IR 05000412/1986022

Insp Rept 50-412/86-22 on 860818-22.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Preoperational Test Program,Including Procedure Review,Qa/Qc Review & Test Witnessing

ML20210H760
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	09/11/1986
From:	Briggs L, Vankessel H, Denise Wallace NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20210H747	List: IR 05000412/1986022 ML20210H742
References
50-412-86-22, NUDOCS 8609260294
Download: ML20210H760 (10)

Text

,

>.

.

'

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

j Report N /86-22

. Docket N !

License N CPPR-105 Category B

! Licensee: Duquesne Light Company P.O. Box 4 l

Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Facility Name: Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2 J

Inspection At: Shipp_ingport, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted: August 18-22_, 1986

Inspectors: . k '

9'U~

H. T.'vanKessel, Reactor Engineer date

&J /f' dba- 9 - Ii- GG, D. T. Wallace, Reactor Engineer date q Approved by: 9fh[

L. Briggs,f)pdef,TestProgramsSection, date OB, DRS Inspection Summary: Inspection on August 18-22, 1986 (Inspection No. 50-412/

86-22)

,

i Areas Inspected: Routine Unannounced Inspection of the Preoperational Test Program, including 'the review of JTG (Joint Test Group) approved procedures for Preoperational Tests, witnessing of one preoperational test, the review of activities in the QA/QC interface and the review of unresolved items identified by the inspector in previous inspections. An independent review i and inspection was made of 8 selected temporary strainers as to their actual l installation and removal prior to system operation.

Results: No violations were identified.

NOTE: For acronyms not defined, refer to NUREG-0544, " Handbook of Acronyms l and Initialisms."

,

8609260294 860918 PDR ADOCK 05000412 G PDR

. . _ _ . _ . . ___ . _ _ _ , _ - . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ - - . , - _ .

.

.

.

DETAILS Persons Contacted Duquesne Light Company (DLC)

• C. Callaway, Supervisor Startup Group (SVG)

• A. W. Crevasse, Deputy QA Manager

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

• J. P. Godleski, Senior Test Engineer E. J. Horvath, Engineering

• J. D. Johns, Supervisor QA Surveillance J. W. Matlick, Senior Mech. Test Specialist M. R. Miller, Startup Engineer J. S. Patterson, Startup Engineer P. J. Marcuocz, Senior Procedure Engineer

• T. P. Noonan, Superintendent Operations and Maintenance

• L. M. Rabenau, Compliance Engineer

• R. J. Swiderski, Startup Manager

• L. P. Williams, Director Startup R. C. Wittschen, Licensing Engineer (SWEC)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W. M. Troskoski, Senior Resident Inspector (Unit 1)

J. E. Beall, Senior Resident Inspector (Unit 2) Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (0 pen) Unresolved Item 50-412/86-11-01, " Administrative Non-Compliances during Cold Hydro" Scope:

A number of surveillance reports prepared by the QA Surveillance Group (see Attachment B of IR 50-412/86-11) identified several noncompliances with the Startup Manual (SUM) and shortcomings of the SUM itself. In this inspection, the Startup Management responses to the QA identified test deficiencies were reviewed for adequacy and completenes Reference Duquesne Light memorandum BVPS: RJS: 12241: 3656, from R.J. Swiderski to C.E. Ewing, " Correction to Letter No. BVPS: RJS: 12241: 3635, dated July 14, 1986", dated August 11, 1986 l

. _ . _ _ __ _ _ _

.

. 3

..

Discussion All seven deficiencies, as identified in Attachment B of Inspection Report 50-412/86-11, have been addressed adequately by the applicant with

! the exception of one. The response to this item is being prepared and should be available in the near future. In addition the inspector

,

reviewed a correction letter received by QA (see reference) that

! clarified one of the response Findings Lite.7see management has responded vigorously to the deficiencies identified by Startup QA. Their (QA) findings in combination with the findings of the inspector in this inspection period; however, point to the need for further revision of the SUM (see Paragraph 3.2). This

'

unresolved item will remain open until the remaining management response has been received for revie (0 pen) Unresolved Item 50-412/86-18-01, " Test Deficiencies of Cold Hydro" Scope

A number of test deficiencies were recorded during Cold Hydro but a report sheet specifying corrective action on theses items was not available at t

that time. This information had to be incorporated after the tes Progress on incorporating the above report sheet was reviewed by the inspector.

'

Discussion A Test Deficiency Report (TDR) Form was developed by Startu It was added to a new Section of the SUM (section 8) in the spring of this year

.

'

after Cold Hydro. These TDRS have been added to a significant number of cold hydo reports approximately 50. Startup management is presently preparing a computerized listing of these TDRs to achieve administrative control. They will also be added to the general open item lis Startup management agreed to prepare special folders for those safety significant test deficiencies requiring system retes Some items requiring only functional component retests may also be included in the folder program depending on the safety significance of the componen Fin. dings l This item (412/86-18-01) will remain open until all (backfitted) TDRs on Cold Hydro have been identified, prepared, and reviewed for acceptability of the proposed corrective action.

l

._ . . . - - - - . -

I

- .- . 4

. Preoperational Test (POT) Program 3.1 Rest Procedure Review

-

Scope The test procedures listed in Attachment A were reviewed for administrative and, seiectively, for technical adequacy and to verify that test planning satisfies regulatory guidance and licensee

, commitment Discussion

!

The procedures were examined for the attributes listed in Inspection Report 50-412/86-1 In the case of P0-2.06.12, " System Vibration and Thermal Exapnsion Testing during Hot Functional Testing", several systems were not

,

'

included in the scope of the test (section 1A) but were listed in Attachment A of the same procedure. This discrepancy was brought to the attention of the applican ! Findings

Apart from the discrepancy noted above, no unacceptable conditions j were noted in the review of these procedures, j 3.2 Test Witnessing Scope Selected steps of Procedure PO-2.07.02, " Boric Acid System Test" were witnessed by the inspector including observation of the attributes listed in Inspection Report 50-412/86-20.

i Discussion The pneumatic test device used to simulate Volume Control Tank Level was inspected. The device is made by Wallace and Tiernan with instrument tag No. CSLIG-I-060. It had been last calibrated on

,

March 14, 1986 and was due for recalibration on March 16, 1987. A l number of test deficiencies developed as the test progressed. These test deficiencies were duly recorded by the test engineer as 1 required by section 8 of the SU i l

, 1 i

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

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

.

. 5

In the case of test deficiency No.15 it was noted that the corrective

. action was decided on quickly by the test engineer and coordinator

!

after keen analysis of the system logic diagrams involved. A retest was accomplished successfully. It was noted however that the form f

for the test deficiency has no sign-off provision for the responsible parties concerning the decision for retest and/or continuation of the test after evaluation of the deficiency and corrective actio The On Site Operation Supervisor (0 SOS) is also involved in this decision but his involvement is not evident on the form. Startup Management has agreed to discuss the problem in the forthcoming JTG meetin The above is Unresolved Item 50-412/86-22-0 In the case of Test Deficiency No.16 (Step. VII B.118 and 119) pump B could not be started in auto. Initial trouble shooting was not effective because startup was unaware of system changes being imple-

'

mented. The Field Change Notice (FCN) and the Engineering and Design Change Request (E & DCR) for this modification were tracked in paral-lel. Also, the elementary drawing involved had two mistakes on it which led the test engineer to check the wrong relays. It was later

established that the system modification had physically been done correctly and that the retest could proceed. There still remains the

problem of the parallel paper paths and the design and installation control of design modifications. The above is Unresolved Item 50-412/86-22-02 pending further NRC revie Findings

! Apart from the two unresolved items, identified above, no 3 unacceptable conditions were encountered during the test.

i 4. Independent Inspection Effort

! Scope Eight temporary strainers were selected at random to determine if the l administrative controls for their installation and removal were

effective. The selected strainers are identified in Attachment References

!

Inspection Report 50-412/86-11, section 4

,

, JTG Policy Statement, Policy Number 084, " Removal of Pump Suction

Piping Temporary Strainers", dated February 14, 1986 (JTG Meeting

113)

i Jumper and Lifted Lead Log for system 20

' Jumper and Lifted Lead Log for system 7 i

!

!

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

.

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

.

.

. 6 Discussion

! The status of each of the eight selected strainers was determined by field inspection. This status (installed or not) is shown on Attachment Also shown on Attachment B is the status of each corresponding pump

,

in terms of SVG jurisdiction. Attachment B shows that the 3 AFW Pumps and the 3 Charging Pumps have the temporary strainers installed. These pumps have not been turned over to startup for system operatio The Boric Acid transfer Pumps (2), however, have been turned over to SVG but the strainers are still installe It was noted (note 3 on Attachment B) that, in contrast with the other 2 sets of pumps, there was no note on the flow diagram to remove these strainers prior to operation. There also was no prerequisite in the

'

preoperational test procedure for these pumps to have the strainers re-moved prior to the test as is required for administrative control. This item, however, was identified in the " Jumper and Lifted Lead Log" (see ref. 4 above) in response to the JTG policy statement on temporary strainers (see ref 2). In this policy statement JTG acknowledges the prerogative of SVG to keep the temporary strainers installed but then the

'

strainer must be added to the " Jumper and Lifted Lead Log" for tracking purposes. The same policy statement includes the requirement that the removal of temporary strainers be treated as a prerequisite to the per-formance of all testing. This implies that this prerequisite should be shown in the pertinent preoperational test procedure. This was not the case for the Boric Acid Transfer (BAT) Pump The inspector discussed the above with the licensee. The licensee re-presentative agreed that PO-2.07.02 should contain a prerequiste step to remove the temporary strainer Findings

'

The inspector informed the licensee that the above would receive further NRC review to determine the adequacy of administrative controls concerning temporary strainers. This item is unresolved (412/86-22-03).

5. 0A/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.

!

f f

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

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

_ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _

i

s

. 7

.

Discussion

For continuation of the assessment of QA/QC involvement in the preoperational test program, the inspector reviewed the surveillance

reports as listed in Attachment None of the surveillance reports showed unsatisfactory conditions prevailing during the preoperational

,

test i Findings

!

No unacceptable conditions were identifie . Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to determine wether they are acceptable, an item of noncompliance, or a deviation. New unresolved items in this report are identified in paragraphs 3.2 and . Exit Interview At the conclusion of the site inspection, on August 22, 1986, an exit interview was conducted with the licensee's senior site representatives (denoted 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 restriction l

!

,

!

'.

i

_ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ . . _ . _ . . _ . . _ _ . ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . . _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ . _ - _ _ _

__ . ._ - _ _ __ _ _ _

.

.

'

.

i

! Attachment A l '

to 50-412/86-22 Procedure Reviews i

'

Proc. N Procedure Title Rev. N Approved by JTG*

'

P0.2.01A.01 Reactor Trip Switch- 0 5-30-86 gear and Control Rod Drive Motor Generator Power Supply Test i P0.2.128.01 Containment Leakage 0 12-17-85 Monitoring System j P0.2.06.12 System Vibration and 0 05-28-86

'

Thermal Expansion Testing During Hot Functional Testing P0.2.14A.02 Post Accident Sampling 0 05-29-86 System Test P0.2.450.01 QA Category I Heat 0 07-30-85 Tracing System Test

, Category I j * Joint Test Group l

t i

..

,

'

I

'

l

!

- _ - - . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _____ ______ ___.._ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ . _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ , _ , . - _

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

_ _ _ _ _ _ . ___ . _ .- ._ . ._ _ _ . . _ _ . . _

. -

l Attachment B

,

TEMPORARY STRAINERS SURVEY i

i STRAINER PUMP IN STRAINER PUMP. N PUMP SERVICE STR. N INSTALLED 7 SUG JUR7 Make/Model/ Size 2 FWE* P23 A AFW PUMP STRT-100 Yes No Permutit/

(MD) (Note 1) WCB-106A/6" 1 2 FWE* P23B AFW Pump STRT-101 Yes No Permutit/

(MD) (Note 1) WCD-106A/6"

'

2FWE*P23C AFW Pump STRT-102 Yes No Pe rmut i t/

(TD) (Note 1) WCB-106A/6" 2CHS*P21A Cha rging Pump STRT-105 Yes No Permutit/

(Note 2) CF8-106A/6"

! 2CHS*P218 Cha rging Pump STRT-106 Yes No Pe rmu t i t/

! (Note 2) CF8-106A/6" 2CHS*P21C Cha rging Pump STRT-107 Yes No Pe rmut i t/

+

(Note 2) CF8-106A/6" 2CHS*P22A Boric Acid STRT-103A Yes Yes Pe rmu t i t /

. Transfer Pump (Note 3) CF8-104A/3" 2CHS*P228 Boric Acid STRT-104B Yes Yes Pe rmut i t/

Transfer Pump (Note 3) CF8-104A/3" f Note 1: AFW Flow Diagram, S&W# 12241-RM 45B-7, Note 1 says " tempora ry strainer to be removed prior to plant sta rtup and replaced i with ASME"

Note 2: CVCS Flow Diagram with spoolpiece" , S&W# 12241 RM-79D-10B, Note 10 says " Strainer to be removed prior to system operation and replaced I

N3te 3: CVCS Flow Diagram, S&W# 12241 RM-79B-12B, says nothing about temporary strainers

,

i

,

f I

______ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ ___, _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ , _

. _ - . .- . _ . - - -. . . . - - - . - -. . - - - - - . _ . . - . . - - . . . - -

!  :

t .

!

!*

i I

! Attachment C'

I to 50-412/86-22 i

l Review of QA Surveillance Reports

,

i

' Sury. N Description Activity Test Proc. N Date Reviewed

)

i POT-13-86 Test Witnessing Service P0.2.30.01(H) 7-10-86 Water Test l

i

POT-14-86 Test Witnessing CCW P0.2.15A.01 7-22-86 j Pump and Controls I

POT-15-86 Fuel Pool Cooling System P0.2.20.01 8-11-86 s Test Witnessing

'

,

[

! i l

I

i <

I

,

.

i

i i

l i

}

i i

, - . . . . - - - , . - - - - , - - - , - , , , . ~ , , . , , , - , -..,.,----.-._---,,-----.,-,,,-..---,n,----.,..,.,.,,--

- ,,,,,-,--c,-,,-