ML20078M286
| ML20078M286 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bellefonte  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1983 |
| From: | Mills L TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| 10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, NCR-1808, NUDOCS 8310250110 | |
| Download: ML20078M286 (2) | |
Text
F TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA. TENNESSEE 374ol 400 Chestnut Street Tower II O 4S; October 17, 1983 BLRD-50-438/82-40 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Counission Region II Attn:
Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
BELLEFONTE NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 - OVERPRESSURIZATION OF MAKEUP AND PURIFICATION PIPING AND VALVES - BLRD-50-438/82 SECOND REVISED FINAL REPORT The subject deficiency was initially reported to NRC-OIE Inspector D. Quick on May 28, 1982 in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e) as NCR 1808.
This was followed by our interim reports dated June 28 and August 10, 1982, our final report dated October 12, 1982, our revised final report dated February 3,1933, and our supplemental final report dated July 8,1983 Enclosed is our second revised final report.
If you have any questions, please get in touch with R. H. Shell at FTS 858-2688.
Very trul'/ yours, TENNPMEE VALLEY AUTHORITY L. M. Mills, Manager Nuclear Licensing Enclosure cc:
Mr. Richard C. DeYoung, Director (Enclosure)
Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Records Center (Enclosure)
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations 1100 Circle 75 Parkway, Suite 1500 Atlanta, Gee,rgia 30339 Ohh[O yq
^y#
9)/
1983-TVA 50m ANNIVERSARY An Equal Opportunity Employer 0 l
ENCLOSURE e,
BELLEFONTE NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1
~
OVERPRESSURIZATION OF MAKEUP AND PURIFICATION PIPING AND VALVES BLRD-50-438/82-40 NCR 1808 10 CFR 50.55(e)
SECOND REVISED FINAL REPORT Description of Deficicyev During a preflush leak test, the piping and valves on the suction side of unit 1 makeup pumps were inadvertently subjected to a pressure of 1530 2
lb/in g.
The pressure was applied in increments of 200 lb/in2 after an 2
initial pressurization of 100 lb/in. The de ign pressure for the subject 2
piping and valves is 675 lb/in. The cause of the deficiency was site personnel failed to take into account differences in pressure boundaries during leakage testing.
t Safety Implications The failure of site personnel to take into account differences in pressure boundaries during leak testing could result in an overpressurization incident that might lead to damage to safety-related components or equipment.
Corrective Actions Site personnel with the subject system responsibility have been retrained to TVA's Division of Construction test procedure for hydrostatic systems (No.
BNP-CTP-7.6RO) and have been cautioned to be more observant of pressure boundaries when performing leakage tests.
The following actions were taken to ensure that the subject valves were adequate and can be used "as is:"
1.
Each valve was visually examined for signs of distress.
2.
The Borg-Warner valve gland retainers were inspected and replaced, if necessary.
3 Each valve was fully cycled and timed for successful valve operability.
4.
Each valve was checked for functionally adequate seat tightness during a valve leak rate test.
An analysis has shown that the piping and pumps can be used "as is." Also, B&W has informed TVA via their letter D h?49 that Bingham-Willametta (manufacturer of the pumps) had stated that pumps could withstand tne overpressurization. The piping analysis bas shown that the fiber stress 0
levels are sufficiently below the 100 F yield stress for stainless steel, and the qualification of the pipes and fittings is not affected by the overpressurization.
In TVA's fifth supplemental report to the NRC, TVA stated that all valves with the exception of valve VJBB-439-A were acceptable "as is." Additionally, TVA stated that the valve in question was to be reworked and retested. TVA has now determined that the leakage rate of 0.02 gal / min from valve VJBB-439-A would have been reduced to a lower value if the subject valve had been securely tightened during the actual leak test. Additionally, the leak rate of 0.02 gal / min) from the subject valve will not affect system performance and, therefore, is acceptable "as is."
4 4
o G
9