ML14191A954
| ML14191A954 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1988 |
| From: | Blake J, Coley J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14191A953 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-261-88-14, NUDOCS 8807260037 | |
| Download: ML14191A954 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000261/1988014
Text
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
Report No.:
50-261/88-14
Licensee: Carolina Power and Light Company
P. 0. Box 1551
Raleigh, NC 27602
Docket No.:
50-261
License No.:
Facility Name: H. B. Robinson
Inspection C
ed:
June 13-17, 1988
Inspector:
7/
ley
Date Signed
Approved y:
Blake, Chief
Date Signed
Ma erials and Processes Section
Engineering Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
SUMMARY
Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of
hydrostatic testing - review of program and review of completed test
procedures and evaluations.
Results: In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.
8807260037 880707
ADOCK 05000261
Q
-PNU
7- --
7..7...
-'r
REPORT DETAILS
1. Persons Contacted
Licensee Employees
- G. Beatty, Jr., Vice President, Robinson Nuclear Project Department (RNPD)
- S. Clark, Project Engineer, Design Engineering
- J. Curley, Director, Regulatory Compliance
- W. Flanagan, Manager, Technical Support
- A. McCauley, Principle Engineer, Onsite Nuclear Safety
- R. Morgan, General Manager, RNPD
- D. Weber, Specialist, Technical Support
Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included
engineers,
security force members,
technicians,
and administrative
personnel.
NRC Resident Inspector
- L. Garner, Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview
2. Review of Licensee's Activities Pertaining.to Hydrostatic Testing -
Unit 2
(73051, 73052, 73755)
The inservice hydrostatic testing programs for the first and second
inspection intervals at Carolina Power and Light (CP&L) Company's Robinson
facility, were written to the requirements of Section XI of the ASME Code,
77S78 Edition and Addenda.Section XI requires that piping and components
of boiling and pressurized water reactor plants be examined and tested for
40 year service lifetime of the plant.
These examinations and tests are
to be completed during each of four ten-year intervals.
These ten-year
intervals are calculated from the start date of commercial operation of
the facility. CP&L is presently starting the third and final period of
their second interval.
Since all hydrostatic testing at the Robinson
facility is conducted in the third period of the interval no second
interval hydrostatic testing has been initiated. Therefore, the inspector
was required to review the testing performed in the first inspection
interval in order to obtain clear perspective of testing which has been
performed. The extent of the inspector's review is delineated below.
a. Review of Program
The first interval inservice inspection (ISI) program which had been
written to conform with the 74S75 Edition and Addenda of the ASME
Code, was submitted to NRC on August 5, 1977. During meetings with
the licensee on August 22 and 23, 1978,
NRC requested and obtained
2
additional information to complete the review of that program.
On
October 25,
1978,
the licensee submitted- a.revised ISI program in
response to questions raised on its earlier program.
CP&L however,
had not allowed adequate time for NRC to review the revised program
before the interval ended and therefore NRC never granted interim
approval for this program.
In addition, in a letter dated
January 27,
1982,
CP&L requested permission from NRC to upgrade the
hydrostatic test portion of -their program to the 77S78 Edition -and
Addenda of the ASME Code. NRC granted this approval by letter dated
February 22, 1982. CP&L contracted Gilbert and Associates to develop
the hydrostatic program to the 77S78 Code.
This included walking
down the systems, writing test procedures,
performing tests and
furnishing CP&L a completed report of all testing.
The inspector
reviewed the contractor's completed report and discovered that the
contractor had identified 18 waivers concerning components which were
not tested in accordance with the program and possibly the ASME Code.
There was no documented evidence that the licensee had conducted a
review of the contractor waivers (which the contractors had
considered Code deviations) to determine if relief was in fact
required in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3),
50.55a(g)(5),
50.55a(g)6 and Robinson Technical Specifications. The inspector met
with licensee cognizant personnel to determine whether any of the
constructor waivers would effect operation and require shutdown or
justification for continued operation.
.
Prior to the meeting,
the licensee was unable to analyze all 18
waivers, so only waivers that appeared to have the greatest effect on
operation and for which no alternate testing was performed were
discussed in this meeting.
The meeting concluded that although,
CP&L's hydrostatic testing program was violated,
no conditions
associated with any of the waivers reviewed would have required the
licensee to shutdown or justify continued operation.
The licensee
will continue their evaluation of the waivers during the week of
June 20-24, 1988.
The inspector will return on June 27, 1988 to
review the licensee's analyses of these exceptions and corrective
actions taken.
This item was identified to the licensee as
- Unresolved Item 50-261/88-14-01, Licensee Review of Contractor Code
Waivers.
b. Review of Hydrostatic Test Procedures and Evaluation of Test Data
The inspector reviewed the following completed test procedures:
System
Test No.
Test Blocks
Component Cooling Water
CCW -
3/2
1 & 2
SW - 3
1, 2, 3 & 4
SW -
2/3
1 & 2
- Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to
determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or deviations.
The inspector concluded from the review of the eight tests involved
that the contractor had written. excellent procedures. AllIvalves in
the test were identified, aligned properly, and documented clearly.
Changes to the procedures were well documented and approved.
The
technical content was adequate and presented in an organized manner.
Test boundaries were properly identified and exceptions
and
discrepancies were clearly addressed.
All contractor activities
appeared to-have been conservatively executed-in-an effective technical
manner.
However, the inspector did not have time to integrate the
138 test procedures involved in the program on complete system
drawings to determine if all of the systems in the hydrostatic test
program had been completely tested. The inspector will pursue this
matter as well as the unresolved item addressed in 2.a. above in NRC
Inspection Report No. 261/88-17.
In addition,
to the above reviews the inspector reviewed the
certification records of the personnel involved.
The training and
certification of the following individuals were reviewed:
Level II & I Examiners Per ANSI N45-2.6
T.S.B.
J.W.B.
L.C.C.
D.H.K.
J.G.K.
A.A.L.
K.L.R.
E.L.T.
R.J.W.
Level III Examiners Per ANSI N45-2.6
T.J.A.
J.F.H.
T.G.L.
J.T.S.
J.R.V.
Within the areas examined,
violations or deviations were not
identified.
3. Exit Interview
The inspection scope and results were summarized on June 17,
1988, with
those persons indicated in paragraph 1. The inspector described the areas
inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed below.
Proprietary information is not contained in this report.
Dissenting
comments were not received from the licensee.
(Open)
Unresolved Item 50-216/88-14-01,
"Licensee Review of Contractor
Code Waivers."