ML20235L972
| ML20235L972 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1987 |
| From: | Bissett P, Blumberg N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235L953 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-87-20, NUDOCS 8707170010 | |
| Download: ML20235L972 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000219/1987020
Text
,
.
.
4
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-219/87-20
Docket No.
50-219
License No.
Licensee: GPU Nuclear Corporation
Dyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station
P.O. Box 388
i
Forked River, New Jersey 08731
'
i
Facility Name: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station
l
!
1
Inspection At:
Forked River, New Jersey
Inspection Conducted: June 1-5, 1987
j
Inspectors: Of M ,
N ( // 77
V
.
P. H.AEissett, Reactor Engineer, DRS
7 d' ate
!
Approved by:
8.f,AIqhk.
_
V date
l
6,'If7
N. J. Biumberg, Chief
Operational Programs Section
'
Operations Branch, DRS
Inspection Summary:
Routine, unannounced inspection on June 1-5, 1987
(Report No. 50-219/87-20)
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of licensee action on previous
inspection findings; the inservice testing program for pumps and valves; and
quality assurance.
Result: One violation was identified:
(Failure to follow ASME Section XI code
requirement, specifically IWP 4111, during the testing of the emergency service
water system.)
8707170010 870700
ADOCK 05000219
G
,
1
L.
!
.
.
!
.
,
.
DETAILS
1.0 Persons Contacted.
1.1 GpU Nuclear Corporation
J. Barton, Deputy Director
R, Blouch, Manager, Technical Support
P. Crosby, Supervisor, Operations Engineering
V. Foglia, Preventive Maintenance Programs Manager
,
S. Fuller, Operations Quality Assurance (QA) Manager
-
D. MacFarlane, Site QA Audit Manager
4
J. Rogers, Licensing Engineer
1.2 USNRC
1
J. Wechselberger, Resident Inspector
'
The inspector also held discussions with other licensee personnel during
the course of the inspection, including operations, engineering, ' quality
,
'
assurance and administrative personnel.
j
All individuals listed above were present at the exit meeting conducted
on June 5, 1987.
!
!
2.0 Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
2.1 (Closed) Unresolved Item (219/85-36-01):
Licensee to revise alarm
response procedures 2000 RAP-3024.1 (B-6-f, B-6-e) to appropriately
alleviste personnel safety concern. The inspector reviewed alarm
response procedures B-6-f and B-6 e and noted that appropriate
procedure changes had been made that alleviated operator exposure
to a hazardous environment.
Based upon this review this item is
closed.
2.2 (Closed) Unresolved Item (219/85-01-03):
Review licensee's.
.
inservice test program. A review of the licensee's inservice
i
test program was performed during inspections 219/85-17 and this
inspection, 219/87-20, which is detailed in Section 3. ' Based upon
this review, this item is closed.
3.0 Inservice Testing of Pumps and Valves
3.1 Scope and Criteria
Administrative contro'1s were reviewed to evaluate the licensee's
program for implementing requirements associated with pump and
valve inservice testing (IST) requirements. The objectives of this.
inspection were to ensure that the licensee's IST program currently.
in place was consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g),
Technical Specifications and ASME Code,Section XI requirements.
_ _ _ _ _ _ __- . _ _ _ _
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _
_
.
.
'
i
l
3
.
A major portion of this review was an evaluation of the licensee's
IST program with respect to procedures, conduct of testing, and
-analyses of results. Also, a brief review of the licensee's most
!
recent IST program submittal to the NRC was conducted.
3.2 Review / Implementation
i
The inspector reviewed various inservice testing (IST) surveillance
I
proceduresand other related documents (Attachment 1) to ensure that
l
the testing of pumps and valves was being accomplished as detailed
l
in their Inservice Testing program submittal.
The licensee, in March 1987, submitted Revision 5 of their IST-
l
program to the NRC for final review and approval. ' Revision 5
I
reflected changes to Revision _4 based upon a Technical Evaluation
i
Report (TER) sent to the licensee from the NRC in December 1986.
'
The licensee has been implementing their IST program based upon
interim approval ~ granted to them in January 1980.
The inspector.also briefly. reviewed various portions of Revision.5-
of their IST program to determine if those conclusions of the 1986
TER had been reflected in Revision 5.
Also, since the licensee
eventually. plans to update their program to a later code edition
(present submittal is based on ASME,Section XI, 1974 Edition-S75),-
the inspector discussed various changes to the present program that
would be needed.
This review of the IST program (Revision 5)
revealed some minor errors which also were brought to the attention
o' the licensee. These errors and various NRC positions are detailed
below.
I
1
'
Core Spray check valves, V20-60, 61, 88 and 89, are not
i
passive v&lves, and therefore should be tested
l
Valve table listing for V16-62 does not agree with Note 3
Valve table listing for V15-27 and 28 does not agree with
Note 9
,
V15-27 and 28 should be categorized as A/C valves
!
Stroke times for applicable valves should be listed within the
IST program submittal
i
Any valve exercised during cold shutdown must also be exercised-
during refueling outages, unless it has been exercised within
the past 3 months.
,
The NRC does not recognize the 9 month testing frequency for
Category 'C' check valves.as stated in the ASME Code Section XI
1974 Edition thru 1975 Summer Addenda.
!
_____ __ - _ - - -
.
.
4
.
Equipment falling within required action ranges is to be
=
declared inoperable as soon as this fact is recognized.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments.
For the core
spray check valves, a Technical Functions Work / Task Request
(ER#E86-81) has been generated to evaluate the necessary
modifications needed to be made to this system to allow testing of
the valves in question without introducing fire water into the
reactor.
The inspector reviewed this task request, generated in
August, 1986 and had no further questions.
Tne inspector also reviewed the testing completed for those valves
designated as Pressure Isolation Valves (PIV).
These valves from a
pressure boundary between those low pressure safety systems that are
connected to the higher pressure reactor coolant system.
These PIVs
are included as part of the licensees IST program and are also
listed on the Technical Specifications, Table 4.3.1.
Testing is
being accomplished as required and as determined by discussions with the
IST Valve Coordinator and a review of applicable records.
The inspector verified the maintainability of the Cold Shutdown Valve
Testing List and the accomplishment of required testing pertaining
to this list. Also reviewed were applicable administrative
procedures and various IST surveillance (listed in Attachment 1).
This review verified the technical adequacy of the procedures and
their compliance with the requirements of Technical Specifications,
Section XI of the ASME Boiler and pressure Vessel Code, and 10 CFR 50.55a(g).
A random sampling of completed IST surveillance verified that the
following attributes were being accomplished with respect to
inservice testing.
Applicable surveillance test procedures were approved and
--
up-to-date
--
Temporary changes were noted within the procedures
Calibrated test equipment utilized during the performance of
--
the surveillance was listed
Acceptance criteria listed within the procedure
--
Appropriate steps were taken,
i.e., increased testing
--
frequency, corrective maintenance, retests were taken if
acceptance criteria were not met
_
_ - - -
(
.
.
..
5
e
Reviews were performed following completion of the test
--
Further reviews of IST program implementation, including evaluation
of test results, trending, recording, etc. is detailed in this report
in paragraph 5.0 Engineering Involvement.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.3. Test Witnessing
The inspector also observed the performance of two surveillance
tests performed by operator's during the' course of the inspection.
These two surveillance involved flow measurement of the Emergency
Service Water System II and 'A'
and 'B' Control Rod Drive pump
operability tests, including pump vibration measurements. NRC
observation of these surveillance was to verify the following was
accomplished.
Applicable surveillance procedure was approved, up Lo-date, and
.
utilized throughout the conduct of the surveillance.
Appropriate personnel were notified prior to the start of the
test.
Calibrated test equipment was used.
i
Appropriate safety precautions were taken.
Acceptance criteria were met, and if not, appropriate steps
were taken.
Following completion of the test, the system was realigned for
normal operation.
Performance of the Emergency Service Water (ESW) System II flow test
was a retest following an initial test run in which it failed to
meet acceptance criteria. Appropriately, the
'D'
ESW' pump was
declared inoperable due to low flow rate conditions.
System flow
rate measurements have in the past been somewhat erratic for System
II since measurements are taken utilizing a Controlotron "Champitron"
flowmeter. The Controlotron flowmeter is an ultrasonic measuring
i
device and a variety of variables may in effect, produce erroneous'
'
readings.
The licensee had just recently modified and installed an
Annubar flow sensor on System II, however, it was not in operation
since the gage was still on order.
The Contolotron is located in
close proximity to the Annubar and it was felt that the Annubar was
creating enough turbulence to produce erroneous flow conditions as
j
sensed by the Controlotion. The licensee subsequently transferred
the gage from the ESW system I Annubar to the ESW system II Annubar
and again performed the flow test.
Resultant flow rates were found
.
!
to be normal and thus acceptable. Following an hour run,
'D'
pump was declared operable.
,
m
_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _.._
_ _ _ . . _ _ - _ _ _
3
!
1
'
.
6
.
During observation of the vibration measurements taken on 'A' and. 'B'
control rod drive pumps, the inspector noted a few discrepancies
within the vicinity of these pumps. These discrepancies were
brought to the attention of the operators performing the test and
the Group Shift Supervisor after completion of the test.
The
discrepancies noted included the following:
a valve packing leak -
overdue calibration sticker
an' unsecured pipe stanchion
With the exception of the unsecured pipe. stanchion, all
j
discrepancies were corrected prior to the exit meeting on June 5,
j
1987. A short form (maintenance request) was generated to
eventually correct the pipe stanchion problem. .The calibration
stickers were in actuality not overdue, but-had been marked with
incorrect due dates,' as -a result of calibration frequency changes.
3.4 Findings.
The Emergency Service Water pumps for Systems I and II are subject
to inservice testing requirements per ASME Section XI.
These tests
demonstrate the operational readiness of pumps and valves as well as
providing an indication of any degrading trends that may be
developing. Historically, the licensee has had difficulty in
establishing reference (baseline) values on several of theLESW
pump test quantities, especially pump flow rate. These reference
values are points of pump operation that are readily duplicated
)
during subsequent inservice tests. Deviations, if any, between
(
subsequent tests and established reference values are then. analyzed.
!
The types of corrective action taken depends upon the severity of
)
the deviation, but the analysis of any deviation provides an
indication of the possible development of a degrading trend in pump
j
performance. This enables one to take appropriate corrective action
-
prior to pump failure.
The licensee has been unable to effectively establish any viable
trend data due to frequent establishment of new reference values.
ESW - System II has been especially susceptible-to rebaselining due
to erratic flow rate measurements. These changes have been often
attributable to the 'Contro1otron' flow measuring device's
inability to duplicate results under similar test conditions.
'
ESW - Systems I has shown more test result stability since the
Controlotron flow (ultrasonic) measuring device was replaced with an
Annubar (differential pressure) flow measuring device several years
ago.
ESW - System II has an Annubar in place, however, it still
utilizes the Controlotron, because the Annubar gage is still on order.-
l
During this inspection, the inspector witnessed an operability test
of the 'O' ESW pump (refer to Section 3.3).
The 'D' ESW pump failed
to meet flow rate acceptance criteria.
The validity of the
Controlotron flow rate was questionable, so'the licensee
i
3
.
.
J
..
.
7
j
-.
transferred th'e gage from the ESW - System I Annubar to the
!
ESW - System II Annubar and reran the test. The inspector noted
that the indicated differential pressure was approximately 42 H2O
(subsequently converted to gpm) and that the scale of the gage
,
ranged from 0" - 200 H20. ASME Code Section XI, Article IWP 4111-
'
states that the full scale range of instruments shall not be greater
than four times the reference valve.
Station procedure 125.1"
In-Service Test Program Administration, Section 4.3.3 reiterates
Article IWP 4111.
The full scale of the gage (ESW-1) utilized
-
during the rerun of this test clearly exceeded four times the
'D'
i
ESW pump reference flow rate. A review of completed IST tests for
j
l
System I indicated that gage ESW-1 is routinely used during the
I
performance of inservice tests for
'A'
and 'B' ESW pumps. The
i
reference valves for these pumps are approximately 40" H20.
Failure
to follow AMSE Code Section XI requirements is a. violation
(219/87-20-01).
During the inspector's observation of vibration readings.taken on A
and B CRD pumps,.it was noted that not all measurement reference
points had measurement blocks attached to the pump casing / gear.
box. Discussions with the pump IST Coordination revealed that at one
time, all pumps in the IST program had measurement blocks attached
at the appropriate reference points.
However, because of pump
overhauls, pump replacement or lack of adhesion, many of the
measurement blocks had not been replaced. The inspector stated that
measurement points need to be clearly identified, especially for.
those pumps on which the measurement blocks were missing. The
licensee acknowledged the inspectors concern and stated that-
vibration measuring points would be clearly identified.
j
.
4.0 Quality Assurance / Quality Control Interface
l
l
Discussions were held with the Quality Assurance (QA) audit group and the
I
Operations QA (0QA) group to ascertain the extent of _their involvement
with the conduct of the inservice testing program.
It was noted that the
QA audit group performs a yearly audit of Engineering activities which
includes inservice testing of pumps and valves. The latest completed
i
audit was reviewed by the inspector.
No significant findings were
identified within the IST areas during this audit which was completed in
September, 1986. Another audit of the IST area is scheduled for June of
1987. The inspector also briefly reviewed a Gilbert / Commonwealth review
I
of the Oyster Creek pump and valve test program.
This report was issued
j
in August, 1986 and was a comprehensive review of the appropriateness.'of
the present program and those changes that would be necessary when the
.
' licensee eventually updated to a more recent version'of the ASME code.
l
Several of the changes recommended in'this program review were reflected
in the licensee's most recent IST program submittal to the NRC, dated
March 12, 1987.
Discussions were also held with the Operations QA (0QA) group. 0QA
routinely monitors onsite activities, including the performance of IST
-)
l
.
_
____-____ - - - -
.
.
.
~
8
.
surveillance.
Observation of these activities are documented in "QA
Monitoring Reports".
Examples of these monitoring reports were reviewed
by the inspection, together with " Monitoring Effectiveness Evaluations"
and " Monitoring Effectiveness Evaluation".
These reports are the
mechanism in which the 00A group solicits constructive feedback from a
previously monitored group so as to improve upon their overall monitoring
effectiveness.
The inspection had no further questions in this area.
5.0 Engineering Involvement
As noted previously, engineering is primarily responsible for controlling
the conduct of IST activities.
They also perform reviews of all
completed IST tests and subsequently track, document and trend components
performance.
The inspector discussed with both the IST Pump and IST
Valve Coordinators, various aspects of the IST program implementation.
Also reviewed were Pump Operability Test Summary Sheets, Cold Shutdown
and Refueling Test Lists, Valve Test Summary Sheets, Valve Trend Analysis
Sheets, etc.
The inspector found these records being maintained and
up-do-date.
6.0 Exit Interview
The inspector met with licensee representatives on June 5, 1987, to
summarize the scope and findings of the inspection.
At no time during the inspection was written material provided to the
licensee by the inspectors.
The licensee did not indicate that any
proprietary information was contained within the scope of this
inspection.
.
_ , _ _ , . , _ _ , _ _ , _ _
_ , _ _ - - - - - _
_
_
- _ _ - - _ _ -
_-
. _ _ .
~
.
..:
i
-
]
.
1
-
Attachment 1
]
i
Documents Reviewed
]
Administrative Procedure 112.1, Technical Specification Supporting
Installed Instrumentation, Rev. 24.
Ad.ninistrative Procedure 116, Surveillance Test Program, Rev. 26.
'
Administrative Procedure 104, Control of Nonconformances and Corrective
,
l
Action, Rev. 10.
Inservice Testing Program Submittal, Rev.,~5, March 12, 1987.
'
Administrative Procedure 108, Equipment Control, Rev. 37.
i
Gilbert Commonwealth " Review of Oyster Creek Pump and Valve Test
Program", August 11, 1986.
i
QA Audit S-0C-86-08.
Standing Order 36, Rev. 2.
QA Monitoring Effectiveness Evaluation, January,1987.
Temporary Change Notice Procedure Book 'and Index.
,
Safety Evaluation Report (Interim Report), Pump and Valve Inservice
..
Testing Program, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, April, 1982.
Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water System Valve Test, Pro'cedure No.
642.4.002, Rev. 5.
Containment Spray and ESW IST, Procedure No. 607.4.003, Rev. 14.
CR0 Pump Operability Test, Procedure No. 617.4.001, Rev. 10.
I
Shutdown Cooling Valve Operability and IST Valve Test, Procedure No.
I
613.4.002, Rev. 3, 4.
.i
Emergency Service Water Valve Operability Test Procedure No. 608.4.001,
!
Rev. 2.
Excess Flow Check Valves Functional Test, Procedure No. 604.3.008.
j
,
!
}
Control Rod Scram Insertion Time Test and Valve IST Test, Procedure No.
I
L
617.4.003, Rev. 8.
!
..