ML20210J549

Insp Repts 50-245/77-32 & 50-336/77-31 on 771128-1202 & 1206-09.Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Inservice Testing of Pumps,Valves,Pipe Support & Restraint Surveillance

ML20210J549
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	01/05/1978
From:	Coleman W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20210J229	List: IR 05000245/1977032 IR 05000336/1977031 IR 07100128/2012002 ML20210J248 ML20210J549
References
50-245-77-32, 50-336-77-31, NUDOCS 9708180138
Download: ML20210J549 (14)

See also: IR 05000245/1977032

Text

_ _ _ _ _ - _

.

..- .

U.= NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOL

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

50-245/77-32-

Report No. 50 '336/77-31

, 50-245

Docket No.-53-336

D3R-21 C

License No. DPR-65 , Priority ,, --

Category C

-Licensee: Northeast Nuclear Energy Company

P. 0.' Box 270

Hartford, Connecticut 06101

Facility Name: Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2

Inspection at: Waterford, Connecticut

inspectionconducted: November 28 - December 2 and December 6-9, 1977

Inspectors:

W.

Mle l y/Im - /st/42 7/! 7 7

. Reactor [spector . Tate s' fgned 'm

, (.L .

/ L/tt[77

L. om, actor Inspe date signed

,i

_B ' rig 5. Re et

~m/ _ /2 - t 6 - 7 ')

Inep4ctr. date signed

Approved by: , I

D, t. talfhton, Chief, Nuclear Support

/ !7I

'date signed

1

Section No. l,-RO&NS Branch

Inspection Summary:

Inspection on November 28 - December 2 and December 6-9,1977 (Report No.

50-245/77-32)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the inservice testing

of pumps and valves and pipe support and restraint surveillance. The in-

spection involved 36 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.

Results: .No items of noncompliance were identified.

,

Inspection on November 28 - December 2 and December 6-9,1977 (Report No.

TD-336/77-31 )

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of. pipe support and re-

straint surveillance, preparation for refueling, refueling activities, main-

tenance conducted during the outage, outage recovery preparations, planned

_startup testing, plant tour and offshift inspection. The inspection in-

'volved 87 inspector-hours onsite by three NRC inspectors.

. Region I Form 12

(Rev. April 77) 970810o13e 780217

PDR ADOCK 05000336.

O PDR

. _ - - _ - _ - _ - - _ .

. -

l

4

,

%

Results: Of the seven areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were found

in five areas; two apparent items of noncompliance were found in two areas

(Infraction-failuretoexpandthesample size after inoperable snubbers-

were found during functional testing paragraph 4;-Infraction - failure to

perform a test required by the safety evaluation of a modification - para-

graph 8).

.

4

'

o

4

9

0

4

4

.

e

~

,

,

a

________-_a

. _ . -_. . . -- .- -. -

- ..-

. .

,

DETAILS

1.- Persons Contacted

Unit 1

'

D. Bergeron, Engineer

+*E. Foster, Unit 1 Superintendent ,

+R. Palmieri, Engineer , *

G. Papanick, ISI Coordinator

W. Romberg, Engineer

K. Thomas - Engineer

P. Watson, NUSCO Engineer

Unit 2

+J. Crockett, Engineer

+*E. Farrell, Unit 2 Superintendent

J. Kelley, Operations Supervisor M

G. Kline, Reactor Engineer

W. McCann, Engineer

J. Moffet, Day Shift Supervisor

W. Rothgeb, Rcfueling Coordinator. Engineering

W. Strong, Refueling Coordinator, Operations

R. Wells, NUSCO Engineer

C. N. Flag

G. Lacy, QA Supervisor

T.,Laganbaum, Supervisor

G. Roth, Project Manager

The inspector also talked with and interviewed several other licensee

employees during the inspection. They included plant operators,

technical support personnel and maintenance' personnel.

• - denotes those present at the December 9, .1977 exit interview '

. + ' denotes those present at the December 1,1977 exit interview

'.

.

- - __-___- --.

.,  ;.;

-

_

-3 ,

_ ~

. 2. Previous-Inspection Item Uodate

(Closed) Inspector _ Followup Item (336/77-08-03): The inspector-

reviewed and discussed with the licensee Revision 1 of procedure

2733A, Hydraulic Snubber Inspection, which resulted from his re-

_ evaluation of his visual inspection program with respect to comments

by the_ inspector.

(Closed)InspectorFollowupItem_(336/77-12-01): The' inspector re- -

cviewed the results of the licensee's snubber functional testing

-

program conducted during the June,1977 outage. This item is now

an item of noncompliance. (see detail 5) \

(Closed)InspectorFollowupItem(336/77-12-02): Thc inspector re-

viewed the results of the containment snubber inspection conducted .

in accordance with J. O. R70095 completed June 10, 1977 and procedure

26338, completed April 21, 1977.

-

,

,

3. - Inservice Testing of Pumps and Valves - Unit l_ N

The current 40 month inservice inspection interval for Unit 1 began

August 28, 1977. The licensee submitted a proposed Technical

Specification change 6 months prior to program implementation as

requiredby10CFR50.55a(g). The program was submitted to NRC for

review 90 days prior to program implementation as required by NRC

correspondence to the licensee. The license 6's program has received

preliminary review and approval by NRC and the program for inservice

testing of pumps and valves has been implemented.

The inspector reviewed the licensee's pump and valve testing program

for completeness and exemption request accuracy. The inspector re-

viewed two test plans for compliance to Subsection IWP of Sec, tion

.XI of the ASME Code. - Exemptions were discussed with plant and

-

corporate-engineers responsible for the Inservice Inspection (ISI)

.

Program. The-inspector witnessed one monthly vibration measurement

taken on a:ssrvice water pump.

The inspector noted that a more complete NRR review of the licensee's

program is still;in progress.

Nolitems of noncompliance were noted during Lthis inspection.

.

E

e

e

'

. _ - _ _

. - . _ . - . . - .-. _ . - . _ - - - - . - .-_... -. - -- - - .-.-. .~.----. _

f e .1  :

p

,

<

F q

.

'

.

4'

n -

l

. >

'

l  ; 4. - Pipe -Support and Restraint Surveillance -- Unit 1

'- . Review of Program and Procedures

a.

h (1) The inspector reviewed the-following documents to ascertain

whether the licensee's program was approved and in accord-

'

ance with Technical Specifications and licensee comitments; ,

'

(a) Procedure 739.3, Grinnell Hydraulic Shock Suppressor,-

Revision 0, July 15,1976

'

!

(b) Procedure 739.1, Hydraulic Shock Suppressor and Sway

Arrestor _ Repair, Revision 1. Octoter 4, 1975

'

'

(c) Procedure 673.2, Inspection of Hydraulic Snubbers,

Revision 0, February 26, 1976

'

c (d) Inservice Inspection Ten Year Program for Northeast

Utilities, Millstone- Point Unit No.1. Revision 0,

4'

September 1.;1972

-

.

nn

(e) Inservice Inspection Ten Year Program for Northeast

, Utilities, Millstone Point Unit No.1. Revision 1

l

':

Volume 1, June 1,1977

,

(f) Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Letter to NRR dated

October 14, 1976

f

-

(g) NRR Letter to NNECO dated November 24, 1976

-

r .

(h)- NNECO Departmental Instruction No.1-MPM-12.05. Lubri-

L -

cation. Revision.2, April 20.1977

-(2) With the exception of the items listed.below, the inspector

,

identified no significant problems.

(a) The licensee's functional testing procedures do not

-

contain specific acceptance criteria for lockup and-

..

-'

bleed rates. which would be used to verify operability

-

in accordance with design specifications. Both procedures

, , _ . need to be revised'to incorporate testing techniques as- ,

,

.* .sociated with a new test machine on site. Procedure 739.3

does not' include precautions against air entrapment during

removal- and installation of Grinnell units. This item

is: unresolved pending the inclusion of these coments into

procedures 739.1 and 739.3. (245/77-32-01)

! +

~

<

- - . , , , . _ _ .- ,- - - , -- - - - - ~ _ - - .- - .- - - - - - -

- . .- - . - - ._- ----- .- - -.- - . - .- .- . ---

I.

'

. .  :

.

I

'

E

3 a

._.

.

(b)LThe. licensee'svisual-inspectionprocedure,637.2..

does not include specific acceptance criteria for- i

- determining operability for each type of snubber in. 1

'

use. Additionally, the licensee's procedure does not

include checks for leaky. fittings or seals..unob-

-

structed vents (Grinnell only),' foreign material on- '

piston shafts or_ a frozen condition.

This item is unresolved pending revision of procedure

-

.

-

673.2. (245/77-32-02) 1

'

(c) The licensee's inservice inspection plan, under category

,

K-2,: requires the verification of snubber setpoints

.

. during a ten year interval; however..the inspector i

1

could find no documentation that this verification has ,

i' taken place. The licensee stated that he would investi-

gate the inspector's connent.

This item is unresolved pending review of the licensee's raw

resolution of this item. (245/77-32-03)

. b. - Review of Records

t

,

The inspector reviewed'the results of the licensee's snubber

'

visual inspection program since August,1975 and identified no

significant problems with the data or inspection intervals.

During a review of inservice inspection records for pipe hangers

and supports. the inspector noted several identified discrep-

encies and requested from the licensee documentation that these

items were corrected. The' licensee could not furnish this in-

foimation during-the period of this inspection.

This item is unresolved pending verification that these items

a

.

have been corrected. _ -(245/77-32-04)

c. Observation

'

,

, - The-inspector accompanied the licensee into the drywell for a

• .

visual inspection of all snubbers and concurred on all discre-

'

4 'pa~ncies that were ~noted.' The licensee's resolution of the noted

discrepancies and his determination of the next inspection in-

.terval will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection. (245/ 4

- 77-32-05)-

,

4

i

1

'

1

-

v- > , -..=r.. .% .-m_e.e m -yv.. ---

7 s t--* -- *-F - -.--~a-- m +- r

__ -

r -.

4

,c 6-

- 5.a - Pipe Support an'd Restraint Surveillance - Unit 2

a. Functional Testina-

The inspector reviewed the results'of the licensee's snubber

- functional testing program, which was conducted during the

' June, 1977 outage. With the exception of the items listed

'

.

below, the inspector identified no significant problems.

, (1) LTechnical Specification 4.7.8.1.c requires that for

-.

.

each snubber found inoperable during the functional testing

of ten representative snubbers. an additional t' en snub-

bers will be tested until no more failures are 'found or

all snubbers have been functionally tested.

Contrary t5,this requirement, the licensee did not test

an additional ten snubbers for each one that did not meet

.

' the accepta'nce criteria as specified in procedure 2733B,

Hydraulic Snubber Functional Test, Revision 0, June 1,

1977. The inspector identified approximately 30 snubbers

which did not meet the licensee's acceptance criter.ia, m

This constitutes an item of noncompliance. (336/77-31-01) ,

(2) The licensee informed the inspectop that he intends to

expand his functional testing program of hydraulic snubbers

during the current outage; however, these plans did not

'

include snubbers greater than 50,000 pounds. . Because of

the nature and number of unacceptable snubbers found. in -

testing units less than 50,000 pounds, the inspector re-

quested verification from the licensee that similar pro-

blems did-not exist with the greater than 50,000 pound

snubbers. This information was not available during the-

time of. this inspection and will be reviewed during a

subsequent inspection. -(336/77-31-02) -

-b.. Seal Material Comoatability

Snubber visual inspection intervals may depend on the compatability

of seal material with the operating environment, if other than

ethylene propylene, as specified in TS 4.7.8.1. TS 4.7.8.1.a

-

requires that non-ethylene propylene . seal material must be demon-

.

~s trated compatable with the operating environment and approved

as.such by the.NRC.

This item is unresolved pending approval by NRR of the licensee's

<

non-ethylene propylene seal . material. (336/77-31-03)

9

a .. -

_ . - - . -- - - - . - .

. . .

t .

c. Snubber Setpoint Verification

Section XI of the ASME Code, Examination Category K-2, calls for

the verification of support settings of shock absorbers and

snubbers; however, TS Table 4.4-4, Inservice Inspection Program -

Safety Class I Components, item 4.6 takes exception to per-

fonning this verification. In addition, the licensee's visual

inspection program of hydraulic snubbers does not perform this

verification. This item will be forwarded to NRR for resolution-

and will be readdressed during a subsequent inspection. (336/

.

77-31-04) ,

6. Preparation for Refueling - Unit 2

a. Scope

The inspector reviewed licensee procedures pertaining to fuel

receipt, inspection, accountability, fuel transfer, core veri-

fication and spent fuel inspections, with respect to requirements

of Technical Specifications and ANSI N18.7-1973. New fuel re-

-

ceipt, inspection and accountability records were reviewed for _

conformance with plant procedures.

.

'

b' Findings

After reviewing the above procedures, the inspector discussed

several procedural items with the Reactor Engineer. These

items, where applicable, were incorporated into the refueling

procedures prior to final approval and use of the procedures

for refueling.

During review of new fuel receipt and inspection records, the in-

spector noted that 72 new fuel assemblies had been received and

inspected. The inspector verified the qualification of the new

fuel inspectors. Discrepancies noted on fuel inspection records

had been dispositioned by the licensee, all fuel passed inspection.

No inadequacies were noted with this review.

.

7. Refueling Activities - Unit 2

a. Pre-Fuel Handling Activities

The inspector verified by rurd review, observation, and dis-

cussions with plant personnel that the following refueling pre-

requisites were completed. ,

(1) Technical Specification requirement 4.9.1 thru 4.9.15

.

- - - -. .- .. .- . . .. -.

. .

'

8

(2) -Fuel handling equipment functional checks

(3) Operability of plant systems necessary for refueling as

delineated in OP 2209A, Revision 3.

During the review of completed surveillance procedures, the

inspector noted coments written on the working copy of the

procedure which, if incorporated into the procedure, would

,

improve the procedure. These items were brought to the

'

attention of the licensee and procedure changes were immedi-

ately initiated. The inspectors expressed concern that

constructive procedure coments were not being picked up by '

plant management for incorporation into plant procedures. A

licensee representative stated that this item would be dis-

cussed with plant operatir.9 personnel.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

b. Fuel Handling Activities ,

, d

The inspector verified by direct observation and record review

i

that fuel handling activities were being conducted in accordance

with approved procedures and Technical Specification require-

ments. Items inspected included:

(1) Core monitoring during refueling was as required

'

(2) Shutdown margin was maintained greater than 1.0% ak/k by

maintaining a-boron concentration of at least 1720 ppm

(3) Fuel insertion and removal was conducted in accordance.

with procedure OP 2303, Revision 4

(4) Fuel accountability was being maintained in accordance

with procedure OP 21008, Revision 0 and OP 21001, Re-

vision 3

(5) Refueling area housekeeping was controlled to p'revent

'

loose articles from falling into the core or the Spent

. . Fuel Pool

(6) Refueling crew staffing met procedure OP 2303 requirements

~

(7) Refuel Pool and Spent Fuel Pool water level was maintained

as required by Technical Specification (TS)

.

S

-- - - ,. -

l

l

'

', l

9 ,

(8) A Senior Reactor Operator with no other concurrent duties

directly supervised all fuel handling in containment and .

. a licensed operator monitored fuel handling from the con- l

trol room  !

(9) Comunications, as required by TS, was maintained between

the refueling operator and the control room

,

I

(10) Containment and Auxiliary Building integrity was being

maintained as required by TS

~

The inspector noted no inadequacies with the above review.

8. Outage Maintenance - Unit 2

a. References

(1) PDCR 2-219-77 New Fuel Elevator Modification

(2) Job Order R-70323, dated November 22, 1977

(3) OP Form 2303-5 with change 2, dated December 5,1977

(4) PDCR 2-196-77, Pressurizer Spray Valve Replacement

,

(5) Job Order R-70339, dated November 30, 1977

(6) C. N. Flag procedure #19321. Revision 0, dated November 30,

-

1977, titled Pressurizer Spray Valve Removal

(7) PDCR 2-38-77, Charging Pump Piping Vibration

(8) Job Order R-70341, Charging Pump Suction Stabilizer

(9) C. N. Flag procedure #18461, Revision 0, dated November 26,

1977, titled Installation of Suction Stabilizer

b. Sco20

.

The inspector chose three safety-related maintenance items scheduled

for this outage. During procedure review and discussion with

-

plant personnel, the following aspects of each maintenance activity

were noted. ,

(1) The administrative system used for rem' oving a system from

service and returning it to service ,

4

. - . . . _._. _.- _ . _ .-._- _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _

i

-

.. .

, l

, .

I

.

10-

4 ,

i

(2) QA inspection / audit functions

(3) Post maintenance testing

( (4) Valve lineups (tagging requirements)

• *

(5) Maintenance deficiency reporting .

c. Findings -

'

New Fuel! Elevator Modification

'

(1)

,

The New Fuel Elevator-was modified to allow for detailed

spent fuel inspection during the refueling. The inspector

reviewed references (1) (2) and -(3) with respect to the

,

scope stated above. Reference (1) contains a ' safety ,

evaluation performed by a corporate engineer to detemine

Lif this modification is an unreviewed safety question as #, #

..

'

defined by 10 CFR 50.59. This safety evaluation underwent

a technical review performed by a Northeast Utilities

'

Service Company (NUSCO) Discipline Engineer, dated November

2, 1977. This technical review stated that the modification

,

in question was not an unreviewed safety question provided

S that certain precautions / surveillance test / analysis be

done prior to use of the elevator. Two of these provisions

were'(1) that-a seismic analysis be performed on the

structure, and (2) that both the electrical and mechanical

, upper stops be tested in the spent fuel inspection position.

rv The licensee identified a problem with performing a  ;

seismic analysi's on the elevator. This problem stems

~

'

'from the difference in the two vendors supplying the

L hardware for this modification.

!

1 ~The~ requirement for a seismic analysis was re-evaluated

_ and it was determined that the analysis.would be necessary

, for pennanent installation of the. elevator and that for

~

E

use during the refueling only. -the analysis is not necessary.

- *

fr The licensee plans to pursue- this problem in order to

allow for making the installation .a permanent one. This ,

'

item (336/77-31-05) is unresolved pending review of the

seismic-' analysis.-

4

/

s

,d- -.s.---r+ e - - , - ,---m - .+ , _ . . , [v.. .-,,'_.-. , - - , , . , - . - , , . , - . . - . , - - -

.p

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ -

. .

'

11

The inspector identified a problem with the second pro-

vision in that reference (3) which is the preoperational

test procedure for the new fuel elevator did not identify

a requirement for testing the mechanical upper stop. The

inspector brought this item to the attention of the

cognizant engineer prior to the start of the refueling;

however, upon follow-up, the inspector discovered .that at

least one spent fuel assembly was inspected and the

mechanical stop had not been tested. The inspection of

spent fuel was imediately halted pending resolution by

the licensee. This item (336/77-31-06) is in noncompli-

. ance with requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 since the elevator

was used prior to verifying the modification as not an

unreviewed safety question. The inspector reviewed the

installation drawings of the mechanical upper stop mech-

anism and discussed the item with cognizant licensee

personnel. It was subsequently determined that testing

only the electrical upper stop also verified the instal-

lation of the mechanical upper stop, thus mitigating the

safety concern of this item. ""

(2) Pressurizer Spray Valve Replacement

The Pressurizer Spray Valve is being replaced with a

similar valve to rectify valve leakage problems which

occurred during cycle one operation. Reference (4),(5)

and (6) were reviewed with respect to the scope stated

above. At the time of this inspection, installation and

retest procedures had not been approved.

This item is unresolved pending review of these procedures

during a subsequent inspection. (336/77-31-07)

(3) Charging Pump Suction Stabilizer

Flow Stabilizers are being installed in the suction lines

of the three che:ging pumps to dampen vibrations currently

effecting the chemical and volume control system upstream

of the charging' pumps during pump operation. Reference

.

'

(7),(8)and(9)werereviewedwithrespecttothescope

stated above. The inspector noted that plant retest

procedures had not been developed yet. This item will be

reviewed during a subsequent inspection and is an unresolved

item. (336/77-31-08)

_ - - _ _ - _ - - - _ - _

- - = - - - - . ._ . - - . - - - . - . - - . - . _ - - - _ - . .. .

. .

.

,

.,

'

12

The inspector also observed part of the maintenance in

progress on charging pumps A and C. The housekeeping and

radiological controls met plant requirements. Qualifica-

tion of personnel performing the maintenance was discussed

i

with the job project manager. The inspector had no

further questions on this item.

'

l 9. Optage Recovery Preparations - Unit 2 i

.

The inspector reviewed procedures pertaining to overall plant

startup and individual system startup (Reactor Coolant System. Out

of Core Nuclear Instrumentation, Feedwater System. Control Rod

Drive System; and Emergency Core Cooling System) for the post

outage recovery. The inspector noted that supervisory personnel

are required to sign com)leted checklists for system lineups and

that checklists insure t1at systems disturbed during the outage-

have been returned to normal.

No uliacceptable areas were identified during this review. "

The inspector reviewed the plans, procedures and drawings associated

with the below listed Job Orders (J0s) and Maintenance Procedures

(MPs) to determine if adequate plans for retest of the system

existed prior to return of the system to service.

-- Modify Low Pressure Safety Injection Pump shaft sleeve and re-

pa4r-seal leakage, JO R-70291

--

Pressurizer Safety Valve Removal and Replacement, JO R-70285

-- Out of Core Detector Removal and Installation. MP 2417C, MP .

2416C. and MP 2416G

-- Reactor Vessel Head Cable (Control Rod Drives) Removal, Instal-

lation and Testing, MP 3195-77 and I ind C, MP 2421C.

'

-

No unacceptable areas were identified during this review.

10. Planned Startup Testin9 --Unit 2 '

The inspector reviewed the licensee's Technical Specifications and

correspondence with NRC for. requirements and comitments regarding

Cycle 2 startup test programs. These items were discussed with the

Reactor Engineer; however, the procedures required to implement the

startup program were not written at the time of this inspection. .

These procedures will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.

This item (336/77-31-09) is unresolved pending this review. 4

4

'

4

,-

. . - . , , - - . , ,. ,, ,e, , . , ,.-..m.-- m. ., - - - . - - - , . - . _ - . . . , .,-r- - ~_

. .

13

.

11. Plant Tour and Offshift inspection ,

The second week of this inspectior, began during the evening shift

at the beginning of refueling operations. The inspector observed

the control room oparators during fuel movement until equipment

problems halted the refueling.

During this inspection, the inspectors made several tours thru the

containment and auxiliary building as described in the details of

this report. '

No items of noncompliance were noted.

- 12. Unresolved items

Items about which more information is required to determine accepta-

bility are considered unresolved. Unresolved items are identified in

paragraphs 4, 5. 8 and 10 of this report.

..

13. Exit Interview

The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)

on December 1,1977 and December 9.1977. The inspector sunnarized

the findings of the inspection. The licensee representatives acknow-

1 edged the items of noncompliance and unresolved items disclosed in this

report.

.

4

%

• '

,.

.

e

e +,

ie ,-p. ..,3 - . - . , , . - , , , . - - . -,__c . . - . ,