IR 05000387/1981004
| ML17139A218 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1981 |
| From: | Mccabe E, Rhoads G, Troskoski W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17139A217 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-387-81-04, 50-387-81-4, NUDOCS 8106120400 | |
| Download: ML17139A218 (11) | |
Text
4 U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
50-387/81-04 Docket No.
50-387 License No.
Licensee:
Priority Category Facility Name:
1>>P<<t<<<<t:
Salem= Township, Pennsyl vania ion Inspection conducted:
February 2, 1981 - I'ebruary 27. 1981 Inspectors:
G,
,
Rh ds Res e t nsp tor date signed g. g. Tro ski, Reacto Inspector da e signed Approved by:
Ebe.c, gccabe, chief, Reactor Projects Section No. 2B, DRP7 date signed 9/ iz Izl date signed Ins ection Summar
'.
~ltl 8,
F b y 2 -
F b
y 27; 1881 bl p'
8, bll-887(81-.842
~Ar td:
2 tl
p tt bytb ld tl P t d.
187
.b d
inspector of: preoperational test review and preoperational test program imple-mentation.
The inspectors also performed plant tours and reviewed licensee actions on previously identified items.
The inspection involved 63 inspector-hours during both regular and backshift periods by the NRC resident inspector and a regional inspector.
Results:
Of the four areas inspected, two items of noncompliance were identified.
~aragraphs 2.c, and d)
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
1.
Persons Contacted DETAILS Penns lvania Power and Li ht Com an L. Adams,, Plant Supervisor of Operations R. Byram, Plant Supervisor of Maintenance T. Clymer, Site gAE D. Cassel, Senior Project Engineer D. Dunn, Resident Engineer F. Eisenhuth, Senior Compliance Engineer E. Figard, ISG Supervisor E. Gorski, Plant guality Supervisor J.
Graham, Plant Assistant J.
Green, Operations guality Assurance Supervisor C. Jaffee, ISG gC Engineer H. Keiser, Superintendent of Plant L. O'eill, Plant Technical Supervisor D. Thompson, Assistant Superintendent of Plant Bechtel Cor oration G. Bell, guality Assurance Engineer J. O'ullivan, Assistant Project Field Engineer The inspectors also interviewed other PPSL employees, as well as employees of Bechtel and General Electric Company.
2.
Licensee Action on NRC Findin s:
a.
(Closed)'ns ector Followu Item (387/80-10-04 FSAR Discre ancies in Sections 1.2.3 an 1.2.12.1.
During a preoperational test review of the 125 VDC batteries, the inspector had noted discrepancies in the FSAR test abstract for the 125 VDC system test, and the requirement to deliyer approved test to the NRC as described in Section 14.2.3.
On February 10, 1981 the inspector reviewed revision 17 to Section 14.2.3 of the FSAR which changed the commitment to make available approved pre-operational test to the NRC at least 60 days prior to their intended use.
The inspector also reviewed FSAR Revision 19 to Section 14.2.12.1 for pre-operational test P2.1 which deleted the Hydrogen Monitoring System as a
test prerequisite system, and changed the test objectives of the abstract to better define the battery charging capability test.
The inspector had no further questions.
This item is considered close en) Ins ector Followu Item (387/80-24-02)
Containment Atmosphere Circulation S stem Prep erational Test Discre ancies.
c ~
The inspector had reviewed Preoperational Test P60.1, Revision 1 and had given comments to the licensee for resolution.
On February 19, 1981, the inspector reviewed the Preoperational Test P60.1, Revision 2 for the contain-ment atmosphere circulation system.
The inspector noted all the comments had been resolved with the exception of the testing of the temperature ele-ments which were scoped into another system.
This item will remain open pending a review of the testing of the temperature elements.
0 en Ins ector Followu Item (387/81-02-05)
Reactor Buildin Crane Pre-o erations estrin
.
The inspector had reviewed Preoperational Test P99.1, Revision 1 and had given comments to the licensee on January 20, 1981.
On January 22, 1981 the inspector discussed the items with the Startup Test Engineer, who stated that certain parts of the test should have been performed as part of the Construction Testing.
On January 26, 1981 the inspector reviewed FCI-M-160.
Revision 0, Instruction for Dynamic Load Testing of the Reactor Building 125/5 Ton Overhead Bridge Cranes and noted this test did not resolve all the comments the inspector had raised.
On February 2, 1981 the inspector reviewed Bechtel Specification 8856-M-22, Revision 4, Technical Specification for Reactor Building Cranes.
Section 9.2.4 described the Acceptance Tests needed to be performed on the cranes and Section 9.2.5 stated Post Erection Operational Tests to be performed prior to allowing the crane to be used.
Testing required by this specifi-cation which was not performed per FCI-M-160, Revision 0 included the follo-wing:
(1)
Precision positioning of the crane with rated load to within 1/32 of an inch for the main hoist and. 1/16 of an inch for the auxiliary hoist.
(2)
Uncontrolled drop of the main hoist when lowering rated load should be less than 1/2 inch in event of power failure.
(3)
Measuring watts on bridge and trolley motors while lifting rated load.
(4)
Adjusting area limit switches for crane interlocks under rated load.
(5)
Each hoisting brake shown capable of braking rated load without, slip-page.
The inspector gave these comments to the Startup Test Engineer, the Assistant Superintendent of Plant, and the Bechtel guality Assurance Engineer on Feb-ruary 2, 198 On February 4, 1981 the inspector was told that this testing had not been performed as. required during the Construction Testing, and that the missing tests would need to be completed.
On February 5, 1981 the inspector in-formed the Assistant Superintendent of Plant that this was considered an item of noncompliance against
CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI.
(387/81-04-01)
3.
Plant Tour The inspector conducted periodic tours of accessible areas in the plant during normal and backshift hours.
During these tours, the following items were evaluated:
Hot Work: Adequacy of fire prevention/protection measures used.
Fire Equipment: Operability and evidence of periodic inspection of fire suppression equipment.
Housekeeping:
Minimal accumulations of debris and maintenance. of required cleanliness levels of systems under or following testing.
Equipment Preservation:
Maintenance or special precautionary measures for installed equipment, as applicable.
Component Tagging:
Implementation and observance of equipment tagging for safety, equipment protections and jurisdiction.
Instrumentation:
Adequate protection for installed instrumentation.
Logs: Completeness of logs maintained.
Security:
Adequate site construction security.
Cable Installation: Adequate precautions taken to prevent damage to in-stalled cables.
Communications:
Adequate public address system.
Equipment Maintenance and Controls: Corrective maintenance is performed in accordance with approved procedures, no unauthorized work activities on systems of equipment, no uncontrolled openings in previously cleaned or flushed systems or components.
4.
Preo erational Test Review a.
Core S ra S stem
(1)
References:
a )
Preoperational Test P51,,1, ReVision 1.
b}.
General Electric Core Spray System Design Specjfjcqtjqn 22R3053, Revision 0,.
(c).
General Electric Procedure 22A2271 AX Revision 0, pp~endix B,
Procedure GE-12 Low Pressure Core Sunray, (d)
General Electric Drawings 791E419HJ, Peyjsjon 2,
(e}.
FSAR Section 6,3,2, (f)
FSAR Section 7,3.
g)
FSAR Section 14,2,12,1, h}
Regulatory Guide 1,68, Revision 1,
(2},
Results:
(a)
The inspector reviewed reference (a) to ascertain whether com-mitments, and design criteria described jn pefepence (.b). thorough (h). were. met, The following discrepancies wepe noted duI"jng 'this review,
/
- (1}.
FSAR discrepancies noted in Inspection Report 387/80-.28 Item (387/80-28-01).
have not been corrected as of II'ey$$jon 19 to the FSAR.
(2)
Revision 19 to the FSAR revised FSAR drawing 7,3-9, Sheet 1.
This drawing revision ipcorrectly describes the initiation circuitry for the'core spray pumps.
(3)
FSAR Figure 6.3-5 lists discharge design pressure for the core spray system as 475 pounds per square:inch guage (pslg)
rather than 500 psig.
(4}
Appendix B to reference (a) states that analog loop cali-brations will be done using Technical Procedure TP j., 14, This Technical Procedure was deleted on October 21, 3.980, (5)
Low pressure relays E21A-K7A and E21A-K8A for system 1 and E21A-K7B and E21A-KBB were not energized together to assure that two low pressure signals will initiate the core spray systems.
(6}
The seal-in feature for Yalves HV-E21-1F005A and 1F005B as depicted on Drawing E155, Sheet 3, Revision 4 is not teste The inspector gave these comments to the Integrated Startup Group (ISG) Coordinator on February 17, 1981.
On February 27, 1981, the inspector informed the Assistant Superintendent of Plant that comment (5) and (6) above demonstrate that the design of the core spray system had not been adequately tested.
The inspector also stated that other comments previously provided to the licensee on Preoperational Test P60.1, Revision 1, Containment Atmosphere Circulation dealing with the automatic trip of all coolers following a loss of coolant acci-dent (387/80-24-02)
and P70.1, Revision 1, Standby Gas Treatment System dealing with automatic starts and trips of the standby gas treatment system (387/80-32-03)
did not provide adequate testing to fully test the design of the systems.
The inspector stated that this was con-trary to
CFR 50, Appendix 8, Criterion XI.
(387/81-04-02)
5.
Document Control a...
References:
(1)
Startup Administrative Procedure 7.1, Revision 0, Preoperational Test Program, February 3, 1978.
(2)
Startup Administrative Procedure 7.6, Revision 3, Preoperational/
Acceptance Test Procedure Control, October 4, 1979.
b.
Prep erational Test Procedure The inspector reviewed the following preoperational/acceptance test pro-cedures to verify that they were reviewed and approved in accordance with Administrative Procedures:
P57. 1, Revision 1, Uninterruptible AC Power, April 2, 1980.
A93.1, Revision 1, Turbine Lube Oil, February 9, 1981.
P2. 1, Revision 2, 125 Volt D.C., October 10, 1980.
P16.1, Revision 1, RHR Service Water.
During the audit of the above test procedures, associated prerequisites such as star tup work lists, startup field reports, temporary modifications, and startup work authorizations applicable to the par ticular tests were also reviewed for control of documentation and subsequent resolution.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
The inspector reviewed the following drawings that were or are being used by test personnel in the conduct of preoperational testing:
E150 Sheet 3, Revision
E324 Sheet 8, Revision 3 and
E150 Sheet 29, Revision 4 and
P57.1, Revision
E9, Sheet 20,, Revision 4 E10, Sheet I, Revision
E323, Sheet 6, Revision 5, 6, and
E328, Sheet 7, Revision
E238, Sheet 10, Revision
From discussions with the cognizant Startup Test Engineer and by comparison of drawing numbers referenced in the Preoperational Test Procedure to the con-trolled copy drawing numbers kept in the master stick files, the inspector determined that current copies w'ere,used in the above tests.
The inspector also determined several of the drawings were revised during the testing.
The re-visions were forwarded to the responsible Systems Engineer for review of possible impact on testing per administrative controls.
These revisions were checked against the "as-built" conditions, with any discrepancies being noted with appropriate corrective actions processed.
The inspector had no further
'uestions at this time.
7.
Desi n Chan es and Modifications a.
References (1)
Startup Administrative Procedure 6.8, Revision 3, Temporary Modifica-tion Control.
(2)
Startup Administrative Procedure 6.11, Revision 0, Design Change Control.
b.
~Scc e
The following design change packages were reviewed to determine that reviews, processing and implementation were in accordance with procedural controls:
DCP 15.13, Revision 0, Provide Electrical Isolation of Non-Class 1E Space Heater Circuits From Class 1E Circuits in MOV's.
DCP 290, Revision 0, Motor Actuator Conversion-Standby Liquid Control System.
DCP 373, Revision 0, RHR Pump Suctions Valve Interlock.
The above design changes were discussed with the cognizant Test Engineer.
From those discussions the inspector determined that design change packages followed one of two separate control paths, dependent upon whether=the 8-week system walkdown had been conducted.
If the DCP was issued before the walkdown, it is controlled by the construction side of the project.
After the walkdown, all DCP's are processed through the responsible Start-up Engineer via a Startup Work Authorizatiori (per A.D. 6. 11, Design Change Control).
The inspector verified that the Test Engineers were aware of
DCP's affecting their system and that the DCP's were reviewed for im-pact on Preoperational Testing.
The inspector had no further questions at this time.
8.
Meetin s Attended On February 13, 1981, the resident inspector attended a meeting in 8ethesda, Maryland between members of the licensee staff and NRR staff concerning ques-tions raised by NRR on Chapter 14 of the FSAR.
A separate letter discussing the contents of the meeting will be published.
9.
Exit Interviews At periodic intervals during the course of this inspection, meetings were held with facility management to discuss inspection and findings.