IR 05000412/1986027

Insp Rept 50-412/86-27 on 860915-0919.No Violation Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Preoperational Test Program,Including Review of Approved Procedures,Review of QA Interface Activities & Status of Phase 1 Tests

ML20214D385
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	10/21/1986
From:	Briggs L, Van Kessel H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20214C670	List: IR 05000412/1986025 IR 05000412/1986027 IR 05000412/1986028 ML20214C667 ML20214C794
References
50-412-86-27, NUDOCS 8611240061
Download: ML20214D385 (8)

Text

'. . .

'

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

'

Report N /86-27 Docket N License N 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, PA Inspection Conducted: September 15-19, 1986 Inspectors: Y Esrs ///A///$

N' F. va g sel, Reactor Engineer ~date Approved by: sEg/b /e/,v/[#6 Li Bri'ggsg//hief, Test Program Section, OB, DRS ' ' date Inspection Summary: Inspection on September 15-19, 1986 (Inspection N /86-27).

Areas Inspected: Routine Unannounced Inspection of the Preoperational Test Program, including the review of approved procedures (Joint Test Group) for preoperational tests, the test witnessing of preoperational test P0.2.07.01, Charging Pumps and Controls, the review of activities in the QA interface, and the review of Unresolved Items, identified by the inspector in previous inspections. The status of the Phase-1 tests for the Main Steam Isolation Valves was reviewed with the applican Results: No violations were identifie Note: For acronyms not defined refer to NUREG 0544, " Handbook of Acronyms and Initialisms."

,

i 8611240061 861117 PDR ADOCK 05000412 i G PDR .

i

!

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

. . . . e o

.

.. ~

r DETAILS Persons Contacted Duquesne Light Company (DLC)

C. Callaway, Supervisor, SVG

• N. J. Daugherty, Director Systems Test

• J. J. Dusenberry, QA Supervisor

• J. P. Godleski, Senior Test Engineer M. R. Miller, Startup Engineer

• J. D. Johns, Supervisor QA Surveillance

• J. P. Noonan, Superintendent, Operations and Maintenance L. M. Rabenau, Compliance Engineer P. Slifkin, Test Supervisor Phase-1 J. Stinke, Test Engineer, Phase-1

• R. J. Wa11avar, Lead Compliance Engineer

• L. P. killiams, Director, Startup Phase-1

• R. G. Williams, Supervisor Software Development

• R. C. Wittschen, Licensing Engineer (SWEC)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• A. A. Asars, Resident Inspector

'

• Denotes those present at exit interview on September 19, 1986.

! Licensee Actions On Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item 412/86-11-01, "QA discovered test deficiencies during Cold Hydro."

Scope QA developed 7 Surveillance Deficiency Reports '(SDRs) during the Cold Hydrostatic Test perio Many of these deficiencies pointed to administrative inadequacies in the Startup Manual. The inspector followed

,

and reviewed the. responses produced by startup managemen Reference Inter office Memorandum, Duquesne Light, from R. J. Swiderski (Startup Manager) to C. E. Ewing, dated August 11, 1986, BVPS:RJS:

12241:3656, " Correction to letter No. BVPS:RJS:12241:3635, dated July 14, 1986."

!

,

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

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

.

. . .

'

.

1 l

l Discussion '

The last response to the 7 SDRs, see reference 1 above, was reviewed by the inspecto The response correctly identifies and corruts the problem. A test deficiency should have been written to bypass the steps not performed and not a test change. Training sessions were planned by startup management to teach the startup engineers the difference between a test change and a test deficienc All of the previous respenses produced by startup management were reviewed by the inspector in earlier inspection These responses were found to be acceptabl Findings All responses by startup management to the given SDRs were found to be acceptable. This Unresolved Item is close (0 pen) Unresol'ved Item 412/86-25-01, " Adequacy of system restoration after test P02.07.01 and .03."

Scope Review of the two procedures during inspection 412/86-25 revealed that not all system restoration steps for temporary test devices may have been included. Another more thorough review was made to verify this findin Discussion To verify this finding a matrix was made for the steps installing the temporary test devices and for the steps removing the same devices in procedure P0.2.07.0 This review (restoration) matrix showed that most restoration steps had been include Restoration for five temporary installation steps, however, were not included. All of these (5) steps involve the installation of temporary jumpers or lifting leads to elimi-nate SI and containment isolation signals during the test. Instructions are given in these steps to perform the installation and removal of these temporary devices in accordance with the applicable section of the Startup Manual (SUM). No specific step by step instructions, however, are provided in the procedure to accomplish these temporary installations and restorations. The applicant feels that the requirements of the SUM will ensure proper control and tracking of these temporary devices. In accord-ance with the SUM, all of these devices are to be entered in the

" temporary jumper and lifted lead log." Their removal also is to be recorded in this log. While the tracking of installed temporary devices may be adequately covered via this log, there remains the absence of the specific steps for the installation and removal of the temporary devices in the 5 steps of the precedure P0.2.07.03 (CVCS) te. steps IVA6, IVB3, IVC 2, IVD6, IVE In view of the findings above, procedure P0.2.07.01 will be subjected to a restoration matrix treatment during a future inspectio .

. . .

.

Findings Additional review will be necessary to confirm the adequacy of the licensee's program in the areas of system restoration and specific ,

procedure adequacy. This item will remain open until these reviews have been accomplishe . Preoperational Test Program 3.1 Test Procedure Review Scope The test procedures listed in Attachment A were reviewed for administrative and, selectively, for technical adequacy and to verify that test planning satisfies regulatory guidance and licensee commitment Discussion The test procedures were examined for the attributes listed in Inspection Report 412/86-1 The review of test objectives and test methods of P0.2.13.01, "Recir-culation Spray System Pumps and Controls" indicated that available NPSH was not. being determined as stated in FSAR paragraph 14.2.12.15.1 which says "Available NPSH will be determined." The procedure does not contain any instruction to obtain the available NPSH during the tes The applicant acknowledges that adequate NPSH is vital to the survival of the pump during a LOCA but stated that meaningful test data for NPSH available could not be obtained for the given test condition The applicant explained that a detailed NPSH study had been completed by the architect engineer that showed that the Recirculation Spray Pump will survive under the worst conditions of LOC The inspectors pointed out that the

,

verification of the study results would be another reason to obtain data l on NPSH during the test. Further review of the procedure is planned to j determine if the test method and test objectives are adequate to satisfy I

,

the FSAR commitment.

l Reference I

Letter 2DLS-18830 from Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation to Duquesne Light Company, " Beaver Valley Power Station -

Unit No. 2, Containment Sump Hydraulic Study", dated October 5, 198 Finding The omission of instructions to obtain NPSH (Available) data in preoperational test P0.2.13.01 appears to be a deviation from the applicant's commitment in FSAR paragraph 14.2.12.15.1. It is recognized,

!

E

'. . .

.

however, that it may not be possible to obtain meaningful data on NPSH (Available) under the given test conditions. This item is unresolved pending further procedure review and a review of the applicant's study to determine if the FSAR commitment is satisfied (Unresolved Item 412/86-27-01).

No unacceptable conditions were noted in the other procedures reviewe .2 Test Witnessing Scope Selected steps of Procedure PO-2.07.01, " Charging Pumps and Controls Test", were witnessed by the inspecto Test witnessing by the inspector included observations of the attributes listed in Section 3.2 of Inspection Report 412/86-2 Discussion The test steps witnessed were conducted in the location of Charging Pump 2CHS*P21B. The inspector made an independent calculation of a one pump operating point as calculated from independently collected data.- This operating point, 150 gpm at 5820 FT-TDH, fell on the pump's test curve as provided in Attachment T of the procedur All of the< local instruments and special test instruments used -for

.

the test were checked for calibration status and were found to be acceptable. A digital pyrometer (CSUG M491) was used for readings on bearing temperatures. Heise pressure test gauges were used to measure suction and discharge pressure of the pump. A portable vibrometer (IRD Mech. Analysis, Model 820) was used to obtain vibration data on motor, gear, and pump housings and bearing All collected vibration and bearing temperature data were within the acceptance criteri Findings No unacceptable conditions were noted during the test (PO.2.07.01)

,

for Charging Pump 2CHS*P218.

'

4. Independent Inspection Effort i

4.1 Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIVs)

Scope Problems have been experienced at another nuclear plant with the operators and the latching mechanism for the Main Steam Isolation Valves (24" ball valves). The MSIVs of Beaver Valley-2.are of the same valve type and have similar operators. In the test inspection,

.

. . .

.

.

the inspector witnessed the first operational test on MSIVs A and C performed under the guidance of a vendor representative. In this inspection, the status of the Phase-1 tests was reviewe Discussion The Phase-1 tests for MSIVs A and C, which were to follow the vendor assisted test, were postponed because of the wearing away of the tungs ten-carbide coating of the valve ball at the other nuclear plant. In view of these problems, the applicant decided not to exer-cise these valves more than absolutely necessary. In addition to these problems, the vendor is also working on the resolution of the cracking of the latch arm roller bearing housing experienced at the other facility. Load tests are underway with roller housings made of a different material (ASTM 9310). Expectations are high that the new material will solve the cracking problems. There is a 50.55e report on the cracked roller housings (December, 1985). The vendor is also working on the latch and operator problem experienced at the other Region I facilit ,

Conclusion  ;

The MSIVs of Beaver Valley-2, as supplied by Crosby, are expected to have the same problems as those experienced with the MSIVs at the other facility. These problems are not expected to be resolved prior to Hot Functional Testin Th'e inspector will continue to follow the corrective actions on these valves under the independent inspection effor .2 Independent Measurement and Calculation Independent measurements were made during the test on the Charging Pumps and Controls, P0.2.07.01. For details refer to paragraph abov . QA/QC Interface Scope The participation of the Duquesne Light QA Surveillance Group in the preoperational test program was evaluated by the inspector. Samples of the surveillances performed on the most recently performed preoperational tests were obtained for this revie .

. . .

.

&P Discussion Of the surveillances reviewed there were two Surveillance Deficiency Reports (SDRs) (see references below) ie. No. S0V-33-86, deficiency 01, and SOV-32-86, deficiency 01. Deficiency 01 of S0V-32-86 is a QA identi-fied violation of the requirements imposed by Startup Manual Chapter 8.2.1, VI .B.8.C . This violation involves the performance of work by an electrician in MCC2-20-4F without the necessary controlling work documents at the station. The inspector will follow the response of startup manage-ment to this item and the corrective action take References Surveillance Deficiency Report No. S0V-32-86, Deficiency 01,

"S0V-2.20.03, Revision 0, Issue 1, Section VII-A.2 - Fuel Pool and Refueling Cavity Purification System Test", dated September 2, 198 . Surveillance Deficiency Report No. S0V-33-86, Deficiency 01,

"SOV-2.26A.01, VII-A.2. Turbine Auxiliaries Test, Lube Oil Reservoir Vapor Extractor", dated September 3, 198 Findings The QA discovered departures from the Startup Manual were noted by the inspector. The resolution of this item will be followed by the inspecto . Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to determine whether they are acceptable, an item of noncompliance, or a deviatio A new unresolved item discussed in this report is identified in paragraph . Exit Interview -

At the conclusion of the site inspection, on September 19, 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 discuss At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspecto 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 inform-ation subject to 10 CFR 2.790 restriction ._ _ _ _ .-. __

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

_ _ __

". . . .

.

..

ATTACHMENT A 3 TO 50-412/86-27 Procedure Reviews Proc. N Procedure Title Rev. N Approved by JTG

P02.01A.06 Solid State Protection System 0 06-25-86 Cabinet Test Panel Logic Test P02.01A.10 Reactor Protection System and 0 07-31-86 Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Logic Test, Ca P02.11A.04 Automatic Switchaver to 0 11-26-86 Recirculation Mode P02.13.01 Recirculation Spray System 0 07-30-85 Pumps and Control Test P02.14A.02 Post Accident Sampling System 0 05-29-86 Test S0V2.14B.01 Turbine Plant Sampling System 0 04-29-86 Test, Ca S0V-2.26A.01 Turbine Auxiliaries Test, 0 03-08-86 Ca S0V2.260.01 Sec. Plant Misc. Drain 0 01-31-86 Systems Test ,

.

. _ _ _ _ .

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