IR 05000412/1987004
| ML20211P230 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1987 |
| From: | Briggs L, Eselgroth P, Florek D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211P206 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-412-87-04, 50-412-87-4, NUDOCS 8703020319 | |
| Download: ML20211P230 (7) | |
Text
..
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-412/87-04 Docket No. 50-412 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: January 12-16, 1987
,
Inspectors:
/?ftu [
c$f//f87 w
. 8 p gs, Cead M ctor Engineer date
$ $?
.
mac D. Florek,4(edd Reactor Engineer date 2 ////87 Approved by:
P.ErelgrothfChief,TestProgramSection
' date OB, DRS V Inspection Summary:
Inspection on Janaury 12-16, 1987 (Inspection Report No. 50-412/87-04)
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of the preoperational test program including preoperational test procedure review, initial startup testing program status, independent inspection, QA/QC interface with preoperational testing and plant tours.
Results: No violations were identified.
Note:
For acronyms not defined refer to NUREG 0544, " Handbook of Acronyms and Initialism".
870302 % $ $$12 PDR A
PDR O
-
-
- -.
.
-
.
.
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted
- J. Carey, Senior Vice President, Nuclear T. Brown, Startup Engineer (Emergency Diesel Generators)
M. Covey, Test Engineer
- N. Daugherty, Director, Systems Testing
- J. Dusenberry, Assistant Director, Quality Assurance Surveillance L. Earl, Startup Engineer (Emergency Diesel Generators)
- J. Godleski, Senior Test Engineer
- J. Kasunick, Director Maintenance, Startup Group
- W. Lacey, Plant Manager T. McGourty, Senior Test Coordinator
- T. Noonan, Startup Group, Superintendent Operations and Maintenance
- R. Swiderski, Startup Manager T. Zyra, Director of Site Testing and Plant Performance U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- J. Beall, SRI, Beaver Valley Unit II
- L.
Prividy, RI, Beaver Valley Unit II
- W. Troskoski, SRI, Beaver Valley Unit I The inspectors also contacted other members of the licensee's operations, QA and test staff during the inspection.
- Denotes those present during the exit meeting held on January 16, 1986.
2.0 Preoperational Test Procedure Review 2.1 Scope The preoperational test procedures listed in Paragraph 2.2 below were reviewed in preparation for test witnessing, technical and administrative adequacy and verification that testing planned would adequately satisfy regulatory guidance and licensee commitments. The procedures were reviewed to verify proper licensee review and approval, correct format, test objectives, prerequisites, initial conditions, test data recording requirements, technical adequacy and system return to normal.
The following regulatory references were used.
-
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) chapters 14, 8.3, (onsite power systems) 9.4 through 9.8 (auxiliary systems)
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.108, Periodic Testing of Diesel
-
Generator Units Used as Onsite Electric Power Systems at Nuclear Power Plants (Revision 1, August 1977)
!
,..
_
,,..
6 -
.
'
.
RG 1.9, Selection, Design and Qualification of Diesel-Generator
-
Units Used as Standby (onsite) Electric Power Systems at Nuclear Power Plants (Revision 2, December 1979)
2.2 Discussion The following preoperational test procedures were reviewed:
PO-2.36B.01, Emergency Diesel Generator Test, Issue 1,
-
November 19, 1986; P0-2.368.02, Emergency Diesel Generator Full Load Test, Issue
-
1, November 8, 1986, and,
-
P0-2.36A.02, Electrical AC Independence Test, Issue 1,
December 30, 1986.
The inspector also reviewed 2 operational surveillance test (OST)
procedures that would be used in conjunction with the above preoperational tests as follows:
-
OST 2.36.2, Emergency Diesel Generator Monthly Test, Preliminary Issue, Revision 0; and, OST 2.36.3, Emergency Diesel Generator Automatic Test, Issue 1,
-
Revision 0.
Review of the above procedures indicated that the three preop?ra-tional test procedures collectively satisfied the referenced FSAR and RG commitments.
The inspector did have some questions concerning the stated 40 F dew point of the Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) starting air stated in the test procedure and the FSAR. The inspector toured the EDG rooms and noted that the air dryers were manufactured by Zeke Air Drier Corp.
Name plate data concerning dewpoint could not be located on the dryer. The inspector reviewed the vendors Zeke Air Drier Corp.
Technical Manual (No. 2502.790-226-005) and purchase specification No. 2BVS 266A, Containment Instrument Air Dehydrating Equipment which
!
also contained the specification for the EDG starting air dryer. The dryer is a refrigerant type dryer with a specified 40 F dewpoint at maximum flow (30 SCFM) at 425 PSIG with a maximum air inlet tempera-ture of 150 F.
All documents concerning dewpoint agreed.
The inspector also placed a call to the EDG vendor (after returning to the Region I office) and discussed moisture problems with a representative of the EDG vendor. The vendor representative stated that there was no maximum dewpoint specified.
He noted that some problems had occurred due to dust in air admission valves on early (late 1960 early 1970) units but that problem was resolved by changing valve material and those units did not have any air drying l
.
- equipment.
The inspector was satisfied that the 40 F dewpoint was not a problem at this facility.
2.3 Findings
"
No violations were identified.
3.0 Initial Startup Testing Program-Post Operating License Testing 3.1 Scope The inspector reviewed the following:
Proposed Revision to FSAR Chapter 14 dated May 28, 1986
TPP 12.1 Preparation, Review, Approval and Revision of Unit 2 Startup Test Procedures, " Draft copy of Revision 0"
TPP-12.2 Administrative Guidelines for Performing Unit 2 Startup Tests, Draft copy of revision 0.
- TPP-12.3 Unit 2 Test Records Management, draft copy of revision 0.
- The inspector also held discussions with licensee representa-tives to determine the degree of readiness of the initial startup testing program.
Future inspections will assess the adequacy of the licensee activities.
3.2 Discussion Based on the review and discussions, the administrative procedures to assure that the initial startup test program is conducted in accordance with the technical specification and license is still in the draft phases.
Final administrative procedure:s are expected in i
mid-February, 1987.
The licensee is preparing Initial Startup Test (IST) procedures in accordance with the Startup Manual (SUM), the administrative control for pre-operating license.
The licensee has issued 25 out of 36 procedures in the manner described in the SUM. The inspector noted that the review and approval of the IST procedures as described in the SUM meets the intent but is not consistent with the draft technical specifications and is similar to the findings contained in Inspection Report 50-412/87-03.
3.3 Findings No violations were identified.
i I
.-.
. _.
._..
.
'
.
4.0 Independent Effort 4.1 Scope The inspector independently walked down the steam supply to the turbine driven auxiliary feedwater pump and the water supply from the auxiliary feedwater pumps to the three steam generators using flow diagrams 12241-RM-41A-14A and 12241-RM-458-7 as references.
4.2 Discussion During the walkdown the inspector noted that the flow diagram identified one check valve in the steam supply line from each mainsteam line to the auxiliary feedwater pump turbine whereas the plant had two.
Subsequent discussion with the system test engineer indicated that a revision of the flow diagram was in process. The inspector noted that the P&ID type drawings used in the control room did contain the two check valves as was indicated by the system test engineer.
The inspector questioned the system test engineer on the' adequacy of the clearance between the vent valve (2FWE-#329) and steam supply line.
Approximately one inch of clearance existed.
The inspector was informed that due to the number and type of supports on this line, the clearance was acceptable.
Finally, the inspector questioned the licensee on why the penetration design for the water supply from the auxiliary feedwater system for penetration (X-83) was different than penetration (X-79 and X-80).
At the conclusion of this inspection, the licensee had not been able to determine the answer to the inspectors question.
This ' item is being further pursued by the Senior Resident inspector.
4.3 Finding No violations were identified.
5.0 QA/QC Interface with Preoperational Testing 5.1 Scope l
The inspector reviewed several recent QA Surveillance Reports (QASR)
'
and the associated Deficiency Reports, if applicable, regarding different activities of the licensee's startup department.
!
5.2 Discussion l
-
QASR POT-21-86, review of test log for procedure P0-2.07.01, Charging Pumps and Controls, completed on October 8,1986. The QA inspector noted that jumpers were installed to make valves L
l l
-
_ _
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
.
.
2CHS*MOV380A and 3833 function properly without a proper test deficiency entry.
Two responses were provided December 11 and 15, 1986 by the startup department to correct the administrative portion of the identified problem. Whether a design problem was involved or not, was not addressed. This item will be followed in the next scheduled inspection.
QASR POT-58C-86, Observation of P0-2.06.05, Reactor Coolant Loop
-
Isolation Valve Test, completed on December 14, 1986.
A deficiency was issued because an approved test procedure was not available at the test controlling activity inside containment.
A response had not yet been received.
-
QASR POT-39C-86, Surveillance of PO-2.06-07, Pressurizer Pressure and Level Control Test, completed on December 2,1986.
A QA deficiency was issued for this activity because a lifted lead had been reinstalled but was listed as lifted on the Testing and Plant Administrative Control Sheet.
5.3 Findings Although no violations were identified the inspector noted that the QASR's reviewed indicated two potential problem areas, 1) there is an indicated trend that full control of lifted leads and jumpers is not being exercised during testing and 2) Startup Department does not appear to be responding within the specified time frame, for the sampled QASR's.
QASR POT-21-86 will be further reviewed by the inspector to determine if a design problem exists.
6.0 Plant Tours 6.1 Discussion The inspector made several tours of the plant including the control building, auxiliary building, service building, turbine building, condensate polishing building, safeguards building and reactor containment to observe the status of construction, work in progress, housekeeping, testing activities and cleanliness.
The inspectors also observed part of the initial setup of Babcox and Wilcox (B&W) steam generator 'U' tube stress relieving heat treatment equipment.
The equipment was being setup on the 'C' steam generator during this inspection and was being accomplished under a family of B&W procedures which had been reviewed by the licensee's Procedure Review Group. Stress relieving of the inner two (2) rows of tubes on all steam generators (3) is expected to take 18 to 21 days.
6.2 Finding No unacceptable conditions were noted.
._
_..
,.. -
- - _ _ _ _ _
.-
,
7.0 Exit Interview A management meeting was held at the conclusion of the inspection on January 16, 1987, to discuss the inspection scope,. findings and observations as detailed in this report (see Paragraph I for attendees).
No written' information was provided to the licensee at any time during this inspection.
The licensee indicated that no proprietary information was contained in the scope of this inspection.
I
.
.