leak tested under Appendix J.

'

0010130271 001010 PDR ADOCK 05000309 0 PNU

__ - _ - - _ - - -- - - - - - _ - - -

. _ - . .. ---,

.

.. ..

.

.

Details 1.0 Persons Contacted 1.1 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company E. Boulette, Plant Manager

• J. Brinkler, Assistant Plant Manager

• R. Crosby, Licensing Engineer

• S. Evans, Licensing Engineer C. Frizzle, Vice President Operations C. Giggey, Performance Engineer

• J. Hebert, Manager Plant Engineering L. Lawson, Quality Program

• S. Leclerc, QC Supervisor M. McKenna, Engineering Assistant M. Richards, Engineering Assistant

• Schubert, IST Coordinator

"L. Speed, Performance Engineering Supervisor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission R. Freudenberger, Resident Inspector

• C, Holden, Senior Resident Inspector

• Denotes those present at the exit meetin .0 Inservice Testing of Pumps and Valves (73756)

This inspection wcs conducted to review and assess the licensee's activities relating to Inservice Testing (IST) of pumps and valves and other activities associated with IST Irplementation. Verification of adherence to regulatory requirements, ASME Section XI requirements and licensee's commitments as well as consideration of safety consequences, 1 organizational structure and interfacing of other departmental groups '

were addressed as part of this inspectio The Code of Federal Regulations part 10 CFR 50.55(g) requires the implementation of IST of pumps and valves and requires licensee's to comply with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI which defines the testing to be performed, test frequency, acceptance criteria and corrective actions. The li:ensee's Technical Specifications and their IST program plan also require conformance to ASME Section X .o .

-

.

The inspector surveyed the licensee's current IST pump and valve program and held discussions concerning the program and its implementation with cognizant IST personnel. The licensee is implementing the second ten year interval program dated June 22, 1983 which covers the period December 28, 1982 to December 29, 1992 and requires adherence to the ASME Section XI Code 1980 Edition through winter 1980 Addenda. Relief requests submitted to date are also being implemented. The program is maintained as a controlled document and the Performance Engineering Group has the responsibility for maintaining and modifying the document. Currently, the licensee's program has not received formal review and approval by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and consideration was given concerning this facto The IST coordinator, a member of the performance engineering group, has oversight of the surveillances, evaluates the results and compiles a history data base. The surveillances are scheduled during January, April, July and October. Operations controls the pump and valve alignments and Engineering Assistance Group technicians assigned to the Performance Engineering Group monitor the surveillances and record the test dat The inspector discussed oump vibrativ., surveillance with the license The licensee is using a Palomar Scientific Microlog computer spectrum analyzer to perform the pump surveillances. This is a modern state of the art hand carried computer and probe device that analyzes, records and stores the data and also hcs a visual display end a blinking alarm if a reference value is exceede The licensee's trending of pump surveillances was reviewed by the inspector. The graphing of the test results of Primary Component Cooling Pump 9A for the time period of 1979 through January 1988 was specifically observed. This trending was performed manually, however, trending capability is now in the computer base and will be automatically graphed in the futur The inspector also discussed the licensee's bases for assigning valve stroke time limits. It was noted that the licensee reanalyses the stroke values from time to time. The assigned stroke time is based on the safety analysis and Technical Specification, the use of manufactures data and the actual valve stroke times. The stroke times reviewed by the inspector were reasonabl The inspector's general review of test results determined that the surveillance schedule was met. The schedule is developed by the Operations Department and is produced on a monthly bases. It was also determined that both administrative and surveillance procedures for IST implementation were in plac .-

2.1 Test Results/ Procedure Review The inspector reviewed the test result records of surveillances performed on IST listed components. In most instances the surveillance test results, procedure format and documentation were appropriate. There were several instances, however, where there was an inspector concern regarding the test result procedural intent, and program commitment. These instances are described in the following paragraph (1) The June 24, 1988 post maintenance testing after packing adjust-ment of the Air Operated Charging Flow Control Valve CH-F-38 (performed under procedure 3.17.8.2) resulted in a 10.1 second stroke time that was in the in,perable range. Immediate packing readjustment reduced the stroke tiee to 9.4 seconds which placed the valve in the alert range and also placed the valve on a monthly frequency. This testing had been performed during an alternate charging alignment. Subsequent monthly testing wasn't performed because the licensee had requested stroke testing relief during normal operation and the plant condition at the monthly test time was in normal alignment. The inspector's position was that monthly testing is required, however, the inspector also noted that procedure stroke times were notably stringent (reference stroke was 8 seconds, alert 9 seconds and inoperable 10 seconds). Review of the licensee's relief request V-10 also appears to have a discrepancy insofar as it doesn't define the partial testing that is actually performed by the surveillance procedur This item is unresolved pending the licensee's resolution of the test omission, stroke times and relief request issue (50-309/88-15-01).

(2) While reviewing the Primary Component Cooling (PCC) system pump and valve test records, procedures and piping drawing the inspector noted that the pump discharge check valves PCC-6 and 13 are only tested in the open position. Tnis system utilizes two parallel train pumps that discharge into a common header downstream of the check valves, therefore, the alternate safety position of one check valve is to close to prevent backflow through the other pump. In the inspector's review of other similar arrangements at the plant and the IST Program the licensee's safe position is only listed as open. This item is unresolved pending the licensee's evaluation of all check valve safety positions and incorporation of valve testing in all safety positions (50-309/88-15-02).

(3) The leak testing of several RCS/LPSI barrier valves (HSI-17, i 17, 37, HSI-61, 62, 63 and LSI-12, 22, 32) are listed in the

.

IST program. The inspector determined that all other valves requiring leak testing are Appendix J valves, therefore, the i licensee utilizes Appendix J angineering personnel to perform l l

l l

l l

. ..

.

the RCS/LPSI valve leak testing. Procedures 3.17.3.2 and 3.17. are not consistent in defining the IST IWV 3426 and 3427 require-ments for analysis of leakage rates and corre'.ive action However, the inspectors review of the trend 1 uits showed them to be well within the IWV 3427 margin requir mants. Also, during the review of these valves, it was noted that the IST program doesn't specify that Appendix J leak testing of contain-ment isolation valves is performed in place of IST Leak testing nor is there a submitted relief request. This item is unresolved pending the licensees evaluation and resolution of these issues (50-309/88-15-03).

2.2 Main Steam Safety Valves (MSSV)

The inspector discussed the issues involved in the NRC Information Notice 86-05 concerning ring settings and lift of MSSVs with cognizant licensee personnel. The licensee has 18 Crosby Model HA55 6R10 MSSVs. Six valves are installed on each steam generator header and the valves are 6"-1500# flangeci inlet X 10"-150# flanged outlet. During the past outage all 18 valves were setpoint tested at Wylie Laboratorie The performance engineering supervisor has drafted a proposal to flow test six of their MSSVs at the next refueling outage scheduled October 1988. This would be coupled with the required set point testing of the six valves and the full flow tests would verify ring settings and lift. This action would effectively address the concerns of the information notic .3 Facility Tour The inspector toured the turbine hall and circulating water building. Observations were made of the primary Component Cooling Pumps 9A and 98 and associated valves and the Secondary ' Component cooling pumps and valves. While in the turbine hall the inspector also witnessed the engineering technician take vibration readings of vacuum priming pump P-28B with the Palomer computerized equipmen The inspector took several independent readings with the computerized instrument and the measurements were within the reference rang Observations were made of the service water pumps P29A, C and 0 and associated valves. Pump P29B was out for repair and pumps 29A and D were running. Observed packing leakage from the running pumps was not excessiv .4 Relief Request for Valve Maintenance The licensee discussed the generic relief request which they had submitted to permit minor valve maintenance. The inspector noted that the, relief request was too general and lacked specifics and

. ~ . . . . .- . . .

- o n-i

.

sufficient bases for acceptance. The relief request also did not describe predetermined evaluations, interim alternative observations or verifications,. precautionary treatment'and vendor or historical .

' data as the bases to permit some minor maintenance such as packing ,

adjustment during operation. The licensee acknowledged the inspector's ;

observations, j

.

3.0 Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations or "

deviations. Three unresolved items are discussed in paragraph 2.1 of this repor .0 Exit Meeting 1 The inspector met with the licensee's representative at the conclusion of

the inspection on August 26, 1988, to summarize the findings of this inspection. Attendees at the exit meeting are listed in paragraph 1.0 of this repor <

During this inspection, the inspector did not provide any written material to the licensee. The licensee did not indicate that the

,

inspection involved any proprietary informatio l

!

l

!

I i

,

l I

f

'

l l

l l