BSEP-91-0012, Monthly Operating Repts for Dec 1990 for Brunswick Steam Electric Plants,Units 1 & 2

Monthly Operating Repts for Dec 1990 for Brunswick Steam Electric Plants,Units 1 & 2

ML20066C950
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	12/31/1990
From:	Harness J, Rumple R CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
BSEP-91-0012, BSEP-91-12, NUDOCS 9101110334
Download: ML20066C950 (7)

Text

- . *

-1 Cp&L 1

Carolina Power &

• lght Company l

.am-mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmu Brunswick Nuclear Project P. O. Box 10429 Southport NC 28461 0429 January 4, 1991 FILE: B09 13510C SERIAL: BSEP/91 0012 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Document Control Desk BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS 50 325 AND $0 324 LICENSE NOS. DPR 71 AND DPR 62 MONTHLY OPERATINC REPORT Centlemen:

In accordance with Technical Specification 6,9,1,11 for the Brunswick Steam .=

Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Carolina Power & Light Company herewith submits the report of operating statistics and shutdown experience for the month of December 1990.

o Very truly yours, Jp.EA-J. l.. Harness, Ceneral Manager Brunswick Nuclear Project RDR/ah 90 0041.MSC Enclosures cc: Ms. D. M. Aslett Mr. T. C. Bell  ;

Mr. R. M. Coats i Mr. S. D. Ebneter I Mr. M. D. Hill Mr. N. B. Le -!

Mr. W. R. Murray- .b 1 Mr. R. G. Oehl //) ';

Mr. R. L. Prevatte f Mr. R. B. Starkey INPO ,

9101110334 901231 '

i PDR. ADOCK 05000324 I I R PDR -

CPAL CD PLANT PERFORMANCE DAIA SYSlEM- PAGE 1

.RUN LATE .01/03/91 AftENDIX b - AVERAGE DA1LY POWER LEVEL RPD39-000 RUN 11ME 13:30:22 liRUNSW1CK UNIT i DOCKE1 i40. 050-032b COMPLETED BY-Rut 4ALD RUMPLE TELCfHONE (ViV)457-2752 DECEtiDER 1990 DAY AVG. DAILY POWER LEVEL -DAY AVG. DAILY POWER LEVEL

( MWL-t4ET ) (MWE-NET) 1 -4 17 -4

? ~4_ 10_ -3

.3 -4 19 -2 4 -4 20- -3

"; -5 21- -3 6 -4 22 - '.

/ 4 23- -3 0 -- 4 24 -3 9 -4 25- -3 10 -4 26 -3 i1 -- 4 27 -3 12 4 20 -2 13 -4 29. -2 14' -4 30 ~2 15 -4 31 _a 16 -3 iti6 - D

Cl%L Cu PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA UYSILtl PAGE i

, RIJ N 'D A T E 01/03/91 OPERATING DAi'A REPOR1 RPD36-000 RUN 1.1 ME 13.30 23 DRUNSW1CK Ui'IT i DOCRET NO. OSO-0 W COMPLETED BY RONALD RUMPLE Uf'LRAIING SIATUS 1ELLPHONE (919)457 <l52

1. UN11 NAME BRUNbWICK UNil ) l' NOIES I

2. REPOR1tNG PERIUD: DECEMBER 90 l I Refueling is now in progress.

3. LICLNLED 1HERMAL POWER (MWI) 2436 i 4 There are 160 PWR spent fuel I NAMEPLATE RiaT]NG (GROSS MWE) 067.0

5. DLSlGN ELECTRICAL RATlNG (NEi MWL) -821.0 l bundles in the Puel Pool. There I l

6. MAX DEPENDAbtF CAPACITY (GROSS MWE) are no fuel bundles in the new I 015.0 l Puel Storage Vault. I

1. MAX DEPLNDADLE LAPACliY (NEI MWE) 7YO.0 - - - - - - - " - - - - - - -

B. 1F CHANGES DCCUR IN CAI'AC))Y RATINGS (11EhD 3 THRU 7) DINCE LAG 1 R E P O R 1 ,--

GIVE RLASONS; 9 PilWl:H LEVEL TO WillCH RESTRICTED IF ANY (NE1 t1WE)

10. REASONS FOR RESTRICT 10N IF ANY.

THIS YR TO CUMUL MONTH DATE ATIVE

11. HOURO IN REPORT. LNG PERluD 744.00 8760.00 120800.00

12. nut)DLR Oi' HOURS REACTOR CRlTICAL .00 5948.25 79302.16

13. REACTUR RESERVE SHUlDOWN HRS .00 .00 1647.10

14. HOURS GENERATOR ON LINE .00 5910.20 75063.24

15. UN11 RESERVE SHUIDOWN HOURS .00 .00 .00

16. GROSS THERMAL ENERGY GEN. (MWH) .00 13728130.62 163197643.10

17. GROSb ELEC. ENERGY GfN.-(NWH) .00 447i445.00 53533475.00

16. NE1 ELEC; ENE.iGY GENERATED (fiWH) -2S81.00 4321246.00 515023Y4.00 iY. UN11 5LRVICE FAC10R .00 67.47 62.75

20. UNIT AVAll ADIL11Y FAC10R .00 67.47 .62.75

21. UNIT CAP. fACIOk (USING MDC NET) .44 62.44 53.Y3 2.f . UN11 CAP. FACTOR (UBING DER NET) .42 60.00 Si.0Y

23. UN11 FORCED DUTAGE RATE .00 0.47 15.04

24. 9HUTDOWNG SCHED. OVER NEx1 6 MONTHS (TYPE, DATE, AND DURATION OF EACH)

25. IF SHUTDOWN AT END OF REPORT PERIOD, EDTIMATED DATE OF START UP 02/20/91

26. UNITS IN TEST STATUS (PR10R TO COMMERCIAL OPFr.i10N) FORECAST ACHIEVED INITIAL CR1IlLAL1TY - - - - - - - - - -

INITIAL ELECTRIC 11Y -- - - ---

COMMERCIAL UPERATION - - - - - - - - - - - -

1.16 - V

l I

DEKET NO. 050-0325 UNIT NAME Brteswick 9

• DATE Jan. 1991 CX7IPLETED BY Renetd Euus>te ~ .

TELEPnonE 919-457-2752 UNIT SNtJTDOWNS AND POWER REDUCTIONS REPGti se0 NTH December 1990 METHOD OF LICENSEE SYSTEM CDMPONENT CAUSE & CDRRECTIVE ACTION TO EVENT CDDE 4 CODE 5 PREVENT RECURREWCE DURATION SNUTTING DOWN WO. DATE TYPE 1. (MOURS): REASou 2 REACTOR REPORT NO.

4 RC Fuet XX Refuel /Meintenance Outage 90-069- 900927- 5' 744.0 C (in progress)

[.

3: PETuts - . ' 4: EMntstT G - 5: EXNIBIT I -

1: F - Forced 2: ' REASON 1 - Manuet Instructions for Samme source S - Scheduled A - Equipment failure (emptein) 2 - m nuel serem preperation of date Meintenance or test- 3 - Automatic wrase entry sheets for C.- Refueling 4 - Contirustions Licensee Event D - Reputatory - 5 - Lead reductions Report (LER) file restriction 6 - Other (NUREG-0161)

E - Operator Training & ticense Cxamination F - Administrative

- G - Operationet

- error (emplain',

M.- Other (emptein) 90-0041.MSC~

I l _ . _ _

L __ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . ._ _ . _ _ .

CPAL C.U PLANT PERFORMANCE DAlA SYSTEM PAGE 2 RUN DAlt .01/03/91 APPENDIX D - AVERAGE DAILY .f 0WER LEVEL RPD39-000 RUN 11hE 13:30:22 DRUNSW1CK UN11 2 DOCKET NO. 050--0324 CotiPLE'IED DY RONALD RUhPLE TELEPHONE _(Yi9)457-2752 UECEMBER 1990 DAY AVG. DAILY POWER LEVEL DAY AVG. DAILY POWER LLVEL

( MWL- NET ) (t1WL-NEi)

?

i 774 17- 773 c 730 10 774 3 773 i9 774 4 773 20 774 774 21 774 6 774 22 774 7 774 23 762-8 734 24 773 9 584 25 ~/ 73 i

10 774 26 774 11 776 27 775. '

i .. 776 20 774.

i 'T 776 27 774 14 776 30 754 15 776 31 -772-

< 16 764 1.16 - 8

_____m__.-- - - - . - -

, CP&L QU I'L AN1 PERFORMANCE DATA SYSTEM fAGE 2 l . RUN DAlt .01/03/9l OPERA 11NG DATA REPORT RPD36-000 RUN I .1 r*. E i3:30: J3 BRUNSWICK UN1T 2 DOCKET NO. 050-0324 C0fiPLLTED DY RONALD RUMPLE OftRATING STATUb lELEPHONE (919)457-2752

1. UN1I NAME DRUNSWJUK UNIT 2 i NOIES - There are 560 fuel l D. RLFURljNG PER10D: DECEMBER 90 lbundice in the Reactor Core. Therej

3. LICENSED 1HERMAL POWER (MWT) 2436 lare 1072 BWR and-144 PWR spent fuell 4 NAhEPLATE RATING (GROSS MWE) 067.0 lbundles in the Puel Pool. There 1

5. DLSIGN ELECTRICAL RAlING (Nf:T MWE)- 02).O late no fuel bundles in the new l-

6. MAX DEf T NDADLE CAPAC1 T Y (GROSS MUE), U15.0 Iruel Storage vault. l  ?

7. MAX DLPENDADLE CAPACllY (NE1 HWE) 790.0 - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B. 1F CHANGE 0 OCCUR IN CAPACITY RA11NGS (1_TEMS 3 THRU_7)-91NCE LAST_ REPORT, GIVE REASONS:

0 fOWLR Ll! VEL TO WHICH RESlRICTED 1F ANY (NET MWE)

10. REASUNS fOR RESTRICTIUN IF ANY IHIS YR 10 CUMUL MONTH DATE ATIVE ii. HOURS IN REPORTING PER30D 744.00 0760.00 1329i2.00

12. NUMDER OF HOURS REACTOR CRITICAL 744.00 5926.70 04476.01

13. REACTOR RESERVE SHUIDUWN HRS .00 .00 .00

14. HOURS GENERATOR ON LINE 744.'00 5618.92 79992.26

' iS. UN11 RESERVE SHU1DOWN HOURS .00 .00 .00

16. GROSS THERt1AL ENERGY GEN. (MWH) 1709230.10 13035355.60 160122749.96

17. GROSS ELEC. ENEhGY GEN. (MWH) 584715.00 4214903.00 54387139.00

10. NEl ELEC. ENERGY GENERATED (MWH) 560500.00 4049901.00 52149306.00 1Y. UN11 SERV 1CE FAC10R 100.00 64.14 60.10

20. UN11 AVAILABIL1TY FACTOR 100.00 64.14 60.10

21. UNIT CAP. FACTOR (USING tiDC NET) 96.74 58.52 49.67

22. UNIT CAP. FACTOR (USING Df^R NL1) 93.00 56.31 47.79

23. UNIT FORCED OUTAGE RATE .00 18.03 13.03

24. SHU1 DOWNS SCHED. DVER NEXT 6 MONTHS (TYPE, DATE, AND DURATION OF EACH)

25. I I' SHUTDOWN AT END OF REPORT PEP 100, ESTIMATED DATE OF STARY UP

26. UNITS IN. TEST STATUS (PRIOR TO C0tiMERCIAL' OPERATION) FORECAST ACHIEVED JNITIAL CR111 CAL 11Y --a-- -- - - -

IN111AL ELECTRICITY --- - - - - -

COMMERCIAL OPERATION - - - - - - -

1.16 - 9

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ . _ _ _ _ l

?

O d . - e T es c I r

_ l e u e N ut To 2 OE di I s 2

t 3 I C ev B TN hi I e k 1 w2 7 CE AR ct sca Mm Xa 4

7 ic 9 9 t -

7 R m ES 3 w 1 d 5 EU rg 0 s 4 VC

- n .

l a - I E on  :

0 u n n 9 TR fi 5 5 r a o 1 C rt 0BJR9 ET es pe RN RE t DV o CE td R n 0EEYE &P ra e

= MTBN E' we e AA O S oc t TNDDR E U pn o e EP a KT CI TE EL A

C dn .rdr o o i l

ON ee .ffftf DU LE PT et o n se))

- srnt vR1 4 J n D di ea eoeEE6 C Rm Giie L1 tthe(0 .

i cssc -

t ui yreiG T sr vtre N i t R niwE N s c U E

N$ Xn r N O EI veLR(

PE MD  :

OO CC 4 S M4 E

N T E O SD I

T TO C SC m s rso n U a D

E90 . mcni R 19 . usot O r i c R E N cct u E r E si a d We O S NTR T tl t ue anr P bm ENO semi uuotde r

e CEP nnt neh Dc N e I VE LER Daauoot AD OMMACLO M

S N

W N O-M123456 O W DT R O

IL T

F D -

MN O OG 5 .

$ M NR w T T DI C TT O I

N R MTC U O T UA P EME t E MSR

) e s e s

R nt n i

ar e ) )

2 lp o i c e v nnii N L i aal O

3 8 xe ec yo &oaepp n nttl .

A t. ( ngri irnxx E anot rgtt oee R . enitaiti conasi( (

mr ut et et il nuut gsesam nit raninarr rimiroe N)

N wiifaaeeeprxdprt erh OS OEf S MRR rOTEAOeO I R A - - - - - - - - _

0 T U E AO RA BC0 E FG H RM ,

U(

D  : e 2 +

e_

1 E

P 5 Y

T 8 .de E 0 T 2 t C

A 1 ds D 0 ed S 9 ce rh M.

oc 1 FS 8

8 - -

4 O

0- 0 N FS 0 0 -

9  : 0 1 9 t{l!!

M Y NIAGARA RUMOHAWK NtAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION f 30i PLAINFIELD nOAD, SYRACUSE. N.Y.1::212/ TELEPHONE (316) 4741611

.Tanuary 7, 1991 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission INPIL 0558 Attne Document Control Desk Vashington, D. C. 20555 Re: Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Docket No. 50-220 DPR-63 TAC No. 68570 Gentlement By letter dated November 20, 1990, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requested Niagara Hohawk to submit additional information regarding station blackout. The requested information was to be submitted by January 4, 1991, in order for the Staff to complete its evaluation of Nine Mile Point Unit 1. This letter is to inform you of a delay in our submittal.

Niagara Mohawk retained two outside consulting firms to assist in the preparation of our response to the Staff's request for additional information. This assistance included a reanalysis of reactor coolant system inventory, a transient analysis of Control Room heat-up, and an analysis of containment heat-up. The results of these analyses were received during the week of December 31, 1990. However, the actual hard copy documentation has not yet been received for thc. Control Room and containment heat-up analyses.

To provide assurance that these analyses are accurate and reflect present plant configuration, an internal independent reviev and verification vill be performed by Niagara Mohawk. Niagara Mohawk believes that the completion of its internal review is necessary based on the complexity of these analyses and their importance Jn demonstrating the ability of Nine Mile Point Unit 1 to withstand and recover from a station blackout. Therefore, we have chosen to delay our response until this review is complete. As discussed with our Project Manager, Mr. D. S. Brinkman, we plan to delay submitting our response until January 25, 1991.

Very truly yours, NIAGARA M0HAVK I?0VER' CORPORATION

,7 Y' .

C. D. Terry Vice President Nuclear Engineering AR/kms xc Regional Administrator, Region I Hr. V. A. Cook, Senior Resident Inspector Mr. R. A. Capra, Project Directorate No. I-1, NRR Hr. D. S. Brinkman, Project Manager, NRR Records Management 000551GG1 0 i

\

9 9101110299 910107 PDR ADOCK 05000220 p PDR

Indan Paint 3 Nucts:r Psw:r M:nl P O Box 215 Bucha mn, Now York 10$11 9' 4J36-8030

1. b New York Power 4# Authority I

January 03, 1991 IPO 91 001L IP3 91-002 j

Docket No. 50 286 License No. DPR 64 Mr. Thomas T. Martin Region I Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road Kin 6 of Prussia, PA 19406

Dear Mr. Martin:

In accordance with 10CFR50.54(q), one (1) copy of the most recent revisions to our Emergency Plan has been sont to the NRI Document Control Desk in Washington, D.C. and one (1) copy has been sent to vout office, Emergency Preparedness Section. These changes have been determined not to decrease the effectiveness of the Indian Point 3 Emergency Plan and the Plan, as changed, continues to meet the standards of 10CFRb0.45(b) and Appendix E.

In addition, as requested by your staff, a second copy has- been forwarded to your Emergency Preparedness Section.and one (1) copy has been provided to the IP 3 Resident NRC Inspector.

S iperaly ,

4 //

Joseph E. Russell Resident Manager Indian Point No. 3 Nuclear Power Plant JER/DB/bh cc: Document Control Desk (original)

U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Resident Inspector's Office Indian Point No. 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 337 Buchanan,.Ncw York g/ -

10511 /'  !

\0 9101110326 910103 l 4 DR ADOCK 05000286 3

.1 PDR y

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s

CCN 91-14nn2 I'lilLADELPlilA ELECTRIC COMPANY l'i.ACil IKTI'IUM K!UMIC POWill S1Nf!ON It. D 1.Itos 208

$( BL - Delt.i. I'rnnsylvania 17.416 etAcas surruns-Tiin Pow e a os t at tttaw (71') 4 W7014 D. II. Miller, Jr.

Vice hetident January 7, 1991 10 CFR 2.201 Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 U. S. Nucleat Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTN: Document Control Desk

SUBJECT:

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station - Units 2 & 3 Response to Notice of Violation (Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-277/90-18; 50-278/90-18)

Dear Sir:

In response to your letter dated November 29, 1990 which transmitted the subject inspection Report and Notice of Violation, we submit the attached response. The subject Inspection Report concerns a routine resident safety inspection during the period September 24 through October 29, 1990.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely, g )

/

cc: R. A. Burricelli, Public Service Electric & Gas T. M. Gerusky, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania J. J. Lyash, USNRC Senior Resident inspector T. T. Martin, Administrator, Region I, USNRC H. C. Schwemm, Atlantic Electric R.1. McLean, State of Maryland J. Urban, Delmarva Power 9101110320 910107 PDR ADOCK 05000277 3 O PDR /I {

• . Document Control Desk l

. Danuary 7, 1991 Page 2 bcc: J. A. Basilio 52A-5, Chesterbrook 'i G. J. Beck 52A-5, Chesterbrook J. A. Bernstein 51A-13.-Chesterbrook R. N. Charles 51A-1, Chesterbrook  !

Commitment Coordinator 52A-5, Chesterbrook'  ;

Correspondence Control Program 618-3, Chesterbrook-E. J. Cullen S23-1 Main Office A. D. Dycus A3-15, Peach Bottom E. P. Fogarty A4-4N, Peach Bottom J. F. Franz A4-15, Peach Bottom A. A. Fulvio- A4-15. Peach Bottom-D. R. Helwig -

51A-11 Chesterbrook R. J. Lees NRB- 53A-1, Chesterbrook J. M. Madara 53A-1, Chesterbrook C. J. McDermott S13-1, Main Office D. B. Miller, Jr. SM0-1 Peach Bottom PB Nuclear Records A4-25. Peach Bottom  ;

J. M. Pratt B-2-S, Peach Bottom  !

L. B. Pyrih 638-5 Chesterbrook '

J..T. Robb 51A-13 Chesterbrook D. M. Smith 52C-7, Chesterbrook i

)

E Document Control Desk

,, JWnupry 7, 1991 Page 3 Restatement of Violation I

i 10 CFR 50.55a(g) requires implementation of an Inservice Testing (IST) program l for pumps and valves whose function is required for safety in accordance with 1 the applicable edition'of the ASME Boiler and_ Pressure. Vessel Code, Section-XI. The applicable edition of the Code for the purpose of the IST program is  !

the 1980 Edition through Winter of 1981 addenda. Three examples of failure to adequately implement the provisions of the Code in administrative and technical procedures were identified:

1

1. Section XI, Article IWV 34.:J, requires that Category A and B valves  !

that cannot be exercised every.3 months during plant operation shall be exercised during cold sht tdowns. The " Peach Bottom Atomic' Power Station Units 2 and 3 Pump and Valve Inservice Testing Program,"

Section 5.2.2, states that valve testing will commence within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> after reaching cold shutdown and will continue until all tests are complete or the plant is ready to return to power. Any testing not completed at one. cold shutdown will be-performed _during subsequent cold shutdowns.

Contrary to the above, as of October'29, 1990, the licensee's IST program scheduling and implementing procedures did not contain provisions to ensure that cold shutdown testing is initiated consistently and in a timely manner, nor to ensure that all components are tested during periods of cold shutdown. As'a result, not all required testing was conducted during' periods of_ cold shutdown during this operating cycle.  !

2. Section XI, Article IWV 3510, requires that safety and relief; valves be periodically tested. The licensee's IST program. requests exemption from IWV 3510, and use of ANSI /ASME OM-1-1981_as~an alternative test requirement. Both IWV 3510 and OM-1 require that when a. valve fails to function properly during a regular. test, an i additional sample of valves will be tested.

Contrary to the above, as of_ October. 29, 1990, the licensee had not established IST program implementing procedures or responsibilities to ensure that the expanded test sample required following a test failure would be performed.

3. Section XI.-Article IWV 3410, states _that Category A and B valves shall-be exercised at least once every three months. The necessary.

valve disk movement.shall be determined by observing an appropriate indicator or observing indirect evidence, such as changes in system pressure or flow rate, which reflect disk position.-'The " Peach '

Document Control Desk Ja'nuqry 7, 1991 Page 4 Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3 Pump and Valve Inservice Testing Program," states that the core spray and residual heat removal minimum flow line check valves will be exercise tested quarterly in the forward direction.

Contrary to the above, as of October 29, 1990, the licensee had not established technically adequate procedures for performance of the forward direction testing of the core spray and residual heat removal minimum flow line check valves in that the procedures did not require observation of either direction or indirect evidence of valve disk movement.

This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement 1).

Cause of the Violation (Example 1)

Programmatic controls of the Peach Bottom Inservice Testing (IST) Program for testing valves at cold shutdown were not properly implemented. Surveillance Test (STs) were written to implement this testing; however, effective means to ensure that these tests were performed during cold shutdown were not put into place. Additionally, controls were not properly implemented to ensure that testing initiated during shutdown that was not completed prior to returning to power would be completed during a subsequent shutdown. Since the IST program  ;

STs are event dependent, +he program to issue and track routine STs does not '

effectively schedule these tests. A listing of the cold shutdown surveillance tests was forwarded to the ST Coordinator by the IST Coordinator, but the listing was used as a reference and for information only. Poor communication resulted in the lack of an action plan from either party to effectively track the progress of the unscheduled STs. There also was a lack of coordination to 4 ensure that other administration or programmatic controls were in place to verify that the components were tested at the correct frequency and tracked.

The potential for event dependent tests not being performed when required was identified by an in-house investigation, but corrective actions were not yet complete.

Corrective Action Taken During the Unit 3 mid-cycle outage, three of the appropriate cold shutdown tests were performed prior to plant restart. All cold shutdown surveillance tests have been included in the scope of the Unit 2 Refueling Outage, beginning January, 1991.

.Cause of Violation (Example 2)

During the implementation of the IST program, relief valve testing was placed in the Preventative Maintenance (PM) program. This was done to ensure that the valvec would be tested at the correct frequency, alleviating the need for additional surveillance test procedures. The requirement to ensure that expanded testing is performed following a test failure was addressed by

k Document Control Desk

' Ja'nuary 7,1991 Page 5 l

Administrative Procedure A-127, "In-Service Testing"; however, adequate implementing procedures were not written to address the additional testing. 1 The failure to initiate the appropriate controls to provide additional testing I following a test failure and the lack of communication between Maintenance and the IST group to ensure the testing was performed were the cause of non-compliance.

Corrective Actions Taken -

A review was conducted to verify that relief valves in the IST Program were included in the Preventative Maintenance Program. Additionally, a review of relief valves tested since the inception of the IST program w s conducted to determine the number of failures that have occurred where additional testing was not performed. This review identified only one occurrence where this requirement was not met. An effort is currently underway between the IST group and Maintenance Engineering to develop procedural controls that adequately address the requirements.

Cause of Violation (Example 3)

During the initial writing and subsequent review of the surveillance tests used to exercise the Core Spray (CS) and Residual Heat Removal (RHR) minimum flow check valves, steps to verify the opening of these valves were overlocked. Although quarterly testing is performed on each pump which verifies that the motor operated minimum flow valves open, verif'ication of check valve stroke determined by either direct or indirect observation was not performed.

Corrective Actions Taken A review of the appropriate STs rewritten by the ST Rewrite Project identified the inadequacy of the procedure for system testing. A Corrective Action Request (CAR) was initiated by the IST Coordinator to incorporate the appropriate testing into the relevant STs and to track these revisions to completion, in addition, the Nuclear Quality Assurance Division performed an audit to determine if additional component testing is adequate, or if any other programmatic weaknesses can be identified. As a result of this audit, there is a high level of confidence that other valves are appropriately tested.

Corrective Steps That Will Be Taken to Avoid Future Violations The Performance and Surveillance Group has developed an IST Program Review Plan which is scheduled for completion April 30, 1991. This review consists of six phases which are designed to assure program compliance with ASME Section XI for pump and valve testing, and to ensure consistency between PECo administrative procedures. Additionally, the specific implementation procedures or methods used to comply with the regulations are being reviewed for adequacy. During this review process methods to ensure proper cold shutdown testing is performed will be evaluated and the most appropriate methods will be implemented. The method to perform expanded relief valve

.' ,Opcument Jdnuary 7,Qontrol 1991 Desk-Page 6 i

testing following any setpoint test failure will be enhanced, as well as the-  !

process for the quarterly verification of minimum flow check valve disk i movement for the CS and RHR systems.

The appropriate scheduling, issuance, and tracking of IST ST's will also be enhanced through the completion of corrective actions associated with the recent review and. analysis of an in-house investigation report on surveillance-testing. The technical adequacy of the IST ST's and their aoherence to IST Program requirements will be confirmed through the ST Rewrite Project.

Date When Full Compliance Will Be Achieved '

I Full compliance will be achieved by April -30, 1991 after the IST program _;

revisions can be fully evaluated and implemented. Testing and inspection j requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g) are currently in compliance. Interim a compliance with the IST program until April 30, 1991 has been assured.

I a

a

)

a Y

~

1 i

--_r_--__-__~-_