ML20148F045: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Adams | |||
| number = ML20148F045 | |||
| issue date = 03/09/1988 | |||
| title = Insp Rept 50-322/88-01 on 880111-15.Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Test Witnessing & Administrative Control of Local Leak Rate Testing & Tours of Facility | |||
| author name = Eapen P, Golla J | |||
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) | |||
| addressee name = | |||
| addressee affiliation = | |||
| docket = 05000322 | |||
| license number = | |||
| contact person = | |||
| document report number = 50-322-88-01, 50-322-88-1, NUDOCS 8803280054 | |||
| package number = ML20148F027 | |||
| document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, INSPECTION REPORT, UTILITY, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS | |||
| page count = 5 | |||
}} | |||
See also: [[see also::IR 05000322/1988001]] | |||
=Text= | |||
{{#Wiki_filter:. | |||
. | |||
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION | |||
REGION I | |||
Report No. 50-322/88-01 | |||
Docket No. 50-322 | |||
License No. NPF-19 | |||
Licensee: Long Island Lighting Company | |||
P. O. Box 618 | |||
Wading River, New York 11792 | |||
Facility Name: Shoreham Nuclear Power Station | |||
Inspection At: Wading River, New York | |||
Inspection Conducted: January 11-15, 1L88 | |||
Insoector: g-g . | |||
.I 9/d'8 | |||
ph A/ Gcila, Reac~ or Engineer dite ' | |||
Approved by: | |||
Or | |||
- | |||
P. K. Eapen,' Chief | |||
kfd[ | |||
date ' | |||
Special Test Programs Section, EB, DRS | |||
Inspection Summary: Inspection on January 11-15, 1988 (Inspection Report | |||
No. 50-322/88-01). | |||
Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of test witnessing and | |||
administrative control of local leak rate testing and tours of the facility. | |||
Results: One violation was identified. The inspector noted a procedural | |||
deficiency with the local leak rate test procedure which resulted in overpres- | |||
surizing a test volume. It is not known if this practice was pervasive and is | |||
viewe'i as a lack of overview of test activities. This deficiency therefore | |||
constitutes a violation. (50-322/88-01-01) ' | |||
l | |||
l | |||
l | |||
l | |||
l | |||
8803280054 880321 j | |||
PDR ADOCK 0500032'2 | |||
g DCD | |||
I | |||
i | |||
.- - . . . _ . . . --. - .. . - . . . . . -- | |||
. | |||
'. . | |||
. | |||
DETAILS | |||
1. Persons Contacted | |||
T.-Arrigo, M&TE Technician , | |||
*L. Britt, Manager, . Nuclear Licensing | |||
*R. Crowe, Operations Staff Manager | |||
*A. Dubison, Nuclear Licensing | |||
*R. Grunseich, Operations Compliance Engineer | |||
F. Hubert, Maintenance Engineer | |||
*W. Maloney, QCD | |||
*J. Notaro, Department Manager, Nuclear Quality Assurance , | |||
P. Pizzariello, Maintenance Engineer | |||
C. Seaman, Quality Systems Division | |||
*S. Skorueski, Assistant VP, Nuclear Operations | |||
*W. Steiger, Plant Manager | |||
*M. Toner, Maintenance Engineer | |||
USNRC | |||
*F. Crescenzo, Resident Inspector | |||
* Denotes those present at the exit meeting on January 15, 1988, | |||
2.0 Local Leak Rate Testina (LLRT) | |||
The purpose of this inspection was to ascertain that the LLRT was | |||
conducted in compliance with the requirements and commitments referenced | |||
in the following sections, and that the test results met the acceptance | |||
criteria specified in the station procedures and Appendix J,10 CFR 50. | |||
The procedures were reviewed for their technical adequacy to perform the | |||
intended activities. | |||
2.1 References | |||
* | |||
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Technical-Specifications | |||
Section 4.6 | |||
* | |||
10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix J, Primary Reactor Containment Leakage | |||
Testing for Water Cooled Power Reactors | |||
~ | |||
* | |||
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) | |||
* | |||
ANSI /ANS 56.8-1981, Containment Systems Leakage Testing | |||
Requirements | |||
* | |||
USNRC I&E Information Notice No. 85-71, Containment Integrated | |||
Leak Rate Tests | |||
. | |||
' | |||
-- _ _.-_-, __ _ , - - - . _ _ . _ _ .~ _ , . . _ . . _. | |||
.m- . . _._ _ . _ _ ___ ._ _ _ _ . _ _ | |||
, | |||
.~ | |||
.- | |||
3 | |||
, | |||
2.2 Documents Reviewed | |||
' | |||
* | |||
SP 84.654.03, "Primary Containment Leak Rate Test," Revision 4 | |||
* | |||
Calibration Data for Local Leak Rate Test Instruments | |||
* | |||
Selected Quality Control Surveillance Reports | |||
* | |||
Compliance Engineer Program Planning Surveillance Schedule | |||
. 2.3 Test Witnessing | |||
The inspector witnessed the performance of test activities to verify' | |||
that | |||
* | |||
approved test procedures were available and in use; | |||
* | |||
the procedures were adequately detailed to assure satisfactory | |||
performance; ; | |||
* | |||
parts and materials were properly identified; and | |||
* | |||
qualified test equipment and tools were used. | |||
Mass flow-in test of RCIC turbine exhaust isolation valve 1E51*MOV-045 | |||
and check valve 1E51*08V-0021 on January 13, 1988 were witnessed. : | |||
Also witnessed was the mass flow-in test of RBCCW isolation valve l | |||
No. IP42*MOV-047 on January 14, 1988. These three valves exhibited ' | |||
zero ieakage. | |||
i | |||
The inspector made the following observation during the LLRT of I | |||
; | |||
1E51*08V-0021: while filling the test volume behind the valve with I | |||
water from the condensate transfer system (this check valve is tested | |||
with water by initially filling the test volume and M asuring leakage | |||
by air makeup behind the water slug in the piping), the test person- | |||
nel significantly overpressurized the test volume while "cracking" | |||
open the valve at the condensate transfer tap. Local indication of | |||
pressure showed a value greater than 100 psig. The test pressure | |||
called for the volume to be filled and pressurized with water-to | |||
approximately 40 psig, the test pressure is 46 (+2, -0) psig and | |||
accident pressure for the plant is 46 psig. The test personnel then- | |||
> | |||
bled down the volume to the required test pressure and completed the | |||
test. This is a violation (50-322/88-01-01). | |||
' | |||
The inspector raised to the licensee the concern that initially over- | |||
pressurizing the test volume could help to preseat the valve thereby | |||
influencing the test results. The licensee then administered a pro- | |||
cedure change to the Type C leak rate test procedure SP 84.654.03, | |||
Rev. 4, cautioning against overpressurizing test volumes utilizing | |||
, | |||
i | |||
water. The caution statement requires the use of a relief valve in | |||
. _ , __ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ - . - . _ _ . _ _ .-__ _ _ _. .. . - - - _ _ - | |||
_ . _ _ _ | |||
. - -- | |||
. -. .- | |||
, - | |||
' | |||
. | |||
4 | |||
. | |||
the water supply header set at 40 (+2, -0) psig and suggests the use | |||
of a needle valve to control flow into the test volume. This water | |||
method and caution statement.is applicable for two check valves | |||
each on the RCIC and HPCI pump turbine exhaust lines. The inspector | |||
reviewed the procedure change notice and found its provisions | |||
acceptable. | |||
2.4 Test Instrumentation | |||
Calibration records for the instruments utilized to conduct the | |||
tests witnessed were reviewed by the inspector. All instruments; | |||
flowmeters, pressure gages, temperature gages were found to be | |||
calibrated within their frequency and were tested by standards | |||
which are traceable to the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). | |||
No unacceptable conditions were identified. | |||
2.5 LLRT Procedure Review and Administrative Control | |||
The inspector reviewed the LLRT procedure to determine its adequacy | |||
of content and adherence to accepted testing methodology. The LLRT | |||
procedure is structured such that every mechanical penetration is | |||
covered by specific valve lineups, piping diagrams, and procedural | |||
steps to conduct the test. The procedure was found to be technically | |||
correct to perform local leak rate testing utilizing the mass flow-in | |||
method. This method is acceptable per 10 CFR 50, Appendix J and | |||
current industry nractice. The inspector verified that the LLRT | |||
procedure contained the following pertinent information: criterion | |||
utilized to determine maximum pathway leakage through a valve / piping | |||
network, test p-ecautions, prerequisites, limitations and actions, | |||
and information and justification concerning valves which are reverse ' | |||
direction tested. The inspector also reviewed documentation relevant | |||
to the overall administrative control of the local leak rate test | |||
program. Information which documented the following activity status I | |||
was reviewed: recording of test results, acceptance criterion, sur- | |||
veillance scheduling, and valve maintenance work. The information | |||
reviewed was well organized and appeared adequate to provide proper | |||
administrative control of the overall LLRT program. No unacceptable ' | |||
conditions were identified. l | |||
3.0 Personnel Training and Qualifications | |||
The qualification and training of selected test personnel were discussed | |||
with a licensee representative. In addition, the inspector evaluated | |||
the performance of test personnel during test witnessing. The inspector | |||
determined that the test personnel qualifications met the requirements | |||
specified in ANSI N18.1-1971, "Selection and Training of Nuclear Power | |||
Plant Personnel." They were knowledgeable of their responsibilities and | |||
technical aspects of leak testing. No unacceptable conditions were | |||
identified. | |||
-_ _ -, --. __ . - _ _ . . _ - . __ . _ . - _ . | |||
. ._ | |||
- . | |||
_. . _ _ _ | |||
' | |||
. | |||
, 5 | |||
' | |||
l | |||
4.0 Plant Tour | |||
-The inspector made.several tours of the plant facilities including the | |||
reactor. building, turbine building, control room, and plant exterior to | |||
monitor maintenance activities and housekeeping. All areas inspected ! | |||
were' generally clean and free from debris not affiliated with ongoing | |||
maintenance. No unacceptable conditions were identified. | |||
5.0 QA/QC Involvement | |||
The inspector discussed coverage of local leak. rate testing with represen- i | |||
tatives from the QA and QC organizations and reviewed selected quality : | |||
control serveillance reports on local leak rate test surveillances. QC ' | |||
surveillance reports were comprehensive and findings were well documented. | |||
QA/QC representatives interviewed appeared knowledgeable. of local leak | |||
rate testing and their duties as QA/QC auditors. ! | |||
l | |||
6.0 Exit Meeting ) | |||
Licensee management was informed of the purpose and scope _ of the 1 | |||
inspection at the entrance interview. The findings of the inspection l | |||
were periodically discussed and were summarized at the exit meeting on , | |||
January 15, 1987. I | |||
! | |||
Attendees at the exit meeting are listed in Section 1.0 of this report. | |||
At no time during the inspection was written material provided to the | |||
licensee by the inspectors. | |||
The licensee's representatives did not indicate that this inspection i | |||
involved any proprietary information. | |||
1 | |||
. | |||
. | |||
! | |||
l | |||
! | |||
i | |||
l | |||
. . _ _ _ , - . , _ - . . . . . _ _ . - - - | |||
- _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ _ . . , . _ . _ . _ - , _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ . _ . , , , _ _ . . - , _ . , _ _ - - , _ . . _ , - - . . , _ . ~ | |||
}} |
Latest revision as of 09:34, 27 October 2020
ML20148F045 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
Issue date: | 03/09/1988 |
From: | Eapen P, Joe Golla NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
To: | |
Shared Package | |
ML20148F027 | List: |
References | |
50-322-88-01, 50-322-88-1, NUDOCS 8803280054 | |
Download: ML20148F045 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000322/1988001
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No. 50-322/88-01
Docket No. 50-322
License No. NPF-19
Licensee: Long Island Lighting Company
P. O. Box 618
Wading River, New York 11792
Facility Name: Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
Inspection At: Wading River, New York
Inspection Conducted: January 11-15, 1L88
Insoector: g-g .
.I 9/d'8
ph A/ Gcila, Reac~ or Engineer dite '
Approved by:
Or
-
P. K. Eapen,' Chief
kfd[
date '
Special Test Programs Section, EB, DRS
Inspection Summary: Inspection on January 11-15, 1988 (Inspection Report
No. 50-322/88-01).
Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of test witnessing and
administrative control of local leak rate testing and tours of the facility.
Results: One violation was identified. The inspector noted a procedural
deficiency with the local leak rate test procedure which resulted in overpres-
surizing a test volume. It is not known if this practice was pervasive and is
viewe'i as a lack of overview of test activities. This deficiency therefore
constitutes a violation. (50-322/88-01-01) '
l
l
l
l
l
8803280054 880321 j
PDR ADOCK 0500032'2
g DCD
I
i
.- - . . . _ . . . --. - .. . - . . . . . --
.
'. .
.
DETAILS
1. Persons Contacted
T.-Arrigo, M&TE Technician ,
- L. Britt, Manager, . Nuclear Licensing
- R. Crowe, Operations Staff Manager
- A. Dubison, Nuclear Licensing
- R. Grunseich, Operations Compliance Engineer
F. Hubert, Maintenance Engineer
- W. Maloney, QCD
- J. Notaro, Department Manager, Nuclear Quality Assurance ,
P. Pizzariello, Maintenance Engineer
C. Seaman, Quality Systems Division
- S. Skorueski, Assistant VP, Nuclear Operations
- W. Steiger, Plant Manager
- M. Toner, Maintenance Engineer
- F. Crescenzo, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting on January 15, 1988,
2.0 Local Leak Rate Testina (LLRT)
The purpose of this inspection was to ascertain that the LLRT was
conducted in compliance with the requirements and commitments referenced
in the following sections, and that the test results met the acceptance
criteria specified in the station procedures and Appendix J,10 CFR 50.
The procedures were reviewed for their technical adequacy to perform the
intended activities.
2.1 References
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Technical-Specifications
Section 4.6
10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix J, Primary Reactor Containment Leakage
Testing for Water Cooled Power Reactors
~
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)
ANSI /ANS 56.8-1981, Containment Systems Leakage Testing
Requirements
USNRC I&E Information Notice No. 85-71, Containment Integrated
Leak Rate Tests
.
'
-- _ _.-_-, __ _ , - - - . _ _ . _ _ .~ _ , . . _ . . _.
.m- . . _._ _ . _ _ ___ ._ _ _ _ . _ _
,
.~
.-
3
,
2.2 Documents Reviewed
'
SP 84.654.03, "Primary Containment Leak Rate Test," Revision 4
Calibration Data for Local Leak Rate Test Instruments
Selected Quality Control Surveillance Reports
Compliance Engineer Program Planning Surveillance Schedule
. 2.3 Test Witnessing
The inspector witnessed the performance of test activities to verify'
that
approved test procedures were available and in use;
the procedures were adequately detailed to assure satisfactory
performance; ;
parts and materials were properly identified; and
qualified test equipment and tools were used.
Mass flow-in test of RCIC turbine exhaust isolation valve 1E51*MOV-045
and check valve 1E51*08V-0021 on January 13, 1988 were witnessed. :
Also witnessed was the mass flow-in test of RBCCW isolation valve l
No. IP42*MOV-047 on January 14, 1988. These three valves exhibited '
zero ieakage.
i
The inspector made the following observation during the LLRT of I
1E51*08V-0021: while filling the test volume behind the valve with I
water from the condensate transfer system (this check valve is tested
with water by initially filling the test volume and M asuring leakage
by air makeup behind the water slug in the piping), the test person-
nel significantly overpressurized the test volume while "cracking"
open the valve at the condensate transfer tap. Local indication of
pressure showed a value greater than 100 psig. The test pressure
called for the volume to be filled and pressurized with water-to
approximately 40 psig, the test pressure is 46 (+2, -0) psig and
accident pressure for the plant is 46 psig. The test personnel then-
>
bled down the volume to the required test pressure and completed the
test. This is a violation (50-322/88-01-01).
'
The inspector raised to the licensee the concern that initially over-
pressurizing the test volume could help to preseat the valve thereby
influencing the test results. The licensee then administered a pro-
cedure change to the Type C leak rate test procedure SP 84.654.03,
Rev. 4, cautioning against overpressurizing test volumes utilizing
,
i
water. The caution statement requires the use of a relief valve in
. _ , __ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ - . - . _ _ . _ _ .-__ _ _ _. .. . - - - _ _ -
_ . _ _ _
. - --
. -. .-
, -
'
.
4
.
the water supply header set at 40 (+2, -0) psig and suggests the use
of a needle valve to control flow into the test volume. This water
method and caution statement.is applicable for two check valves
each on the RCIC and HPCI pump turbine exhaust lines. The inspector
reviewed the procedure change notice and found its provisions
acceptable.
2.4 Test Instrumentation
Calibration records for the instruments utilized to conduct the
tests witnessed were reviewed by the inspector. All instruments;
flowmeters, pressure gages, temperature gages were found to be
calibrated within their frequency and were tested by standards
which are traceable to the National Bureau of Standards (NBS).
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
2.5 LLRT Procedure Review and Administrative Control
The inspector reviewed the LLRT procedure to determine its adequacy
of content and adherence to accepted testing methodology. The LLRT
procedure is structured such that every mechanical penetration is
covered by specific valve lineups, piping diagrams, and procedural
steps to conduct the test. The procedure was found to be technically
correct to perform local leak rate testing utilizing the mass flow-in
method. This method is acceptable per 10 CFR 50, Appendix J and
current industry nractice. The inspector verified that the LLRT
procedure contained the following pertinent information: criterion
utilized to determine maximum pathway leakage through a valve / piping
network, test p-ecautions, prerequisites, limitations and actions,
and information and justification concerning valves which are reverse '
direction tested. The inspector also reviewed documentation relevant
to the overall administrative control of the local leak rate test
program. Information which documented the following activity status I
was reviewed: recording of test results, acceptance criterion, sur-
veillance scheduling, and valve maintenance work. The information
reviewed was well organized and appeared adequate to provide proper
administrative control of the overall LLRT program. No unacceptable '
conditions were identified. l
3.0 Personnel Training and Qualifications
The qualification and training of selected test personnel were discussed
with a licensee representative. In addition, the inspector evaluated
the performance of test personnel during test witnessing. The inspector
determined that the test personnel qualifications met the requirements
specified in ANSI N18.1-1971, "Selection and Training of Nuclear Power
Plant Personnel." They were knowledgeable of their responsibilities and
technical aspects of leak testing. No unacceptable conditions were
identified.
-_ _ -, --. __ . - _ _ . . _ - . __ . _ . - _ .
. ._
- .
_. . _ _ _
'
.
, 5
'
l
4.0 Plant Tour
-The inspector made.several tours of the plant facilities including the
reactor. building, turbine building, control room, and plant exterior to
monitor maintenance activities and housekeeping. All areas inspected !
were' generally clean and free from debris not affiliated with ongoing
maintenance. No unacceptable conditions were identified.
5.0 QA/QC Involvement
The inspector discussed coverage of local leak. rate testing with represen- i
tatives from the QA and QC organizations and reviewed selected quality :
control serveillance reports on local leak rate test surveillances. QC '
surveillance reports were comprehensive and findings were well documented.
QA/QC representatives interviewed appeared knowledgeable. of local leak
rate testing and their duties as QA/QC auditors. !
l
6.0 Exit Meeting )
Licensee management was informed of the purpose and scope _ of the 1
inspection at the entrance interview. The findings of the inspection l
were periodically discussed and were summarized at the exit meeting on ,
January 15, 1987. I
!
Attendees at the exit meeting are listed in Section 1.0 of this report.
At no time during the inspection was written material provided to the
licensee by the inspectors.
The licensee's representatives did not indicate that this inspection i
involved any proprietary information.
1
.
.
!
l
!
i
l
. . _ _ _ , - . , _ - . . . . . _ _ . - - -
- _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ _ . . , . _ . _ . _ - , _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ . _ . , , , _ _ . . - , _ . , _ _ - - , _ . . _ , - - . . , _ . ~