ML19296D021
| ML19296D021 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1980 |
| From: | Capucci A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Bosnak R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002290244 | |
| Download: ML19296D021 (3) | |
Text
Q DW
,t
- p nc 305f/
UNITED STATES 8
o,%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
.j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%*****/
FEB 0 71980 MEMORANDUM FOR:
R. J. Bosnak, Chief, Mechanical Engineering Branch, DSS THRU:
g H. L. Brammer, Section Leader, Mechanical Engineering Branch, DSS FROM:
A. J. Cappucci, Mechanical Engineering Branch, DSS
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT FOR THE REVIEW 0F THE SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING 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 Laboratory - INEL) had concerning the Inservice Testing Program (IST) for pumps and valves for Units 1 & 2.
Meeting
Participants:
USNRC INEL PS&G V. Nerses, 00R J. Fehminger B. Boden Eng.
A. Wang, DOR H. Rockhold R. Brandt, ECD A. Cappucci, DSS J. Hanek L. Lake Eng. (ISI)
R. Kirkwood, DSS T. Cook D. Lyons, Eng. (ISI)
M. Metcalf, QA F. Meyer, Production R. Newman, Production D. Perkins, QA J. Rogozenski, Eng.
F. Schnarr, Production In order to establish continuity and direction V. Nerses presented the staff's goals and general concerns in a presentation which was given at the beginning of the meeting.
The presentation covered the staff's position on several generic items pertaining to Inservice Testing Programs. A distinction was made between Unit 1 and 2 for certain issues on which D0R and DSS did not have a consensus opinion.
Following the presentation, the NRC consultants (INEL-EG&G) asked the utility representatives questions concerning the application of their inservice testing program for both units. This was followed by a brief discussion of the Staff's concerns pertaining to intersystem LOCA between the Reactor Coolant System and the Emergency Core Cooling System (LPI, HPI RHR, etc) and its monitoring through leak-rate testing after boundary vafve disturbance.
so0229099f
\\
R. J. Bosnak FEB 0 71980 For brevity the following discussion of the meeting will only be concerned with Unit 2 and the significant meeting discussions and observations.
For more detailed information and meeting notes contact me at x27538/72.
(1) The applicant agreed to reference power operation, cold shutdown and refueling in their IST Program rather than modes 1 thru 6 as defined in their technical specifica.tions in order to be consistent with the ASME Section XI tenninology.
(2) For all category C (Safety & Relief valves) the applicant has agreed to test according to the schedule presented in Table IWW3510-1 of ASME Section XI. However, in their resubmittal they will define startup for determining when 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 rate and stroke timing recuirements for containment isolation valves imposed by the technical specifications and Section XI the applicant will discuss the techn1cai basis for relief for each valve in more detail.
(4) Where relief was requested and was considered to be granted for those valves because 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 applicant 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.
Otherwise, the stroking of the check valve would have to be performed mechanically.
(6) The applicant has agreed to submit his revised program by March 15, 1980.
A) 3 fiq Anthony J.
, app i, Jr.
Mechanical Engineering Branch Division of Systems Safety cc:
H. Brammer, DSS F. Cherny, DSS MEB Members R. Kirkwood, DSS V. Nerses, D0R A. Wang, DDR A. Dromerick, DPM
\\
Mr. R. L. Mitti, General Manager Licensing and Environacnt Engineering and Construction Department Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, New Jer sey 07101 cc: Richard Fryling, Jr., Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Public Service Electric & Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, New Jersey 07100 Mark Wetterhahn, Esq.
Conner, Moore & Cober 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1050 Washington, 0.C.
20006 Mr. Leif J. Norrholm U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 1 Orawer I Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038