IR 05000423/1985010
| ML20129F499 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1985 |
| From: | Bettenhausen L, Nicholas H, Van Kessel H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129F481 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-423-85-10, NUDOCS 8506060783 | |
| Download: ML20129F499 (12) | |
Text
r:-
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-423/85-10 Docket No.
50-423 License No.
CPPR-113 Priority
--
Category B
Licensee: Northeast Nuclear Energy Company
'P.O. Box 270
,
Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Facility Name: Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3 Inspection At: Waterford, Connecticut Inspection Conducted: March 18-22, 1985 Inspectors:
//)
-/
H.b v n
/m riK F
ess 1, Reactor Engineer
/
at
,
c H.' N no s Lea Readtor Engineer
/
fte Approved by:
V, 9/
[/)
,$/ff L. H. Bettenhausen,' Ch'lef
/ daya Operations Branch, DRS
/
' Inspection Summary: Inspection on March 18-22, 1985 (Inspection No. 50-423/85-10
' Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the preoperational test program including test program requirements and implementation, test procedure reviews, test witnessing; licensee action on previous inspection findings; reactor coolant system hydrostatic test, new fuel receipt and storage; quality assurance and quality control; and tours of the facility. The inspection involved 66 hours7.638889e-4 days <br />0.0183 hours <br />1.09127e-4 weeks <br />2.5113e-5 months <br /> on site by two NRC region-based inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
,
8506060783 850524 PDR ADOCK 05000423 G
_
.
r-
..
.
-
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO)
E. V. Fries, Starup Engineer M. Gentry, Assistant Startup Supervisor
- J. Harris, Startup Supervisor N. Hulme, Startup Engineer T. W. Lyons, Startup Engineer N. Madden, Startup Engineer
- D.B. Miller, Jr., Startup Manager
.
W. Small, PE0 (Operations)
S. Sudigala, Assistant Startup Supervisor F. Sullivan, Startup Engineer Northeast Utilities Service Company (NUSCO)
- D. A. Blumenthal, QA Engineer
- R. Lefebvre, NUSCO Senior Project Engineer Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC)
W. M. Matajek, Project Advisory Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- E. McCabe, DRP Section Chief
- T. Rebelowski, Senior Resident Engineer
- Denotes those present at exit interview on March 22, 1985.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings 2.1 (0 pen) Unresolved Item Valve Position Indication Problems (423/
85-02-01)
Progress has been made on this item as detailed in Section 5.
2.2 (0 pen) Equipment to Piping Flange Alignment violation (423/84/04-13)
A procedure revision is underway to introduce the QC hold point and acceptance criteria for the flange alignment check of all safety related equipment with flange correction to piping. A definitive program will be made to assure that all equipment, which has not been inspected to the new criteria, will be.
Upon completion of the pro-cedure, the inspector plans to review same and to follow the imple-mentation of it in the newly defined prcgram.
For additional back-ground information refer to inspection report 50-423/85-0.
.
-
.
._
. _.. _
_
.
_
_-
_ _
_ _ _..
..
-
.
-
2'
_
l
~2.31-(0 pen) Unresolved ~ Item Seizure Duct Weld Problem (423/83-00-16)
The. final item for. closure of this. item is a determination by the
Ematerials' laboratory that the assumptions and data used.4n Stone and.
' Webster's Calculation No. 319 are valid.
For additional information-con this item see. Inspection Report No. 50-423/85-06.
I 3.0.Preoperational' Test Program
'
References.
' References for the preoperational test program are documented in Inspection :
-Report No. 50-423/85-03.
.
3.1' Test Program Requirements i
~ Scope-The nine areas of the preoperational test program requirements that
-
are documented by the, licensee'are_the test program, test organiza-tion,-test program administratien,. document control, design changes
-
and modifications, plant maintenance during preoperational testing, equipment protection and cleanlin'ess, test and measurement equipment,.
- and, training and' qualifications of startup test personnel. These areas of preoperational test program requirements.were-discussed.with startup personnel, as well as with the startup manager.
. Findings The inspector. verified that the startup manager and his staff are knowledgeable of test-program requirements; that these nine areas are
' documented in the startup manual;.and that requirements for testing.
are consistent with NRC requirements and FSAR commitments. The
. inspector verified that the licensee has a test program and staff that satisfies NRC requirements. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
-3.2 Test Program Implementation Scope
'
The nine areas of preoperational test program requirements listed in
-
-paragraph 3.1 above, are examined periodically by the NRC inspector
- for implementation during the test program.
Discussion In the area of the test program, the inspector interviewed the start-up test manager and held ',iscussions with members of his staff, to see that they were-familiar with the general description of the-test
r7
'~
-
,
-
,
__
.,
,
progra'm and to verify that they were aware of their responsibilities 11n_the conduct'of the. test program.
,
'The inspector. reviewed training records of.
..
4'SWEC startup engineers,.4.NNECO startup engineers, 3 NNECO assistant.
engineers,-and '3.NNEC0 engineering technicians to verify their quali-f,1 cations and receipt of required training. :This training, included administrative controls for testing, QA-QC indoctrination and appro-
-
priate technical training.
Findings-
'
'Through discussions with selected members of the startup staff,~ and-review of. personnel records, the inspector verified.that the startup.
staff-have.the required qualifications, training, and re-training as necessary_ and appropriate in order to conduct an _ adequate. test pro-gram. The inspector had no further questions in these areas covered.
~
^ Verification ~ by the inspector of-other listed areas of the test pro-gram will be conducted on subsequent inspections.
~
3.3 Test Procedure Reviews and Verifications
. Scope
'
The 10 test procedures l'isted in ATTACHMENT-A were reviewed for
~
-technical.and administrative adequacy and to verify that.the test procedures _ satisfy regulatory guidance and licensee commitments.
Discussion L The' procedures were examined for: management review and approval;
, procedure format; clarity of stated test objectives; prerequisites; environmental conditions; acceptance criteria; source of acceptance criteria; references; initial conditions; attainment of test ob-jectives;' test performance documentation and verification; degree of
. detail.for test instructions; restoration of system to normal _after
- testing; identification of test personnel; evaluation of test data;
-independent verification of critical steps or parameters; and quality control and assurance involvement.
~
,
Findings
<
-
The review indicated that the procedures are consistent with regu-latory. requirements, guidance, and with the Licensee's commitments.
c t
No discrepancies or unacceptable conditions were identified. The
' inspector had no further questions on these procedures.
'
-
.
'
S y t
"
[,'_.j'
d
'
+
.
-r-~,w
-
m m
-
$
-
.
3.4 Test Witnessing 3.4.1 Accumulator Blowdown Test (Accumulator A)
Scope The inspector witnessed blowdown of Accumulator A in accordance with preoperational test procedure T3307AP003. The objective of'this test is to determine the blowdown characteristic of the
"A" Accumulator blowdown system from the vessel to the RCS and to show that specified water injection requirements will be met under the defined accident conditions.
Discussion The test is done under conditions which are different from the defined accident conditions.
It is, therefore, a simulated test.
To use the test results to predict performance of the accumu-lator system under the accident conditions, an analytical model of the system is needed. This model was made by the A/E. The test results are used to determine the-dimensionless factors of the "A" accumulator blowdown system characteristic.
The blowdown transients for the accident conditions can then be derived (pressure decay in the accumulator tank and the cor-responding injection flow rate transient).
Remotely operated valve 3SIL-8808A was opened fully to initiate the blowdown of the accumulator A from the control room. Ac-cumulator pressure was 100 psig.immediately prior to valve opening.
The inspector witnessed the opening of the valve and the pressure decay in the accumulator as shown on pressure gage 3 SIL-PT960. Another inspector witnessed the same test at the temporary panel in the Reactor building.
Recorders on the temporary panel provided pressure-and flow transient curves for the test.
Findings Calibration of all test instrumentation was checked and found to be in order.
Valve operation (3SIL-8808A) went smoothly.
Valid test data were obtained.
It was learned after the test that the specified blowdown requirements were not met. Crew performance during the test was satisfactory.
3.4.2 Charging Pump Flow Balance Test The inspector observed preparation for the Charging Pump Flow Balance Test in accordance with procedure T3304AP002.
The actual test could not be witnessed, however, due to difficulties
-
-
,
.
.
experienced in obtaining consistent data from the temporary flow instrumentation. The test was postponed.
The objective of the Charging Pump Flow Balance Test is to determine the weakest. centrifugal charging pump and to adjust the injection throttle valves in the injection lines (4) to the RCS to positions which will produce the desired high pressure safety linjection water distribution to the reactor with the weakest pump.
Discussion The following temporary and permanent instrumentation items for the test (T3304AP002) were checked for calibration status and general physical conditions:
Tempo"ary Pressure Gauges PT-76 and 77, marked, respectively, a
QA 5202 and QA 5035, Heise gages, calibrated April 13, 1985;
'.ocal instruments.
Permanent flow element FE917, calibrated February 6, 1985;
DP cell (0-250"), calibrated February 13, 1985; Readout would be taken with a portable voltmeter; local _instru-ments.
Permanent flow element FE 924, calibrated March 6, 1985;
DP cell, calibrated March 6, 1985; Readout by portable voltmeter; local instruments.
Permanent flow element FE 925, calibrated March 6, 1985;
readout by portable voltmeter; DP cell calibrated March 6, 1985; local instruments.
Permanent flow element 926, calibrated March 6, 1985;.
readout by portable voltmeters; DP cell calibrated March 6, 1985; local instruments.
Permanent flow element 927, calibrated March 6, 1985;
readout by portable voltmeter; DP cell calibrated March 6, 1985; local instruments.
Permanent flow indicator FI-17, in control room, calibrated
-
February 6,1985.
One of the (4) throttle valves in the high pressure inspection lines was examined locally to determine the method used to lock the valve in the desired position. This was valve 3SEHV8 installed in the line to leg No. 3.
It was identified as a Dresser valve.
_
m--
- - - -.- -
m
_ __ _,,__.__,_- ___,___
_
_
.
.
Findings All instruments listed above had been calibrated in accordance with the requirements. The inspector noted that all of the permanent local instrumentation was well protected against inadvertent impact from construction activities. The physical condition of the listed instruments appeared to be satisfactory, l'-
The ansi rotation (locking) device of the injection throttle
'
valves consists of a lecknut on the valve stein which is held in
.
place by a wire which is wrapped around the yoke of the valve and penetrates the-locknut on two sides through holes which are drilled obliquely through two adjacent flats of the locknut.
This item is of interest in connection with IE Not ice 83-70 and its Amendment No. I as discussed in Section 4.
4.0 -Vibration Induced-Valve Failures Scope In-response to.IE Notice 83-70, the Licensee has made a commitment (No.
'3596) to address this problem wherever it may appear in the plant. The inspector examined the file on the subject to determine the status of follow up on commitment 3596.
- The' basic problem highlighted by IE Notice 83-70 (with Amendment No. 1)
>
is the failure of the valve to perform its function upon failure of the anti rotation device (through vibration) which is to keep the valve in a given position. After failure of the anti rotation (valve stem locking)
device, the, valve position is indeterminate. Valve position indication may not-work 'either depending on the nature of the anti rotation device.
Discussion The review of the file on the subject, as prepared by the Licensee, tedi-cates that the Licensee has addressed only one make of valve and one type of anti rotation (locking) device as associated with this valve i.e.
Limi-torque motor operated valves, as identified in NOA6745.
Preventive mainte-nance procedure MP 3783 will be revised to include periodic tightening of the bolts which connect the Limitorque operator to the valve body. The maintenance period will be that of refueling. The scope of IE Notice 83-70, however, is not limited to motor operated valves, but applies also to manual valves. The Dresser valves, mentioned under paragraph 3d, for the high pressure safety injection lines are manual valves which are set after-flow talance testing in a fixed position and locked into this position with a locknut which is secured by a wire which connects the locknut to the valve yoke. There also are other types of anti rotation devices to be considered.
IE notice 83-70 mentions a collar device held in place by a stud and nut combination. This device was used on gate
_
m
.
..
valves used by the Walworth Company. At Shoreham Unit 1 there was a pro-blem with an RHR globe valve which uses a stem clamp (with clamp key) and
. set screw combination. Amendment No. 1 of 83-70 adds more items to this list.
Findings-The licensee agreed to perform the following evaluation as part of their satisfying commitment 3596: The many different anti stem rotation devices (locking devices) will be reviewed for their existence in the plant in safety related applications and, -subsequently, after identification, will be reviewed for resistance to vibration induced failure.
Pending the completion of'the licensee action, this is considered an Unresolved Item 423/85-10-01.
5.
Valve Position Indication Problems Scope Five specific valve position indication (VPI) problems have been identified during phase 1 and 2 testing and listed in inspection report 50-423/85-03.
The inspector reviewed the status of the problem identification matrix and the schedule for completion.
Each problem type is to be looked at generi-cally to determine if the_ problem exists for the same valve model elsewhere in the plant. The problem matrix will collect this information on a system by system basis.
Discussion The valve position indication problem matrix is developing on a system by system basis. The matrix has expanded into six (6) areas of concern. The sixth item concerns the "other traveling nut on reach rod not marked open/
closed." Valves 3FPW-V37&41 have been identified to have this problem.
Each safety related fluid system has its own sheet (s) which identifies what valve (by mark number) is afflicted with what VPI problem. The
- natrix is close to being completed. The inspector again indicated his concern with the resolution to VPI problem No. 4 where valves open and close opposite from the standard direction (CCW to open).
Findings Good progress has been made on the matrix. The licensee has committed to complete the matrix in approximately two weeks (by mid April). At that point, the licensee also will identify the solution to each of the six VPI problems.
.
h
..
.
6.
Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) Status Scope The EDG sets are in the testing stage with EDG "A" mechanical and electrical load testing complete and with EDG "B" preparing for electrical load testing.
Discussion The inspector held discussions with licensee personnel and vendors repre-sentatives on the status and current problems of the EDG sets. One problem-of both EDG sets is that they have simplex lube oil filters and, therefore, have to be shut down if lube oil differential pressure becomes too great.
This problem is being resolved by licensee's engineering. Another problem with EDG "B" is that a number of fuel oil distribution pumps have seized and have prevented the EDG from operating properly. The licensee is dealing with the problem by flushing of the day tank, fuel oil piping system, fuel oil headers, injectors, fuel distribution pumps, and strainers, as well as considering the possibility of pump binding or particulate matter entering the system.
The licensee is discussing the experienced problems with the vendor to explore the possibility of this problem-being generic in nature and to deter-mine if other vendors of.EDG sets have had similar problems.
The resolution of these problems and the subsequent testing of these EDG Diesel engines will be closely followed during the next inspection.
7.
RCS Hydrostatic Test Prepar;tions Scope The RCS code hydrostatic test will consist of. pressurizing the reactor coolant system including the four loops, four steam generators, surge line, pressurizer vessel and reactor pressure vessel to 3110 psig for a minimum of 10 minutes as a strength and tightness test of all welds in the systems required by the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code.
Discussion The inspector received an updated status of RCS hydrostatic test prepara-tions including all prerequisites to support the test, the approved pro-cedure for the test, diagrams of the pressure boundaries and including discussions with the test director for this test. A walk down was con-ducted of the systems, components and test equipment supporting the test.
.
ww&
v T
e
--
-
..
'
..
-
Findings All of the' inspector's questions and concerns were adequately addressed.
The final; preparations will be examined on the next inspection. The in-spector had no further questions in this area.
8.
New Fuel Receipt and Storage Preparations Scope Fuel receipt and storage consists of receiving new fuel on site from the vendor, inspection of the fuel, dry storagt of the fuel in a secure area, and accountability of the fuel.
Discussion Discussions'were held on preparations being made for the receipt of new-unirradiated. nuclear fuel, and'the inspection and storage in the spent fuel
'
- poel. The inspector received a draft copy of the fuel receipt inspection and storage procedures including a sequencing schedule of. prerequisites, testing, receipt, inspection and storage of the new fuel.
Included in-the discussions were the areas of preoperational testing, fire protection, securit; and safeguards, health physics and controls, quality assurance and quality controls, training, and fuel accountability.
Findings
-
Since this was a preliminary examination of fuel receipt, inspection and storage preparations, this item will be examined in more detail on the next inspection. Areas to be examined are:
new fuel assembly and RCCA receipt and inspection; new fuel receiving crane preoperational checklist; new fuel handling crane preoperational checklist; spent fuel pit bridge and-hoist preoperational checklist; new fuel elevator preoperational check-
'
list; and new fuel inspection machine functional check. The. inspector h1d no further questions at this time.
9.
QA-QC Interface in the Preoperational Test Program.
Discussions were held with QA-QC personnel on the involvement of QA-QC-
-in the areas of the RCS Cold Hydro and during the new fuel receipt, inspection, and storage. There will be considerable NUSCO-QA involve-ment in the form of surveillances. They will, however, not perform full scale test witnessing. NNECO-QC does get involved with test witnes-
-sing.
This item will be pursued in more detail in subsequent inspections and during test-witnessing by NRC inspectors.
.
.-
-
.
.
10. Plant Tours The inspector checked on the physical status of the preparation'for the RCS Cold Hydro Test presently scheduled for execution in early April. These
. preparations include cleanup of the Charging Pump Cubicles and the provision of jumpers to accommodate the temporary RCS Hydro piping' arrangements. The Hydrolaser (30 gpm) pump will be located outside the Auxiliary Building.
The piping for the connection of this pump to the Charging System is ready to go.
The pump itself will be installed just before the RCS Cold Hydro start. All completed RCS Hydro preparations were checked. No violations or unacceptable conditions were noted.
It was noted by the inspector that all permanent instrumentation was well protected against inadverten physical abuse from construction activities.
Buildings visited included the ESF Building, the Auxiliary Building, the Reactor Building, and the Turbine Building.
Cleanliness in the Charging Pump cubicles was very good. The ESF Building was visited the morning after a flooding incident near the A pump of the low pressure safety injection system.
Polaroid pictures were taken in the pump room and the room underneath the pump room. These pictures were given to the SRI for
,
his use in evaluating the incident and its consequences.
Installed piping insulation in the room below pump A was quite wet. At the time of the inspector's visit (between 8 and 9 a.m.) there was very little standing water in the pertinent rooms. Cleanup operations were in progress.
Electrical equipment in the adjacent room appeared to be unaffected by the incident. A report on the incident was being prepared by the operations group.
11. Ungesolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations. An unresolvec item, resulting from this inspection, is dis-cussed in Section 4.
12. Exit Interview At the conclusion of the site inspection on March 22, 1985, and exit meeting was conducted with the licensee's senior site representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1). The findings were identified and previous inspection items were discussed.
At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspector.
_
L
t.;
.
. '.
.,
_
ATTACHMENT A TEST PROCEDURE REVIEW (1)- T3999-P Revision 0, Approved March 4, 1985,
" Pipe _and Pipe Support Steady State Vibration Test" (2) T3327-A Revision 0, Approved March 18, 1985,
" Screen Wash System"
_ (3) ~T3323-DA Revision 0, Approved February 27, 1985,
" Gland Seal Steam System"
_ (4) 'T3314-DP Revision 0, Approved March 18, 1985,
"ESF Building HVAC" (5) :T3309-P002 Revision 0, Approved March 6, 1985,
"QSS-Chemical' Addition Tank Drawdown Test" (6) T3304-AP003 Revision 0, Approved March 11, 1985,
"Boronometer" (7) T3301-P001. Revision 0, Approved March 18, 1985,
" Reactor Coolant 'and Associated System Fill and Hydrostatic Test" (8).3-INT-2005 Revision 0, Approved March 6, 1985,
" Reactor Cavity Seal Ring"
- (9) 3-INT-2001 Computer Programs Test Appendix 3J10 Revision 0, Approved February 14, 1985,
" Sequence of_ Events" (10) 0P 3211-AfRevision 0, Draft Copy,
"New Fuel Assembly and RCC Receipt and Inspection" T
b
.m m