IR 05000410/1985011
| ML17054B714 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/30/1985 |
| From: | Gregg H, Kortas A, Wiggins J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17054B713 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-410-85-11, NUDOCS 8506210152 | |
| Download: ML17054B714 (18) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-410/85-11 Docket No.
50-410 License No.
CPPR-112 Priority Category B
Licensee:
Nia ara Mohawk Power Cor oration 300 Erie Boulevard West S racuse New York 13202 Facility Name:
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2 Inspection At:
Scriba New York Inspection Conducted:
A ri 1 2-4 and 9-12 1985 Inspectors:
. Gregg, Reactor ngineer rtas, R
a or Engin er sing date 88 g~
date Approved by:
J
. Wiggins
'ef, Materials and Process Section ivision of Reactor Safety
~li l
>>
I
- l R
.
-l I l.
dl
- l l 'l
d to the Reactor Vessel and Associated Piping (Code) Hydrostatic Test.
The inspection involved 112 hours0.0013 days <br />0.0311 hours <br />1.851852e-4 weeks <br />4.2616e-5 months <br /> onsite by 2 region-based inspectors.
Results:
No violations were identified.
'506210152 850604 PDR
'ADOCK 05000410
C
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted Nia ara Mohawk Power Cor oration NMPC
- W.
- C D.
C.
D.
S.
- B C.
Baker, Assistant Manager, Special Projects Beckham, Quality Assurance Manager Blackburn, Startup Test Group Manager Brassard, Test Director Keller, Quality Assurance Engineer King, Supervisor Quality Engineering McGarvey, Quality Assurance Engineer Morrison, Manager Quality Engineering Spore, Quality Assurance Engineer White, Special Projects 1.2 Stone and Webster En ineerin Cor oration SWEC 1.3 T.
J.
T.
- B R.
R.
W.
A'E R.
B.
E.
J.
L.
M.
- A kC
- W.
AC Gen Arrington, Resident Manager, Quality Control Banks, As-Built Engineer Baumgartner, Site Quality Assurance Supervisor Bulger, Project Advisory Engineer Cantie, FQC Engineer Courtney, Shift Test Director Gibbs, Sr. Test Director Hubner, Assistant Supt. of Engineering Hyslop, Jr., Site Licensing Nagesh, FQC Engineer Magi lley, Assistant Supt.
FQC O'Neal, QC Engineer Pri 11, Shift Test Director Proul, Pipe Fitter Rovetti, Supervisory Engineer Staples, Jr.,
FQC Engineer Taylor, Assistant Supt.
FQC Terry, Project QA Manager eral El'ectric Cor oration GE 1.4 G. Levy, QC Engineer S. Morrell, QA Engineer R. Opanhoske, QA Engineer P. Quinlan, QC Engineer Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance Com an R.
J.
R.
Messina, Site ANI (Head RPV Hydro ANI)
Shampine, ANI Inspector Fabiny, ANI Inspector
1.5 Reactor Controls Incor orated G. Nuss, QC Engineer U.S. Nuclear Re ulator Commission
- R. Gramm, Sr. Resident Inspector
~S.
Hudson, Sr.
Resident Inspector
~J. Linville, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2C, Region I
- A. Luptak, Resident Inspector, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit
- R. Wheeler, Resident Inspector
- Denotes presence at exit meeting on April 12, 1985.
2.0 Reactor Vessel and Associated Pi in H drostatic Test Code H dro 2.1 Sco e and Objectives The scope of this inspection was to witness the licensee's hydro-static testing (controlled through SWEC, the 'N'tamp holder) of the Reactor Pressure Vessel and Associated Piping as specifically defined in the test procedure referenced below and to make direct observa-tions of the actual testing.
To accomplish the inspection objectives, the inspector:
reviewed the hydrostatic test procedure within the context of performing the test; compared the test requirements with ASME Section III, Class 1,
Code requirements; discussed the test procedure and aspects of the test and and test equipment with cognizant lead testing personnel and the ANI inspector; reviewed the interfacing activ ties of the appropriate disciplines including QA and QC; performed walkdowns in the drywell and at the official test gage; made direct observations and witnessed hydrostatic test pressures and hold times at test pressures; observed the inspection teams examinations of the piping systems when at test pressure; and performed independent measurements and calculations to verify hold time, pressurization rate and depressurization rates.
Discussions were held with the NRC resident inspectors and it was determined that they were thoroughly involved with the RPV Hydro for several weeks prior to the test and would continue to be involved throughout the test.
They had considerable involvement with detailed reviews of valve alignments and the RPV Hydro test procedure.
There-fore, it was decided there would be two reports; one by the Region-based inspector covering the witnessing of the Code Hydro and one by the resident inspector covering in depth valve alignment and procedure review and additional overviews of the Hydro test.
The resident inspector's findings are documented in inspection report 50-410/85-1.2 Test Procedure and Drawin s Reviewed 2.2. 1 Detailed Test Procedure The major document used to perform the test was:
NMPC (NMP-2)
SWEC RPV Hydro Procedure, MP. 0001.002, Rev.
2.2.2 Additional Documentation Reviewed RPV Hydro Pressure Test Diagram, SU&T-SK-003 ASME Section III., Class 1, Article NB-6000, Testing; Sub-article NB-6100 General Requirements; Subarticles NB-6200, Hydrostatic Tests and NB-6740, Pressure Test Gauges (1980 Edition, no addenda).
Minutes of Joint Test Group meeting dated March 6, 1985 approving the RPV Hydro Test Procedure SMEC gA Control Manual Section 22, Rev.
E, titled "Pressure Testing,"
and Appendix 21, Rev.
F, paragraph 22.0 "Pressure Testing."
NMPC Startup Memorandum dated March 18, 1985 which defined RPY Hydro test director assignments.
SWEC Memorandum dated April 5, 1985 which provided means to approve urgent field changes to pressure test procedures.
Mater Sample
& Analysis Reports dated April 10, 1985 at Sample Point VlOB, and V10H.
Memorandum dated April 11, 1985 verifying official test gauge accuracy at the conclusion of test.
Completed N & D No.
RC-098 pertaining to three RPV head studs tensioned 0.0015" outside the tolerance range.
RPV Hydro team member listing.
NMPC NMP2 FSAR Table 14.2-130,
"RPV Hydrostatic Test."
2.3 Test Procedure The inspector reviewed the detailed test procedure to verify that code requirements could be met, there were defined pressure hold points, pressure hold times, temperature range requirements, pres-
surization rates, and data recording requirements.
The inspector also verified that over-pressure protection was included, valve alignment was designated, test equipment was specified, and test actions were defined and each action required appropriate sign-offs.
The inspector noted and had concerns about the many handwritten modi-fications made to the procedure.
Discussions about the authority to make these changes were held with both the Project Advisory Engineer and the Project gA Hanager.
A SWEC memorandum dated April 5, 1985 which authorized designated site personnel to review and approve urgent pressure test procedures was given to the inspector.
Further discussions were held with the NRC resident inspector s and it was determined that they were thoroughly involved with this specific issue of numerous handwritten changes, they would address the matter in their report.
2.4 H dro Test Or anization The inspector reviewed the hydro test organization (SWEC jurisdic-tion) which is comprised of a Senior Test Director and two separate shift Test Directors in control of the Code Hydro.
Additionally, there were two shift Test Directors to control systems requirements and one additional Test Director who had been responsible for the integrated system flush performed prior to the RPV Hydro.
2.4. 1 Test Team Crews Nine teams were assigned to perform the examination for leakage during the test.
Each team consisted of one person from SWEC As-built construction engineering, one person from SWEC FgC, and one ANI inspector.
Additionally, there were SWEC pipe fitter s and NMPC gA engineers who had assignments with one or more teams and GE personnel assignments to cover areas of their responsi-bi 1 ity.
2.4.2 Test Team Trainin Several training sessions were held prior to the actual test.
The inspector attended one briefing of the As-built and F(C personnel and walked down part of this team's system.
This team was also staffed with two GE gA engineers.
The team made nota-tions of several clamps which needed to be moved so that weld joints would be visible.
Another formal test team dry run was performed at a pressure hold point just below vessel design pressure where the teams made notations and took actions to stop problems of leakag.5 Test Set-u and E ui ment The inspector observed the Hydro Control Station located adjacent to the Truck Bay, the temperature monitoring station also at that loca-tion the official test gauge station at elevation 342'djacent to the top of the reactor (at this location static head adjustments were not required),
the portable hydro pumps outside the truck bay and the unofficial test gage station in the drywell.
Equipment observed at the above stations included (2) Heise gauges (official test gauges)
0-3000 psig scale, Model CM 58340, IC ¹8090 and 8092 (gauges were recently cali-brated)
Ametek Model 43 Pressure Recorder, model 43, Ser.
No. 43335-1-1 (within calibration date)
(2) Hydro Seal Relief Valves, 2" Model No.
7C, Seat
(2) Tritan Corp.,
Diesel Powered Pumps.
(4) Nitrogen actuated control valves.
By direct observation the inspector witnessed the following:
Removal of the Reactor head stud tensioning equipment prior to the Hydro test.
The setting of one of the relief valves prior to the Hydro test.
Manning and conduct of the test at the hydrostatic test control station (near Truck Bay)
Manning and conduct of the test at the hydrostatic test pump station.
Manning and conduct of the test at the'fficial test gauge station.
Intermediate walkdowns performed at 180 psig.
and 1200 psig System pressurization to the hydrostatic test pressure of 125%
of vessel design and the pressurization hold at this pressure for a minimum of 10 minutes (procedure Step 8.5.2).
The inspec-tor observed the official gauges to read within the control band of 1570 to 1620 psig for over the minimum prescribed time (the inspector observed the gauge readings to be within the range of
1580 to 1590 psig with one excursion to 1612 psig during the major portion of the hold time.
The inspector also observed the hold time over 1570 psig to be over 17 minutes).
System pressurization to 1254
+ 50-0 psig and pressurization hold at this pressure to enable test inspection teams to perform code required examinations of welds, weld repairs, mechanical joints, etc.
(procedure Step 8.5.5).
The test inspection team ¹2 (recirculation loop B team) per-forming portions of their inspection.
Portions of the test inspection at the control rod drive f1 ange s.
Several checks of pressurization and depressurization rates to be within the procedure requirement of not to exceed 50 psig min Temperature readings were within the procedure requi rements of 110'F to 200'F (the inspector observed the temperature to be 113'F to 121'F).
2.6 Inde endent Measurements As noted in paragraph 2', the inspector made several measurements of pressurization and depressurization rates.
The measured rates were determined to meet procedure requirements.
The inspector also inde-pendently measured the hold time at the 125% of vessel design pres-sure hold, and determined the hold to be over 17 minutes.
.7 ~/
As described in paragraph 2.4.1 and 2.4.2, there was interaction and monitoring by QC and QA during the test.
One area that came to light after the inspection was that FQC was not involved with the valve alignment sign offs.
As mentioned in para-graph 2.1 valve alignments will be fully addressed in the resident inspector's report.
2.8 Test Gau e Calibration Verification The inspector was notified that the two official test gauges were tested-at the end of the hyrostatic test.
The inspector verified that the gauges were within the required accurac.9 Licensee Identified Items The licensee identified several items and omissions found during and after the Hydro test examination.
These were:
( Item 1) several arc strikes, (Item 2) three drain line locations with two valves in series with the upstream valve closed instead of open whereby two welds on each line had not been inspected during hydro (The valves were 2RCS V18A and V19A, 2RHS V214 and V215 and 2RHS V346 and V345)
and ( Item 3) the 3/4" instrumentation line welds outside the primary containment that were not inspected during hydro (The welds were the pipe to penetration weld at Z314-3 penetration and the weld at the upstream side of valve V15.
These are shown on drawing FSK 27-19B, Nuclear Boiler level instrumentation).
The inspector discussed the above items with the licensee and the ANI The inspector advised the licensee that these items are required to be resolved for the hydrostatic test to be satisfactory.
The ANI sign-off in the test procedure also noted the above exceptions.
The licensee's representative and the ANI were fully aware of these items.
The licensee's representative stated that it was the inten-tion to perform hydro testing of the untested welds by separate hydro testing of the portions of the systems affected.
In reviewing this matter with the licensee, the inspector advised that this matter would be followed up in the forthcoming hydrostatic test Results Review Inspection.
Upon further discussions, Region I management has determined this should be indentified as an unresolved item until fully di'spositioned.
This item is unresolved pending the NRC's review of licensee's satis-factory testing of all items within the hydrostatic test boundary and the licensee's satisfactory disposition of its arc strike findings (50-410/85-11-01).
2.10 Conclusions The inspector determined by direct observation and test witnessing that the hydrostatic test pressurization, the hold at the 125% design pressure and the depressurization to the design pressure to permit examination of the system was done acceptably and as required by the ASME Code.
Several items within the hydrostatic test boundary still require additional Hydro testing and ANI sign-off as identified in paragraph 2.9, before the hydro test can be deemed satisfactory.
No violations were identified.
3.0 Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable, violations or deviations.
Unresolved items are discussed in paragraph. 0 ~EM The inspector met with the licensee's representatives (identified in paragraph 1.0), at the conclusion of the inspection on April 12, 1984, 1985 to summarize the findings of this inspection.
The NRC Senior Resident Inspector, R.
Gramm, was also in attendance.
l At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspecto '
r