ML18081B077
| ML18081B077 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1980 |
| From: | Cappucci A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Bosnak R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002200750 | |
| Download: ML18081B077 (2) | |
Text
..J..
Groff FEB 0 7 19$0 MEMORANDUM FOR:
R. J. Bosnak, Chief, Mechanical Engineering Br~nch, pss THRU:
H. L. Brammer, Section Leader, Mechanical Engineering Branch, OSS FROM:
A. J. Cappucci, Mechanical Engineering Branch, DSS
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT FOR THg REVIEW OF THE SALEM NUCLEAR GE.NERATING STATION INSERVICE TESITNG PROGRAM FOR PUMPS AND VALVES On January 30 and 31, 1980 a meeting was held at the Salem Nuclear Plant to discuss questions that the staff and its consultants (Idaho National Engineering Laboratery - INEL) had concerning the Inservice Testing Program (IST) for pumps and valves for Units 1 & 2.
Meeting
Participants:
USNRC V. Nerses, DOR A. Wang, DOR A.
Ca~pucci, DSS R. Kirkwood. DSS J. Fehminger H. Rockhold J. Hanek T. Cook
. i B.. Boden, Eng.
. [
R. Brandt, ECO L. Lake, Eng. (ISI) 1>
~: ~ft~ if ~"~ii (Isl)
),,' ! :\\,'.
F. Meyer, Production
- ., \\\\f.
R. Newman' Production I
! r/ i '1\\
D. Perkins, QA
' *. : :. ; ':;~
J., Rogozenski, Eng..
, ' * * \\\\', \\*,
F. Schnarr, Production.
1 ) \\\\
- In order to establish continuity and direction V. Nerses presented th 1
e 1
']\\. \\,
staff's goals and general concerns in a presentation which was given at. \\.:
the be~inning of the meeting~ The pres~ntation cover~d the staff's positidn on seuvezrl generic items pertaining to Inservice Testing Programs. A
\\..
distinction was made between Unit 1 and 2 for certain issues on which
\\
DOR and DSS did not have a consensus opinion.
'\\~
Fol lowing the presentation, the NRC consultants (INEL-EG&G) asked the utility
('~,:-~.*
representatives questions concerning the application of their inservice
_.,,r.\\ '\\...
testing program for both uni:ts.
This was fol lowed by a brief discussion
~
.::iif?>..
of the Staff's concerns pertaining to intersystem LOCA between the Reactor 1 * -~~*
Coolant System and the Emer_gency Core Cool_ing Svstern *(LPI, HPI i R _R, etc)
\\
and its monitoring through 1 eak rate testing after boundary va ve
\\.,
disturbance.
Cl -
~,) oo 7 SCJ /i) oW
,:ii'\\
R. FEB 0 7 1980 For brevity the following discussion of the meeting will only be concerned with Unit 2-and the significant meeting discussions and observatiuhs.
- For more detailed information and meeting notes contact me at x27538/72.
(l) ihe applicant agreed to reference power operationi. cold shutdown and refueling in their IST Program rather than modes 1 thr-u 6 as defined in their technical specifications in order to be consistent with the ASME Section XI terminolo§Yv (2)
For all category C {Safety & Relief valves) the applicant has agreed to test according to the schedule presented dn Ta"bl e _JWV,...3510-1 of ASME Section XI.
However, in their resubmittal they will define startup for determining khan the initial testing period begins.
The Staff stated that startup.was normally considered to be when the reactor reaches power (criticality).
(3) For all~relief requests which are concerned with the dual leak nate and stroKe timing requirements for oontainment isolation valves imposed by the technical specifications and Section XI the ppplicant will discuss the technical basis for relief for each valve in more detail.
(4)
Where relief was requested and was considered to be granted for those valves beca.use of the conflict between the technical specifications
_ and ASME Section XI the granting of relief would be contingent on the approval of the technical specifications. Also, the staff decided among themselves to review these relief requests in more depth to determine the conservatism of the technical specifications relative to ASME Section XI.
(5). For check valves where full flow measurement was impractical to determine full stroking of the valve, the pfiplicant was made aware that partial stroking followed by the extrapolation of the valve position was not acceptable. -However they could use partial flow if the manufacturers data which was available could demonstrate that the check valve was fully open on partial flow.
Other-Wise, the stroking of the check valve. would have to be performed mechanically.
(6)
The applicant has agreed to submitthis revised program by March 15, 1980.
cc:
H. Brammer, DSS F. Cherny, DSS MEB Members R. Kirkwoo, DSS oFF1cE ~ *. v *. -Nerses._. D R..... * * * * * * * * *
- SURNAME~-.A~..Wi;i!'l.9,.. OOR..................
A. Dromer1 ck OPM DATE~ *.......*...........................
An~hony J. Ca~pacci, Jr.
Mechanical Engineering Branch Division of Systems Safety NR.C FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240
--tru.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-289-369