IR 05000412/1986020

Insp Rept 50-412/86-20 on 860721-25.No Noncompliance Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Preoperational Test Program,Including Review of Joint Test Group Approved Preoperational Test Procedures & Qa/Qc Interface

ML20214J505
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	08/07/1986
From:	Eselgroth P, Van Kessel H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20214J502	List: IR 05000412/1986020 ML20214J500
References
50-412-86-20, NUDOCS 8608150015
Download: ML20214J505 (10)

Text

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /86-20 Docket N License No. CPPR-105 Category B Licensee: Duquesne Light Company Post Office Box 4 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Facility Name: Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2 Inspection At: Shippingport, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted: July 21-25, 1985 Inspectors: [k 8-7- %

HT F. vanKes , Reactor Engineer date Approved by: f-7- %

F. W. Eselgro,ty, Chief, Test Programs date Section, Opebstions Branch, DRS Inspection Summary: Inspection on July 21-25, 1986 (Inspection No. 50-412/86-20)

Areas Inspected: Routine Unannounced Inspectica of the Preoperational Test Program, including the review of Joint Test Group approved preoperational test procedures, witnessing of the Containment Instrument. Air Compressor test, review of activities in the QA/QC interface and the review of unresolved items identified by the inspector in previous inspections. An independent review was made of the Human Engineering Deficiencies (HEDs) of the Main Control Board (MCB)

with regard to their resolution and status of resulting MCB changes. An independent review was made of the phase - 1 test results for Motor operated and manual valves with regard to valve position indicatio Results: No items of non-compliance were identified NOTE: For acronyms not defined, refer to NUREG-0544, " Handbook of Acronyms and Initialisms".

%$8 DO G

. - - _ _

.

,

!

.

.

DETAILS Persons Contacted Duquesne Light Company (DLCl D. Butcr, Maintenance Engineer

• A. W. Crevasse, Deputy QA Manager

• N. J. Daugherty, Systems Test Director J. J. Dusenberry, QA Surveillance Supervisor

• J. D. Johns, Supervisor QA Surveillance J. R. Kasunick, Maintenance Director J. W. Matlick, Senior Mech. Test Specialist F. Michaels, Startup Engineer

• T. P. Noonan, Superintendent Operations Maintenance C. O'Neill, Nuclear Operations Engineer J. S. Pattersen, St:rtup Engineer M. Pavlick, Director Support Services

• L. M. Rabenau, Compliance Engineer T. Reckart, Startup Engineer C. K. Schulte, PRC Chairman F. Schuster, Nuclear Operations Supervisor J. Simpter, Mech. Test Specialist

• R. J. Swiderski, Startup Manager S. P. Verma, Assistant Director Startup Proof Testing R. G. Williams, Supervisor System Test Software Development R. C. Wittschen, Licensing Engineer (SWEC)

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• L. J. Prividy, Resident Inspector

• Denotes those present at exit interview on July 25, 1986 2. Licensee Actions on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item 50-412/86-18-02, " Retention of RCS Hydro. Metal Surface Temperature Recorder Charts."

Scope The reorder charts, with the metal surface temperature data taken during the RCS Hydrostatic Test, were not being retained in the permanent test fil For view of the absence of complete records on the reactors water temperature, the inspector felt that these recorded data should be retain-ed to support the validity of the tes __ . .-- _ _ _ . _

__

.

-

Discussion It was determined that the metal temperatures for the components were also recorded manually throughout the test. The availability of these manual test data makes the availability of the recorder charts less importan The same temperature data (from the recorder charts) were also plotted on a graph (temperature versus time).

Findings The inspector has no further questions on this item. This item is close . Preoperational Test (POT) Program 3.1. Test Procedure Review Scope The test procedures listed in Attachment A were reviewed for adminis-trative and, selectively, for technical adequacy and to verify that the test planning satisfies regulatory guidance and licensee commit-ment Discussion The procedures were examined for the attributes as listed in Inspec-tion Report 50-412/86-11, paragraph Findings No unacceptable conditions were noted in the review of these proce-dure .2. Test Witnessing Scope Selected steps of Procedure S0V-2.34.03, " Containment Instrument Air System Test," were witnessed by the inspecto Test witnessing by the inspector included observations of:

Overall crew performance

Use of latest revised and approved procedure by test personnel Designation of one person in charge of conducting the tests

- _ -

l

.

Availability of sufficient test personnel to perform the tests

Coverage of test prerequisites

Use of acceptance criteria to evaluate test results Verification that plant supporting systems are in service In-service status of calibrated special test equipment required by the test procedure Adherence to the test requirements of the test procedure during the tests Timely and correct action by test personnel during the perfor-mance of the tests Data collection for final analysis by test personnel Discussion The test was conducted in the location of the instrument air compres-sors in the Service Building. The inspector noted that all permanent instruments used in the test, had calibration stickers showing cali-bration dates earlier than the calibration (period) expiration dat The same observation was made for the temporary test instrument All of the sticker information was recorded in the test report as require During the execution of step 39 the A compressor stopped suddenly. Quick action (power shut off) by the responsible test engineer prevented possible increased equipment damage. The test was discontinued. This interruption of the test was duly recorded in the test log. A test deficiency report was generated in accordance with the newly revised procedure in SUM. Later investigation of the in-cident revealed that the equipment was undamaged and that the test

! could be continued.

l Findings i

No violations were identified by the inspecto . Independent Inspection Effort 4.1. Valve Position Indicator l Scope i

Additional phase-1 test results were reviewed for the checks perfor-med on manual and motor operatad valves of different valve types and for the correct installation of the valve position indication devic ._

. _ .- - ._ . .. .

.

l In addition, a number of manual and motor operated valves (6) of different type, as listed in attachment B were selected for physical inspection in the fiel References See Inspection Report 50-412/86-18, Attachment Discussion The review of the additional Test Deficiency Report did not reveal any problems with valve position indication. The inspector selected a number of manual and motor operated valves for inspection on sit These valves had a variety of valve position indication devices as identified in Attachment B of this report. All of t' (6) valves were operated by qualified operators to repeat the p! se-1 test (Procedures MTP-90), 942) as it applies to valve posi 3- indicatio All of these tests had positive results. Arrows on h wheels were pointing correctly. Position indicators were in the < rect posi-tion, as labelle The Henry Pratt butterfly valve of the sample, 2SWS-187, has a valve position pointer which is mounted on a stem penetrating the valve gear box. A set screw holds the pointer in a fixed position. As observed at other nuclear plants, the set screw is not always firmly screwed down on the shaft in which case the pointer may be in a indifferent positio In this particular case, however, the set screw made good contact with the shaf Findings No discrepancies or violations were noted by the inspector.

t 4.2. Human Engineering Deficiencies (HEDs) of Main Control Board (MCB)

l Scope l

The HEDs identified some time ago during the referenced human engi-neering surveys of the MCB were reviewed by the inspector for scope and schedule of the corrections. The objective was to determine what l corrections would be completed prior to the Hot Functional Test.

l References

'

(1) Table 5.1 of Human Engineering Report, " Summary of Human Engi-neering Discrepancies" 1985.

.

l t

l t _

-_ - . _ _ _ _ - - . __ __

. _ _ .

.

(2) Human Engineering Deficiency Report No. 2BC3-3025, dated February 27, 198 Discussion Each of the HEDs shown in ref.1 is categorized. The HEDs of parti-cular interest to the inspector were the ones with label and demarca-tion problems. Controls and instruments should be grouped together by system and function. The MCB in its present state is without good labels for the instruments and without mimics and demarcatio Efforts are underway to implement the corrective actions for the identified HEDs. For each of the HEDs a Human Engineering Discrep-ancy (HED) Report is made out. This HED report identifies the speci-fic problem and recommends a solution to same. A typical HED Report is shown in reference 2. The engineer in charge of the HED program informed the inspector that the schedule for the HED work calls for painting of panels early in August of this yea Labeling will follow shortly thereafte Final demarcation of instruments would not take place until the end of this year. Management, however, emphasized that the operators would be given tape to suit themselves on demarcation needs during the Hot Functional Tests. Final demarcation would be based on the operator experience during the preoperational testin Findings The inspector has no further questions on HEDs at this tim . QA/QC Interface Scope The participation of the Duquesne Light QA Surveillance Group in the pre-operational test program was evaluated by the inspector. Samples of the

surveillances performed on the most recently performed preoperational

! tests were obtained for this review.

l Discussion For continuation of the assessment of QA/QC involvement in the preopera-

tional test program, the inspector reviewed the surveillance reports as i listed in Attachment C. Two of the six surveillances listed showed defi-ciencie For the case of OPS-03-86 a xerox copy of a " controlled copy" was used for the test. This " working copy" did not have verification signature and dates to verify its validity as a working copy (as required by Section VI.H of SUM 3.4.4). Startup management confirmed this item to be a deviation from SUM. The operators apparently were not aware that they were working with an invalid copy of the procedure, which indicates that they had not read the applicable section in SUM.

!

l

.

"

4 The other deficiency was at+. ached to P0T-08-86 and concerned the absence of calibration on the permanent plant pressure gauges on the pressure

, regulators and the gates for the seals of the Fuel transfer Canal and Cask Area. Startup Management, in their response letter, pointed out, however, that the test did not require these gauges to be calibrated and, hence, those was no SUM violatio Findings The deficiency identified in OPS-03-86 once again (referring to RCS Hydro deficiencies) demonstrates that the operators and test engineers are not fully aware of all of the administrative requirements in the Startup Manual (SUM). Startup management, however, is aware of this and is providing additional training to counteract this tren . Exit Interview At the conclusion of the site inspection, on July 25, 1986, and exit inter-view was conducted with the licensee's senior site representatives (denot-ed in Section 1). The findings were identified and previous inspection items were discusse At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspector. Based on the NRC Region I review of this report and discussions held with licensee representatives during this inspection, it was determined that this report does not contain informa-tion subject to 10 CFR 2.790 restrictions.

l l

l

!

!

l r

,-. - - _ , , _ - - - _ , . - . -, ,---- ,, -- - - - - - - - - - - . . -

.

.

ATTACHMENT A to 50-412/86-20 Procedure Reviews Proc. N Procedure Title Rev. No. Approved JTG P0.2.06.02 RCP Initial Performance 0 07-09-85 1,

'

P0.2.06.06 Testing of Pzzr Relief Tank 0 06-04-85 PORVs and Temperature Alarms P0.2.06.07 Przr Pressure and Level Control Test 0 05-28-86 P0.2.11A.01 Low Head S1 Pumps and Controls Test 0 04-28-86 P0.2.21A.01 Atmos. Steam Dump and Residual Heat 0 04-17-86'

Release Valve Te t SOV.2.20.03 Fuel Pool and Refueling Cavity . 0 01-27-86 Purification Syst.em Test S0V.2.34.03 Containment Instrument Air System Test 0 07-17-86

!

I i

I i

_ , _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ .

.

.

ATTACHMENT B to 50-412/86-20 Valves Inspected For Valve Position Indication Valve N Valve Type Make Position Indication 2CHS*20 Gate / Manual W Arrow on handwheel; CCW to open indicator (in slot) on rising ste CHS*51 Ball / Manual Contomatic By handle with slotted hole for one way in-sta11ation. Open with handle in flow di CHS*604 Dia./ Manual ITT-Grinnell Arrow on handwheel; CCW to open Rising stem for pos. indicatio CHS*MOV Gate /MOV W

-

Pos. Ind. mounted on

--81308 (Limitorgue) valve stem through slot

+ Manual in housing. Arrow on handwheel, CCW to ope CHS*MOV Globe /MOV Velan Arrow on handwheel, CCW

--308A (Limitorgue) to open. Stem extension

+ Manual through hole in top of housing + pos. marke WS-187 Butterfly / Manual Pratt Arrow on handwheel, CCW to open, pointer on gearbox mounted on stem w/ set screw.

l

9 l

!

. . . - , - - . . . - .

.. . - -

..

.

ATTACHMENT C to 50-412/86-20 Review of QA Surveillance Deficiency Reports (SDRs)

SDR N Description of Activity Test Proc. N Date Reviewed OPS-03-86 "On the spot change" TOP-36B-30 5-22-86 number TOP-368-30A (Temp.0P. Proc.)

(Deficiency #1)

POT-08-86 Fuel Pool Leak Test P0-2.20.02 6-09-86 Permanent Press Gaugas not calibrated (Def.#1)

.

POT-11-86 Fuel Pool Cooling System P0-2.20.01 7-08-86

,

P0T-12-86 Batteries, Inverters, PO-2.39.01 7-08-86 Chargers Tes SOV-07-86 Instrument Air System Test SOV-2.34.02 4-25-86 S0V-19-86 Wet Pipe and Deluge S0V-2.33C.02 7-08-86 Sprinkler System Test i

, , ----erm -, e-- ---- ,-- - -- - - ---- e--- .,.-e.- - - ~ -,--,a- c - -~ n- -