IR 05000334/1989015

Insp Rept 50-334/89-15 on 890905-08.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Use of Hafa Intl Developed Instrumented Insp Technique as Alternative to Hydrostatic Test Requirements of ASME Section XI

ML20248G164
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	09/22/1989
From:	Mcbrearty R, Strosnider J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20248G156	List: IR 05000334/1989015 ML20248G154
References
50-334-89-15, NUDOCS 8910100110
Download: ML20248G164 (5)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:mg [[x .;..

       -
 -
.y. .
,

ls'

;V:

[7

,

i U.S.. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No. . 50-334/89-15-Docket No. 50-334-License No. DPR-66-

..
 ' Licensee: Duquesne Light Company-Post Office Box 4 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Facility Name: Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1
-

Inspection:At: Shippingport, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted: . September 5-8, 1989 Inspectors: b MdC hE* R.A. McBr art , Reactor Epdineer date Approved by: a 9'/)t//r

  .R. Strosnider, Chief, MPS, EB, DRSS   date Inspection Summary: Inspection on September 5-8, 1989 (Report No. 50-334/89-15)

Areas Inspected: A routine, unannounced inspection was conducted of the licensee's inspection activities regarding the use of the H.A.F.A. International developed Instrumented Inspection Technique (IIT) as an alternative to the hydrostatic test requirements of ASME Section XI. The areas inspected included observation of a test in progress, the H.A.F.A. Level _I, II and III qualification / certification-procedure, and the adequacy of the IIT test procedur Results: The observed test was performed in accordance with the applicable procedure. Two unresolved items were identified regarding the adequacy of the test procedure to' control significant test parameters and the validity of the H.A.F.A. Level I, II and III personnel qualification / certificatio PDR ADOCK 05000334 O PNU ___-_ __ _ _____ _ _.__ _ __- _ __ -

   ;
  '
.
       ~

r .

.
.'
'

L; _ . Details-

'
 '1 '. 0 Persons Contacted f  Duquesne Light Company.

*-S. Fenner, Manager, Quality Assurance

 * D. Grabski, Engineer
 * F. Lipchick,cSenior Licensing Supervisor
 * T. P.-Noonan, General Manager, Nuclear Operations
 * W.' H. Sikorski, Director, Inservice Inspection I  *'K. A. Troxler, Supervisor of Inservice InspectionLServices-
  .

H.A F.A. International, Incorporated

 .
 * D. F. Abbuehl,' Senior Test Specialist ~
 ~* T.:M. DeBortoli, Project' Manager / Senior Test Engineer
 '* R. P. Milke, Project Leader, Level III
  .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory' Commission

 * J.lE. Beall, Senior Resident Inspector
 * P. R. Wilson, Resident Inspector M. R. Hum, NRR 2.0 Observations of Work in' Progress Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1980 Edition
 . requires system pressure tests to be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Article IWA-5000. System leakage tests and system hydrostatic tests'shall be conducted at the test conditions of pressure and temperature specified in IWB-5000, IWC-5000, and IWD-500 :By letter dated April 22, 1986, the licensee requested NhC approval to use an alternative inspection technique at the' Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, to satisfy the inservice pressure testing require-ments of ASME Code, Section XI, IWA, IWB, IWC, and IWD. The alternative technique proposed for use by the-licensee is the Instrumented Inspection
 ~ Technique (IIT) developed by H.A.F.A. International, Incorporated, and the subject of H.A.F.A. Topical Report HAFA 135(N), dated April 1985, entitled
 " Instrumented Inspection Technique As An Alternative To Hydrostatic Testing Requirements for ASME Class 1,2, and 3 Systems and Components". Based on review of the HAFA Topical Report the NRC concluded that the Instrumented Inspection Technique is a suitable alternative to Section XI requirements for hydrostatic test During the current refueling outage, the licensee plans to use the Instrumented Inspection Technique on portions of the safety injection system and the chemical and volume control system. The safety injection-boron injection subsystem test, governed by test procedure IIT 11.11,  l
      .__ _ ___- _-__ _ _ A

F.

' l l

*

-

I

-3-l

l~ Revision 1, entitled " Safety Injection System Pressure Testing (Unit 1) - Boron Injection. Tank", was scheduled to be completed in two phases. Two l " differenttestpressureswererequired,phaseIat10if0psig,andphase IIat2500ig0psig,eachwithatwohourholdtimeattestpressur The inspector observed the phase I portion of the test to ascertain whether procedural and regulatory requirements were complied with. The inspector determined that, after allowing the system pressure to stabilize within the required test limits, it was maintained at the required pressure for two-hours prior to commencing the VT-2 visual examination of the syste The visual examination was performed by two licensee visual inspector The required IIT equipment was identified by the procedure and included a leak measuring device (LMD) model T5-1-1, a 30 psig full scale calibrated pressure gauge,-a test manifold with a pressure relief valve and a bypass valve, and acoustic leak sensing equipment. Additionally, an AE International model LD-180 device for monitoring the output of acoustic sensors was use Acoustic sensors were placed on the valves identified by step 7.3.1 of procedure IIT 11.11, Revision 1, and during the course of the test the model LD-180 was attached to each sensor in sequence to obtain background noise levels and test data. The VT-2 visual inspection was considered the l

           ;

acceptance test, and the acoustic data were treated as supplemental informatio During the two hour hold time three background noise level readings for each acoustic sensor were recorded at approximately 1 minute interval While the visual examination was in progress three additional readings were recorded from each acoustic sensor and compared to the background noise level readings previously recorded. Those readings, like the background readings, were recorded at approximately 1 minute interval The inspector interviewed licensee personnel regarding the level of licensee involvement in the IIT and acoustic tests performed on plant systems. The IIT test acceptance is based on VT-2 visual examinations which are performed by qualified licensee visual inspectors. The acoustic tests are conducted by H.A.F.A. personnel and the results are evaluated by a H.A.F.A. Level II technician. A report is provided to the licensee for review and acceptanc In response to the inspector's question the licensee stated that no licensee personnel are qualified to independently evaluate the acoustic test dat The licensee agreed with the inspector that improvement in this area is neede The phase I portion of procedure IIT 11.11 was conducted in accordance with the procedure, the sequential steps were verified by signature as they were completed and licensee operations and health physics personnel were at the test location to support the test effor ,

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

      . - - - - - ----

t

,
..

_4 The inspector expressed concern that the procedure did not adequately control the portion of the test dealing with acoustic parameter Examples include the number of acoustic background noise level checks that must be 1 made, selection of the acoustic sensor frequency, and the method of attach-ing the acoustic sensor to the various system components. The H.A.F.. Level III indicated that three different methods are used to attach the sensors. No method is specified by the procedure. The Level III stated that three background noise level checks are made prior to performing the test. A H. A.F.A. Level II test technician stated that three checks are usually made, but sometimes two checks are made and the number is lef t to the discretion of the technician. The Level II also stated that sensor frequency determines, to a great extent, the test sensitivity and that this is left.to the technician's discretio The adequacy of the procedure to control significant test parameters is considered unresolved pending licensee evaluation and action, and subsequent NRC review (334/89-15-01).

3.0 personnel Qualification / Certification The inspector interviewed the H. A.F.A. Level III examiner and Level II technicians regarding personnel certification procedures applicable to H.A.F.A. test personne The inspector was advised that personnel certification is accomplished in accordance with Topical Report HAFA 135, as approved by the NRC, and HAFA Quality Assurance Procedure 9.2 which is included in the Topical Repor The Level III examiner, in response to the inspector's questions, stated that Level I and II technicians were originally certified for a period of three years by examination. He further stated that, prior to the expiration of the three year period, the program was " streamlined" and the technicians were re-certified by virtue of continued acceptable performance for a three year period commencing with the date of re-certification. The Level III also stated that he was appointed to the Level III position by an officer of the compan l Procedure 9.2 references ANSI N45.2.6 although the applicable edition is not identified. The ANSI document is applicable to the qualification of personnel for methods not included in SNT-TC-1A and permits certification by appointment and re-certification by virtue of continued acceptable performance. SNT-TC-1A also permits decertification by virtue of continued acceptable performance, but ASME Section XI requires, for nuclear work, certification and decertification of Level I, II and III personnel by examination onl It appears that SNT-TC-1A and Section XI should govern because leak testing and acoustic emission testing methods are included in SNT-TC-1 This item is considered unresolved pending clarification as to whether ANSI N45.2.6 or SNT-TC-1A and Section XI govern the qualification and l certification of H.A.F.A. Test personnel (334/89-I5-02).

l l l l l ' f I i

1 L - ------_--____--__--_____---__J

- _

_. - _ - -.. _

   ,
       ,
' b* ?
 ..
   >

?.' (

     ,
 .: ,    -5 '

14.0 Unresolved' Items Unresolved' items are matters-about which more information is required to ascertain whether they are acceptable,Lviolations-or-deviation Unresolved items are discussed in paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 of:this repor .0--Exit Meeting The inspector met with-lic'ensee representatives, denoted in paragraph 1, at the conclusion of the inspection on September 8, 1989. The inspector

    -

i,  : summarized'the' scope and findings of the inspectio At no time .during.the-inspection was written material provided.by' the inspector to the licensee. The licensee did not. indicate that proprietary information was involved within the scope of this inspectio @ l . __z___________________.____. }}