IR 05000397/1983012
| ML20023C569 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1983 |
| From: | Dodds R, Feil R, Toth A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20023C566 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-83-12, NUDOCS 8305170439 | |
| Download: ML20023C569 (7) | |
Text
,
.
.
-
.-
_
.
.
d
3
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
REGION V
Report No.
50-397/83-12'
Docket No.
50-397 License No.
CPPR-93 Licensee:
Washington Public Power Supply System P.-O.
Box 968
,
Richland, Washington 99352 Facility Name:
Washington Nuclear Project No.2 (WNP-2)
Inspection at:
WNP-2 Site, Benton County, Washington Inspection condacted:
March 1983
,
Inspectors:
DM A
</- f '/-R$
R'. A. Feil, Senior Resident Inspector Date Signed M' f f fm
'/-EV-Er3
'
'A. D. Toth, Knior Resident Inspector Date Signed Approved By:
Th NM k#
4/-2f-O R.' T. Dodds, Chief Date Signed Reactor Projects Section 1
Summary:
'
Inspection during March 1983 (Report No. 50-397/83-12)
- Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced resident inspection of i
preoperational test procedure review, witnessing, and independent inspection effort. The inspection involved 74 inspector-hours onsit'e by
-
,
the NRC operations and construction resident inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
t
,.
.
/
- ;1
., 0
!
.
8305170439 830426 PDR ADOCK 05000397 l
G PDR t
- -
r,-w.,-,,-,
.mv-,
-.e,#r,
-.,.r
-*,1._,,-
.., --_
,..m,
,,-.~..---em.v,
__-_,---,.,--r,
-.. - - +,,-,,.,-.--.-.%m2,r,,w.,--.4
(e
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)
- G. K. Afflerbach, Assistant Plant Manager
- G. L. Blackburn, Test Group Manager
'
D. S. Brassard, Test Engineer
- J..J. Bufis, Test Group Manager
,
C. A. Cauthon, Planning / Scheduling Supervisor W. S. Davison, Test Group Supervisor J. F. Demelo, Test Engineer W. J. Holle, Test Group Supervisor
~
- L. D. Kassakatis, Test Group Manager R. B. Koch, Test Group Supervisor R. L. Koenigs, Test Group Supervisor
- G. T. Larson, Administrative Supervisor J. C. Latta, Test Engineer G. R. Lawrence, Test Group Supervisor R. L. Lemon, Test Engineer
- J. D. Martin, Plant Manager M. A. Schmitz, Test Engineer J. D. Snyder, Test Engineer
- Denotes those present at monthly exit meeting.
The inspector conferred with other licensee and contractor parsonnel during the report period.
2.
General The inspectors observed activities in progress and facility status during general inspections and tours of the facility. Particular note was made of housekeeping, protection of equipment, and component and valve identification.
The inspectors discussed the status of components and equipment after a preoperational test but prior to turnover of the system to operations.
The inspectors stated that required operational surveillance and maintenance must be performed during that interim period and the necessary docunentation be available for inspection. The licensee stated
~
that surveillance and maintenance of equipment and systems which had been preoperational tested would be performed as appropriate in an operational mode.
The inspector attended several management status and operational meetings with the licensee and contractor personnel during the inspection period.
i
!
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
l l
l l
l
_
,
-. -.
.
-
~.
.
-.
.,
...
.,
,.
-
a
.,
,
r
_.
r-
.
3.
Preoperational Test Procedure Review.
,
Instrument Power
,
The inspector' reviewed Preoperational Test Procedure No. 46.7, Instrument Power. The inspector verified that the procedure-had
,
been written and appeared in accordance with the FSAR, Regulatory Guide 1.68, and other regulatory and licensee requirements. The-review resulted in some comments by the inspector and the responsible test engineer. Appropriate action was taken by the licensee to resolve these comments.
'
- '
' Residual Heat Removal System (RHR)
The inspector reviewed Freoperational Test Procedure No.,9.0,.
~
Residual Heat Removal System..The inspector verified that the procedure had been written and approved in accordance with the FSAR, Regulatory Guide 1.68, and other.regulatery and licensee requirements.
The procedure identified certain valves and interlock logic which
.
would be tested during the Nuclear Steam Supply System
.
. Preoperational Test. The test engineer stated that the RHR
!
procedure would be changed and the necessary logic would be tested during the RHR preoperational test.
In addition, the licensee stated that the' logic would be tested in Preoperational Test No.'15,
,
'
,
The FSAR states that the RHR discharge minimum flow valves will open when the main line flow is less than 550 gpm and will close'when the main line flow is greater than 550 gpm'.
The minimum flow requirement has been changed tar the NSSS supplier to _1400 gpm. The
inspector informed the licensee that even though the change was more
'"
conservative, the FSAR required changing to reflect the new
'
requirement. The licensee stated that since there are other changes
.'
made in requirements during the.preoperational testing phase which
,
differ from the FSAR, the change request to the FSAR would be made
<
at one time. This item is unresolved pending verification of FSAR
'
change to reflect the current minimum flow operational requirement.~
(50-397/83-12-01)
Section 14.2.12.1.7 of the FSAR states that the operation of the RHR-
i
.'
will be verified under its various modes of operation. -This
'
includes the steam condensing mode. The RHR POT states that the steam condensing mode will be tested during Power Ascension Testing
!
(PAT). The inspector informed the licensee that since the steam condensing mode of the RHR is to be tested during PAT'rather_than
' *
.
'
POT, the FSAR should reflect the actual testing to be done on the
'
RHR during POT and PAT. This item is unresolved pending verification that FSAR requirements have been revised to reflect actual POT and PAT of the RHR system.
(50-397/83-12-02)
-
,
t
!
. __ _ _-_- -,_ -.--
..
. - _. -. - - -.. - _ -. _,.
-. _..
.. ~... - _ _, _ _ -.. _.,
. _..
.
-
,
.
.
,
High Pressure Core Spray (HPCS)
'
i The HPCS tests include separate tests of the system logic, mechanical and hydraulic performance of the piping system, performance of the dedicated diesel generator system, and an integrated test of loss of power conditions. The inspector reviewed the procedures for the mechanical and hydraulic performance test of the completed system.
The inspector reviewed the test procedure relative to regulatory requirements, FSAR commitments, technical specification requirements, and NRC Regulatory Guide 1.68.
Requirements of FSAR Sections 6.3, 14.2.12.1.14, and 7.1.1 were considered. The
,
principal functional requirements appeared to have been incorporated into the procedure, and the acceptance criteria were consistent with those identified in the governing license application documents.
The test procedure contains acceptance criteria commensurate with the parameters of FSAR Table 6.3-2 and Figure 6.3-2a with the following exceptions:
a.
There appeared to be an inconsistancy between these criteria:
The FSAR Figure 6.3-2a shows Modes A and B testing at 1550 gpm/
1145 psia., whereas Table 6.3-2 shows a system parameter of 1650 gpm/1110 psid (1125 psia). The inspector also noted that the operators training manual describes operation at 1650 gpm/1130 psid (1145 psia). The test procedure specified 1550 gpm conditions. The Supply System representative stated that this would be investigated. The inconsistent criteria for Mode A and 3 flow and pressure is unresolved.
(Unresolved Item 397/83-12-03)
b.
The FSAR requires a capability to return to injection line-up conditions from a recirculating test mode, upon receipt of an injection signal. The test procedure included such a test, which involves timing of various valve openings and closings.
However, the test engineer advised that this test may not be run at this time, due to lack of pressure in the reactor vessel and possible runout conditions on the pump and possible cavitation. The final resolution of this matter will be-j examined at a future date, relative to assuring that system capabilities are fully demonstrated.
(Follow-up item 397/83-12-04)
The inspector interviewed, in-depth, the responsible test engineer, relative to the requirements of the procedure, the bases, and the mechanics of each step. This included inspection of the system primary and secondary flow paths and electrical and instrumentation equipment locations relative to diagrams presented in the FSAR. The individual appeared knowledgeable in the details of the installed system, but somewhat weak in his kno1 wedge of the FSAR and Technical Specification requirement detailed implementation in the test procedure, particularly as related to the unresolved matters
--
.
.
identified above. Also, he was not aware of the recent Potential Findings Reports issued by the Findings Review Committee in conjunction with the WPPSS Design Verification Program (this program has been reviewing the residual heat removal, high pressure core spray, and feedwater cystems).
Conversations with the WPPSS startup supervision indicated some question as to management's expectations regarding the test engineers' scope of responsibility, in view of the review function of the Test Working Group. This was clarified in telephone conversations between the NRC regional management and WPPSS management.
WPPSS management reaffirmed the intent that the test engineer remain cognizant of the applicable requirements and manner of implementation for his assigned system.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Preoperational Test Witnessing Standby Liquid Control System The inspector witnessed part of the system preoperational test.
This involved steps 5.3.8 to 5.3.23 of the test procedure, demonstrating sufficient NPSH for the injection pump "B" during ratgd flow at simulated reactor vessel back pressure. This included
-
110 F water in the borated water supply tank. The inspector also interviewed the_ test engineer and the Supply System operations quality assurance engineer (who was performing a surveillance of this activity). With the supply tank nearly empty, there was no
~
evidence of punp cavitation.
Instrument Power The inspector witnessed part of the system preoperational test, whch involved steps 5.1.20 to 5.2.9 of the test procedure, PT-46.7-A.
This demonstrated capability of automatic load shifting of the IN-1 inverter between the normal AC power source. The transfer was made with 105 amperes AC current and 235 volts AC, with no unanticipated events. Appropriate control room alarmt were observed and verified.
This activity was monitored by a Supply System operations quality assurance engineer, who checked training and certification of personnel, calibration of equipment, status of unresolved construction matters prior to test, and documentation of any events or exceptions occurring during the test. His activities were documentated in Surveillance Report 2-83-27.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Control Rod Drive System (CRD)
The inspector witnessed portion of Preeperational Test No. 13.1, Control Rod Drive System (Hydraulic). The portion of the test witnessed consisted of the differential pressure test.
These tests are made to determine defect in directional control valves and
-
.
.
~
~
~
.
excessive CRD drive line friction'and are determined by measurement, analysis and comparison of CRD piston-over and piston-under differential pressures. The measurements are made by photographing--
,
oscilloscope indications and comparing these results with trace-r
,
photographs obtained by General Electic.
The inspector verified that the test was being conducted-in
=
.
accordance with the procedure with qualified personnel. The
.
,
inspector observed that the procedure steps did not conform to the actual test operation. The test engineer stated that a correction of the nonconforming steps would be made in the test summary of the-preoperational test procedure.
Changes to the preoperational test procedure are identified and noted in the Test Summary of the procedure. The inspector was unable to track some of these items by the date entered into the test summary. The inspector stated that the items entered into the test summary should be identified by test' procedure step, as well as the date, to provide better traceability. The licensee agreed to adopt this method.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Preoperational Test Program The following significant activities of the preoperational test program occurred during this report period.
- Test Completed PT 88.0-A Diesel Generator Building H AND V
HPCS Diesel Generator Reliability Testing.
- PT 55.0-A Tower. Makeup System
-
PT 57.0-A Plant Service Water
' Control Rod Drive Differential Pressure
'
PT 38.0-A Fuel Pool Cooling
,
PT 46.7-A Instrument Power i
Other Significant Activities Local leak rate testing of containment isolation valves
Disassembly and inspection of MSIVs
Initial roll of RCIC turbine
>
Baseline inservice inspection (ISI) of the reactor pressure
<
i vessel started
<
.
,
i t
.,
_ ~ __. - - -.
.
. _ -
___._
.
.
.
. _. _
, _ _
..
.6
,
6.
Unresolve'd Items Unresolved items are. matters about which more informatica is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items,. items of
' noncompliance, or deviations. Unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraph 3.
7.
. Management Meeting
.
The inspectors met with the licensee's representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) on April 4, 1983, to discuss the results of the inspection efforts and to receive.a status report on the preoperational test.
'
'
program.
.
!
,
I-y
,
A
d i
T b
i
's i
.
t
.
l-
+
Y R
,
-
>
j.
.
!* -
_. __ _ _ _....__ _,_ _ _.--_ _ _ _-..-.--_-_.__.. _ __.--_..____,_ ~
., _ ___ _.. _ _ - - _. _. _.,
-