IR 05000423/1985075
| ML20151Y714 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1986 |
| From: | Eselgroth P, Nicholas H, Van Kessel H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151Y707 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-423-85-75, NUDOCS 8602130109 | |
| Download: ML20151Y714 (18) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
.
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
85-75 Docket h 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 e g ber 9-13, 1985 Inspectors:
A S - E ~N H. F. Vy g sel, Reactor Engineer date Nu h
i
~
2::"2 H. H. Ni n las, Star up Consultant date
/
/- b 86 Approved by:
..P. W. ts oth, Cntef, date
.-
Test Pro ams Section, 08, DRS Inspection Summary:
Inspection on December 9-13, 1985 (Inspection No.
F0-423/85-75)
Areas _ Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of Preoperational Test Program
[PDT) including the review of preoperational test procedures, the evaluation of the test results of completed tests, the witnessing of the Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) acceptance tests, the witnessing of the retests on the modified lube oil system of the two EDGs and the review of the OC/QA involvement in the modification activities for these lube oil systems.
Test deficiencies on com-pleted phase 2 and 3 tests were reviewed for timely completion and adequacy of corrective action and retests.
The inspection covered 69 man nours onsite by one region-based inspector and one NRC Engineering Consultant.
Results: No violations were identified by the inspector.
8602130109 060206 ADOCK05004j3 PDH
-
-
- -
_ _ _ - _ _ _____________ _
.
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted Northeast Nuclear Energy Company R. Bradley, Startup Engineer M. Brown, I&C Supervisor E. Fries, Startup Engineer
- J. Langan, Assistant Startup Supervisor W. A. Loweth, Startup Engineer 0. Miller, Jr., Startup Manager
- W. Richter, Assistant Startup Supervisor M. Pearson, Operations, Supervisor D. R. Moore, Operations, Assistant Supervisor Northeast Utilities Service Company B. Kaufman, Project Engineer J. LaWare, Engineering Technologist, QA J. Rhodes, Project Engineer Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC)
W. Matajek, Project Advisory Engineer D. Taylor, Project Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC)
- F. Casella, Resident Inspector
- H. Nicholas, Engineering Consultant
- Denotes those in attendance at exit meeting.
2.0 Licensee Actions on Previous Inspection Findings 2.1 Open Items POT Program (Closed) Unresolved Item 85-51-03, " Inadequate Performance Component Cooling Pumps."
As reported in Inspection Report No. 50-423/85-51, the Reactor Plant Component Cooling Pump (impellers) were trimmed and feathered to drop the discharge pressure (impeller trim) and recover some discharge pressure at high flow rates (feathering of vanes).
The relief valves of the system were set too close to the operating pressure of the system. As a result, relief valves were relieving as soon as the pumps were turned on.
The trimming of the impellers resolved the high discharge pressure problem, as shown in system retests.
The feathering of the impeller vanes, however, was not achieving the degree of discharge pressure recovery at high flow rates that had
_-
. _
. _ _ - -
_ _ _ -
_-
-
_-
.
_
..
.
.-.
.
!
'.
been hoped for.
The consequential loss in pump delivery from the impeller trim presented a potential design problem, i.e., not enough cooling water to satisfy all heat load requirements under all plant operating conditions.
Review of the preoperational test results of the tests (and retests), accomplished to date, indicates that the
,
'
cooling capacity of the system's heat exchangers had been rated very conservatively. The actual heat exchange capability of the letdown heat exchangers, for instance, was found to be approximately 5 times better than rated capability.
Pipe support design had to be changed at these heat exchangers to accommodate the lower actual temperatures.
J As a result of this conservative rating of the heat exchangers, the negative impact of the impeller trim on pump delivery is acceptable from a system standpoint.
One more test has to be accomplished to close the preoperational test program for this system. This test involves the flow balancing for the Thermal Barrier.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 85-02-01, " Valve Position Indication Problem."
Reference:
(1) Northeast Utilities memorandum SMP-85-160 from W. M. Matejek to J. O. Crockett, " Valve Position Indication Concerns," dated October 5, 1985
,
Discussion i
A considerable effort has been made by the licensee to correct the
7 categories of generic Valve Position Indication problems. After the identification of the various categories of problems, a system-atic survey was made of all the fluid systems to identify the valves
'
afflicted by these problems.
Solutions to the generic problems were defined. Af ter valve identification, work orders were then prepared
,
to correct the problems. All of this work has now been completed with the exception of 9 UNSATS as listed in reference (1).
These items are in various stages of completion and are well documented and tracked.
The inspector has no further questions on this item.
-
(0 pen) Unresolved Item 423/85-61-02, " Excessive Temperatures in Critical Environmental Zones."
References 1.
NUSCO response to Unresolved Item 423/85-61-02, prepared by J. Nicosia, dated November 6, 1985, with attachments as follows:
i
!
a
- - - - -.,,,, -. -.. - -. - -.. ~. _,.,, _,
.-,, -. _ - _... - -.,
,---
---,,,.,,_n
_-n...,-
, -. - - - - - - -, -- -
.
.
'.
2.
NUSCO Interoffice Memorandum from Bob Young to John Nicosta,
"EEQ - MSV Building," MP3-100-28, dated October 25, 1985 3.
NUSCO Calculation No. PA 79-236-138 6E 4.
Deficiency No. UNS-6300, NUSCO, " Containment Area temperatures greater than 90 F", approved October 8, 1985 5.
Deficiency No. UNS-6931, NUSCO, " Excessive temperatures in room of turbine driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump (ES-01)," approved October 10, 1985 6.
Deficiency No. UNS-6452, NUSC, " Temperatures in Main Steam Valve Building above 104 F, the allowable temperature for the zone," prepared October 13, 1985 7.
Deficiency No. UNS-6604, NUSCO, " Control Room Temperatures at 71-72 F with allowable at 75 2 F," prepared October 23, 1985 Discussion In general, the licensee has aggressively addressed this problem.
Temperatures have been brought down to acceptable levels by:
(1) Adding permanent insulation to piping and equipment.
(2) Adding temporary ventilation to the area.
(3) Opening doors and windows temporarily.
(4) Redirecting existing cooling flow.
Where temporary measures had to be taken (2 and 3 above), instruc-tions were issued to Stone and Webster Engineering (SWEC) to evaluate the existing HVAC design for the pertinent zone (ref. 4, 5, 6 and 7).
The licensee indicated that redesign of existing HVAC would be con-sidered if the reduction in life expectancy of the affected equipment would be too great.
This approach is acceptable.
The temporary exposure of all qualified el.ctrical components during HFT to excessive temperatures (above zone allowable temperature)
should be evaluated for reduction in life expectancy.
Some NAMCO limit switches located in MS-01, CS-01 and TB-01 were identified to be affected by such exposure.
NUSCO has calculated the effect of these exposures on the life of the limit switches using the MS-01 location, with 135 F for 300 hours0.00347 days <br />0.0833 hours <br />4.960317e-4 weeks <br />1.1415e-4 months <br />, as the worst exposure (ref. 3).
The calculated reduction in qualified life for these switches was.13 years (from 19.13 to 19.00 years).
The component replacement schedule will be revised to make the interval 18.0 years.
This is acceptabl.
.
.
-
The referenced information, however, does not include:
(1) A statement that the NAMCO switches are the only safety related electrical equipment (subject to EEQ) in the pertinent environ-mental zones, as identified in 423/85-61-02, i.e., ES-01; MS-01; and CS-01/02.
(2) A calculation for any of the electrical equipment in ES-01 and CS-01/02.
(3) Corrective measures to be taken for the valve room in the ES-01 zone. Temporary ventilation ultimately brought the temperature down to acceptable levels but the maximum temperature measured by the inspector was 127 F without the temporary fan and with the exit door closed.
(4) Corrective measures for the high temperature found in the course of conducting HVAC tests under procedure 3 INT 3005.
The inspector plans to follow up on this item in a future inspection.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item 85-61-04, " Problems With pressurizer Relief Valves and PORVs_."
_
References (1)
Letter from S. Orefice (NUSCO) to J. N. Steinmetz (Westinghouse),
" Pressurizer Safety Valves (Spares), Millstone Unit 3," NEC-11164, dated October 23, 1985.
(2) Westinghouse Electric Corporation (WEC) Quality Release (QR)
N-77946, Revision 0, dated October 25, 1985.
(3) WEC Deviation Notice, DN-16207, dated November 8, 1932, annotated October 24, 1985.
(4) WEC Quality Release N77962, Revision 0, dated November 5, 1985.
(5) Crosby's NV-1 Form for Safety and Safety Relief Valves, Data Reports for three safety valves.
(6) Crosby's Packing List for three Pressurizer Valves, received October 30, 1985 at Crosby for additional testing.
(7) SWEC's Engineering and Design Coordination Report (E&DCR)
N-ME-00893, " Pressurizer Power Operated Relief Valve Modifications," dated November 2, 1985.
(8) WEC (WRD) Field Change Notice NEUM-10599A, " Power Operated Relief Valve," approved November 1, 198.
.
'
.
.
(9) Crosby's Procedure FS-5301, Revision 1, " Field Service Procedure, Main Valve Modification (Bonnet, External Porting, Gasket, etc.) for SPORV (Garrett Power Operated Relief Valve),"
approved September 30, 1985.
(10) Crosby's Procedure W-13089, Revision 3, " Welding Procedure Specification, Weld and Welder Qualification Procedure P8 Material to P8 Material GTAW Process, ASME Section IX,"
approved September 21, 1981.
(11) Station Procedure or Form Change, NUSCO, SP-85-3-26, Revision 0, Change No. 4, " Modification of PORVs," approved for implementa-tion on November 18, 1985.
(12) Telecon Report between S. Jonash (NUSCO) and R. Wright /
D. Thibault (Crosby) on November 14, 1985.
(13) Station Procedure or Form Change, NUSCO, SP-85-3-26, Revision 0, Change No. 3 " Modification of PORVs," approved November 15, 1985.
,
(14) Station Procedure or Form Change, NUSCO, SP-85-3-26 Revision 0, Change No. 2, " Modification of PORVs," approved November 10, 1985.
(15) WEC Quality Release N77979, Revision 0, dated December 9,1985, for PORV, Valve 10 31588KSA, S/N P129.
(16) WEC Ouality Release N77981, Revision 0, dated December 10, 1985, for PORV, Valve ID 31588RSA, S/N P131.
Ofscussion Basically, the licensee is aggressively pursuing their recovery program for the PRVs and PORVs as outlined in earlier inspection reports and as indicated in the above references.
This item will remain open until such time that the inspector can inspect the results of retests and the modification documentation for the PRVs and PORVs including the surveillance reports of QC and QA.
2.2 Findings From Field Inspections on_ Technical Specifications and Surveillance Rep _ orts (Beckman Reports)
Re TS 4.8.1.1.2.a(6)
Surveillance Procedure SP-3646 A-1, Revision 1, for the Emer-gency Diesel Generators (EDGs) has been corrected to include the content of the note in TS 4.8.1.1 on prewarming of the diesel engine.
t
.
.
.
.
.
'
ReTS4.8.1.1.2.a(S}
SP-3646 A, Revision 1, for the EDGs, adds the 10 second criter-ion for voltage and frequency to forms 3646 A.1-1 and 2 which was not present in Revision 0 and is a part of the referenced TS.
The form has also been corrected to provide for the record-ing of the as found time.
The inspector witnessed the first test on EDG "A."
The actual time found was 8 seconds as recorded on the visicorder.
Re TS 4.8.1.2
Observation
"TS 4.8.1.2 has surveillance requirements for modes 5 and 6 by cross-referencing to TS 4.8.1.1.
The Master Surveillance Test Control List (MSTCL) only has SP-3672.1 listed as applicable to TS 4.8.1.2 but that SP does not fulfill the TS.
SP-3646 A.1 (and A.2) do fulfill the TS but are not listed in the MSTCL and do not themselves include mode 5 and 6 applicability."
Response The licensee will add the associated SPs to the MSTCL.
SP-3646 A.1 and 2 apply to all modes as is shown presently in the sur-veillance cover sheet.
Re SP-364_6 A.1 and 2
Observation
"SP-3646 A.1 and 2 do not have provisions for independent veri-fication on return to service. Also, the restoration section stated (none) despite reference, in mid-procedure, to restore standby alignment."
Bgsponse Dual verification will be added to the listing and, also, will add a signature block for the same purpose in the procedure.
With respect to the restoration, the operational procedures, cps, involved will provide the restoration steps.
Re TS Table _3.3-5 Versus Table 4.3-2
.
Observation
"SP-3646 A.1 and 2 include a note to start the EDG from the load sequencer to satisfy the surveillance requirements of TS Table 3.3-5.
The correct table is 4.3-2.
The quarterly surveillance
did not include notes 1 and 2 of Table 4.3-2 and had no instruc-l tions on how to do, and to document, this surveillance."
l
.
.
'.
Response The objective was to check the response times 7f the system as shown in Table 3..'-5 as they apply to the particular operation and as guided by the surveillance requirements of Table 4.3-2.
The licensee decided to perform the surveillance quarterly (see note 2 of item 10 on Table 4.3-2) for Instrumentation and Controls.
Table 4.3-2 (before final draf t of TS) required only an 18-month interval.
The SPs will be corrected accordingly.
Re SP-3646 A.2, Forms 3646 A.2-1 and 2
Observation
"SP-3646 A.2-1 and 2 referenced incorrect SP steps for fuel oil storage tank and day tank level verification."
Response Step 7.3, as shown, is a typographical error.
It should have been 7.4 (only on A.2-1).
Corrections will be made.
Re SP-3646 A.3, Revision 0, " Diesel _ Generator Indegen_dence Test"
Observations
"SP-3646 A.3, sections on Precautions and Restoration, both listed (NONE).
This treatment of the section is not appropriate and consistent with other SPs on the EDG.
There were no pro-visions for independent verification of restoration af ter testing."
Response The restoration will be as shown in the pertinent OP.
The independent verification feature will be added.
SP-3646 A.6, Revision 0
Observation
"No TSs are referenced.
The MSTCL stated that the SP satisfied TS 4.3.2.1.9.d as the (P-14 Interlock Slave Relay Test).
The objectives section of this SP does not show this applicability.
The body of the procedure does not reference or involve the P-14 test.
The TS reference in the MSTCL appears to match the actual subject of the SP (Of f site Power Tran;former operability).
Also, the SP references evolutions without identifying the applicable OP (e.g., step 4.5 for EDG Standby Alignment, step 4.8 for rad-waste processing, step 7.3.7 for the EDG checklist).
Restoration section of this SP is vague.
The test af fects numerous plant
-
-
-
.
.
'.
systems but has only a very general statement directing restora-tion of those systems.
There are no references to specific system listings or ops providing a potential for oversight."
Response The licensee has deleted this SP.
SP-3646 8.5, Revision 0,_"EDG - FOST Dewatering and Sampling"
SP-3646 B.7, Revision 0, "New Fuel 011 Delivery Sampling" Observation
"The (Precautions) section had no specific guidance stating only (asapplicable).
No restoration steps were shown."
Response For SP-3646 8.5, the restoration steps are taken in the course of the procedure. With regard to SP-3646 B.7, this procedure has no interface with any safoty related systems.
It is no more than a truck sample.
3.0 Preoperational Test (PDT) Program 3.1 Test Procedure Review Scope The test procedures listed in Attachment A were reviewed for administrative and, selectively, for technical adequacy and to verify that test planning satisfies regulatory guidance and licensee commitments.
Discussion The first PORC/JTG approved preoperational test procedures (Revi-ston 0), in many instances, continue to be issued late for NRC review. Approved test procedures are to be submitted to the NRC 60 days prior to the start of the test. Although many of those Revision 0 procedures were reviewed by the NRC in draf t form, their review has to be finalized before the test is performed.
The inspector concentrated on the review of the approved proce-dures (Revision 0) which were issued since the last inspection period (423/85-69).
The procedures were examined for:
Management review and approval
Procedure format j
- - - -
.
.
.
'
Clarity of stated objectives
Prerequisites
Environmental conditions
jP Acceptance criteria and their sources References
Initial conditions
Attainment of test objectives
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 a
Quality control and assurance involvement
Findings No noncompliances were identified by the inspector within the scope of this inspection.
3.2 Test Witnessing Scope Selected steps of Procedure T-3309-P001, " Quench Spray System" were witnessed by the inspector.
Test witnessing by the inspector included observations of:
Overall crew performance
Use of latest revised and approved procedure by test personnel
Designation of one person in charge of conducting the tests
Availability of sufficient test personnel to perform the tests
Coverage of test prerequisites
.
.
Use of acceptance criteria to evaluate test results
Verification that plant supporting systems are in service
In-service status of calibrated special test' equipment required
by the test procedure Adherence to the test requirements of the test procedure during-
the tests Timely and correct action by test personnel durino the perform-
ance of the tests Data collection for final analysis by test personnel
The inspector independently verified readings of system parameters during the tests.
Findings No violations were identified by the inspector.
3.3 Test Result Evaluation Scope The test procedures listed in Attachment B were reviewed to verify that adequate testing was accomplished in order to satisfy regulatory guidance and licensee commitments and to ascertain whether uniform criteria were being applied for evaluating completed preoperational tests in order to assure their technical and administrative adequacy.
Discussion The test results were reviewed for:
Test changes
Test exceptions
Test deficiencies
Acceptance criteria
Performance verification
Recording of conduct of test
QC inspection records
System restoration to normal
_________ _________ - _ _ ________________ -
.
.
.
Independent verification of critical steps or parameters
Identification of test personnel
'
Verification that the test results have been approved
-'
Findings i
No discrepancies or unacceptable conditions were noted in the review of these procedures.
4.0 QA/QC Interface Scope The participation of NUSCO QA and NNEC0 QC/QA in the test witnessing of the Pre Core Hot Functional Test, the review of test results for completed tests, and the verification of test result evaluation was evaluated by the inspector.
Discussion In continuation of the assessment of QA/QC involvement with the POT program, the inspector reviewed the surveillance reports as listed in Attachment C.
All of these listed surveillances are samples of test witnessing of Pre Core Hot Functional Tests (Appendices of 3 INT-3000).
The review of these surveillances indicates adequate coverage of the Hot Functional Tests.
With regard to the overall test witnessing effort for the phase 2 and 3 tests, NUSCO OA indicated that coverage for these tests was 9.8 and 62.9%
respectively. The effort on test results evaluation is still uncertain.
NUSCO (Berlin) had promised some assistance for this effort to NUSCO QA but the status of this assistance is not known at this time.
The inspector will receive more information from NUSCO QA in the near future.
Findings No noncompliances were observed within the scope of this inspection.
5.0 Independent Measurements The inspector performed independent measurements of various system para-meters in the course of the test witnessing activities.
(See 3.2 above)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _.
.
.
.
O.
.
.
'
6.0 Exit Interview At the conclusion of the site inspection on December 13, 1985, an exit interview was conducted with the licensee's senior site representatives
,
(denoted in Section 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.
Based on the'NRC Region I review of this
,
report and discussions held with licensee representatives during this I
inspection, it wat determined that this report does not contain infor-mation subject to 10 CFR 2.790 restrictions.
l l
l
..
.
.
.
'.
ATTACHMENT A TO 50-423/85-75 TEST PROCEDURE REVIEW AND VERIFICATION I
(1) T3720-BP Revision 1 Approved 12/11/85 Station Emergency Lighting i
.
.
,
ATTACHMENT B TO 50-423/85-75 TEST RESULTS EVALUATION (1) T3311-BA Revision 0 Approved 6/11/85 Turbine Plant Sampling Test results approved 12/4/85 (2) T3309-P002 Revision 0 Approved 3/6/85 QSS Chemical Addition Tank Drain Down Test Test results approved 12/4/85 (3) T3341-BP Revision 1 Approved 11/19/85 Halon-1301 Fire Protection System Test results approved 12/6/85 (4) T3323-AA002 Revision 0 Approved 11/26/84 Turbine / Generator Systems Layup Test results approved 12/6/85 (5) T3306-P Revision 0 Approved 6/13/85 Containment Recirculation Spray System Test results approved 12/6/85 (6) T3338-P Revision 0 Approved 8/15/85 Radioactive Solid Waste System Test results approved 12/6/85'
(7) T3307-AP003 Revision 0 Approved 1/7/85 Safety Injection Accumulator Tests Test results approved 12/4/85 (8) T3324-CA Revision 0 Approved 4/16/84 Generator H and CO System
2 Test results approved 12/5/85 (9) T3329-A Revision 0 Approved 5/15/85 Air. Condenser Air Removal Test results approved 12/5/85
'.
.
Attachment B
(10) T3313-FP Revision 0 Approved 7/30/84 Containment Vacuum System Test results approved 11/25/85 (11) 3-INT-3000 Pre Core Hot Functional Testing Appendix 3032 Revision 0 Approved 8/14/85 Boron Thermal Regeneration System Test results approved 11/5/85 (12) T3339-BP Revision 0 Approved 7/30/85 Chemical Feed - Steam Generator Test results approved 10/18/85 (13) T3323-CA Revision 0 Approved 2/8/84 EHC Control System Test results approved 10/15/85 (14) T3339-AA Revision 0 Approved 6/11/85 Chemical Feed - Condensate Test results approved 10/18/85 (15) T3347-BA001 Revision 0 Approved 8/5/85 Normal Station Service Transformer 15G-3SA Test results approved 10/22/85 (16) T3347-BA002 Revision 0 Approved 9/6/85 Normal Station Service Transformer 15G-3SB Test results approved 10/22/85 (17) T3344-BA050 Revision 0 Approved 1/31/85 480 Volt MCC Bus 31-1K Test results approved 8/14/85 (18) T3330-CP Revision 0 11/19/84 Reactor Plant Chilled Water System Test results approved 12/10/85 (19) 3-INT-2006 Revision 0 Approved 6/7/85
,
Turbine Building Hot Functional
'
Test results approved 12/11/85
,
i
.
..
.
'
Attachment B
(20) 3-INT-3000 Pre Core Hot Functional Testing Appendix 3022 Revision 0 Approved 9/20/85 Snubber Expansion Examinations Test results approved 12/11/85
.
..
.
.
ATTACHMENT C TO 50-423/85-75 REVIEW OF NUSCO-0A SURVEILLANCE REPORTS Report Approval No.
Title Date TC-3841 3 INT-3003, "RHR System" 10/01/85 TC-3886 3 INT-3001, " Sampling Systems" 11/07/85 3 INT-3029, " Chemistry Guide Lines" TC-3879 3 INT-3020, " Main Steam" 11/01/85 TC-3876 3 INT-3000 " Hot Functional Test" 10/31/85 TC-3855 3 INT-3023, " Turbine Generator" 10/21/85 TC-3858 3 INT-3000, " Hot Functional Test" 10/18/85 TC-3857 3 INT-3023, " Turbine Generator" 10/17/85