ML19343B122

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Insp Rept 50-029/72-02 on 720425-27. Noncompliance Noted.Discusses ECCS Installation & Insp, Pressurizer Pressure Sensing Line Inadequacy, & ECCS Performance Analysis During 3-loop Operation
ML19343B122
Person / Time
Site: Yankee Rowe
Issue date: 06/09/1972
From: Robert Carlson
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To: James Keppler
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML19343B120 List:
References
NUDOCS 8012040518
Download: ML19343B122 (2)


See also: IR 05000029/1972002

Text

.

,

,_ . . _ - .

. . . _ _ _ .

1 . .

.

.

'O

m ,,

UNITED STATES

/o

T

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

,

E[

$

OlVISION OF COMPLIANCE

201 645.3942

'

.(

o* X

,

nea:ON :

Ol

E

070 BROAD STMEET

S

si,g e

NEWARK. NEW JERSEY 07102

J. G. Keppler, Chief, Reactor Testing & Operation Br.

Directorate of Regulatory Operations, HQ

RO INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-29/72-02

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY

YANKEE ROWE - PWR

The subject inspection report is forwarded for information. One item

of noncompliance was identified, and the item was addressed in our

documentation letter.

.

Inspection findings relating to the ECCS installation and testing were

previously forwarded to your office in our memo, dated May 5, 1972.

Regarding item No. b in the referenced memo, Yankee Management stated,

during subsequent telephone conversations, that a qualified inspector

or exa=iner will inspect the sections of the ECCS constructed in

accordance with ANSI B 31.7.

With respect to the other previously

identified noncompliance items relating to the ECCS (R0 Report 50-29/

72-01), the licensee had corrected or planned to correct these items.

We believe that the licensee has made improvements in his QA program;

however, we are scheduling a QA meeting in July, 1972.

,

Our inspector identified two matters which we believe may warrant

further consideration. The first involves the pressurizar pressure

sensing line (1/2-inch stainless steel tubing) that is connected to

a transmitter (ECCS initiating circuit) in the primary auxiliary

building. We believe this line (installed in 1968 under Proposed

Change 82) represents a design inadequacy in that the section outside

the vapor container (about 100') has no excess flow protection. The

excess flow protection is located at the transmitter. This line also

contains a manual isolation valve inside the vapor container, and 'the

valve is accessible during operation. We believe that excess flow

protection inside of contain=ent,as required in the design of current

generation plants, should be provided as a backfit item.

f

>-

.

The second matter involves the performance of the ECCS during 3 loop

operation. The licensee's analyses and testing program apparently

ignored this cas,e.

In a subsequent telephone conversation Mr. Autio,

Plant Superintendent, stated that the plant would not a operated on

-

3 loops until the analyses were completed.

-

n

.

,

,

,

,

h

~

i

.

R. T. Car on

Chief, R ctor Operations Br.

-

,

Enclosure:

_

Subject Inspection Report

-- .

0 012.Q4 {} Q f - .. .

. . . .-

.

.

.

.

.

.

.-

l .-

- .

.- _- -..

.

.

-

..

.

. .

.

-

.

,

.

.

.

t

a

i

.

i

.

',

2-

-

,ll

,

ff

cc:

R. Minogue, RS (3)

l

R. S. Boyd, L (2)

j

R. C. DeYoung, L (2)

D. J. Skovholt, L (3)

i

~

j ,'

H. R. Denton, L (2)

l

P. A. Morris, RO

i

l

H. D. Thornburg, R0

R. H. Engelken, RO

fl

Regional Directors, RO

,

RO iles

'

>k

Central Files

1

.

4

4

,

.

.

1

'

a

1

T

l

!

'

1

W

!

I

r

e

l

.

i

I

I

r

l

1

l

1

e

e

I

.

.

.

l

'

i

,

,

in

l

l

l

.

.

!

..

. . .

. . .

w .. - .,

.. ,

..s.

.

-

,

k

-r-

=~

ey,

,c.e' e ,- - t w my e ,

,

-~m-----,,,-,-w

.-w--.n. . ~ . . p

  • -e.-

,--we6,*,----9e

e

re-

anc=~we-e-

--

ew

re v -

n--

---ev

eme'-

w=.--*e--