IR 05000412/1987037
| ML20214R941 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 05/28/1987 |
| From: | Briggs L, Eselgroth P, Florek D, Wen P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214R919 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-412-87-37, NUDOCS 8706090063 | |
| Download: ML20214R941 (8) | |
Text
r
..
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-412/87-37 Docket No.
50-412 License No. CPPR-105 Licensee: Duquesne Light Company P. O. Box 4 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Facility Name: Beaver Valley Unit No. 2 Inspection At: Shippingport, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted: April 20 - May 1, 1987
' Inspectors:ff M
kN/$7 L. Briggs, (said Reactor Engineer, DRS date 1YioE m 6heh7
. Wen, Reactor Engineer, DRS
' dat'e
/hS w skk7 y. Floreks/Wting Section Chief, d' ate '
~
/
TPS, DRS I #/II Approved by:
P.'Eselgr6th,[tingChief,
' da~te Operations nch, DRS Inspection Summary:
Inspection on April 20-May 1, 1987 (Inspection Report No.
50-412/87-37)
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection by three Region based inspectors of the preoperation test program, startup test program, startup test procedure review, QA interfaces, Emergency Diesel Generator Instrumentation Vibration, previously identified inspection items and tours of the facility.
R_esul ts : No violations were identified.
NOTE:
For acronyms not defined refer to NUREG 0544, " Handbook of Acronyms and Initialisms".
'
8706090063 870528 PDR ADOCK 05000412 O
.
.
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted Duquesne Light Company T. Brown, Test Engineer
- D. Claridge, Compliance Engineer
- N. Daugherty, Director Systems Testings
- J. Godleski, Senior Test Engineer P. Gunderson, Test Engineer
- D. Hunkele, Director QA Operations
- J. Johns, Supervisor QA Surveillance W. Lacey, Plant Manager J. Martens, Test Engineer
- T. McGourty, Senior Test Coordinator
_
- T. Noonan, Assistant Plant Manager D. O'Connor, Test Engineer R. Oliveri, Test Engineer
- L. Rabenau, Lead Compliance Engineer J. Spiegel, Senior Test Engineer
- G. Wargo, Assistant Director QC
- L. Williams, Director Start-Up
- T. Zyra, Director Site Test and Plant Performance Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation
.
- R. Wittschen, Licensing Engineer U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- J. Beall, Senior Resident Inspector
- L. Prividy, Resident Inspector The inspector also contacted other administrative and technical licensee personnel during the course of the inspection.
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting held on May 1, 1987.
2.0 Startup Test Program
,
!
2.1 Test Program Review The licensee's Startup Test Program was first developed with the l
initiation of the Preoperation (P0) testing program and continues j
with the Initial Startup Test (IST) program, which encompasses i
initial fuel loading, post core loading tests, initial criticality,
and power ascension tests.
Twenty-eight out of thirty-six IST i
!
l....
..
_
-_
_______-__;_____
.
.
Procedures scoped by the Startup Test Abstracts in Chapter 14 of the Beaver Valley 2 FSAR have been prepared, approved by the Joint Test Group (JTG) and Onsite Safety Committee, and issued. The remaining
,
!
eight IST procedures are in varying levels of the development and approval process.
During this inspection period, BV-2 was in the process of reorgan-izing from the preoperation phase to the startup phase.
The licensee's Site Testing and Plant Performance (T&PP) Group is responsible for the performance of the startup tests. The Site T&PP Director has overall responsibility for the initial startup test program. The personnel assignments within the test organization are completed.
A formal document describing the licensee's startup test adminis-trative program is nearly complete.
This administrative program provides guidance to assure that startup tests will be conducted in a controlled manner.
Based on the discussions with the Site T&PP Director, the inspector noted that the licensee was continuously improving in putting these administrative controls in order.
Training for licensee test personnel in the test program adminis-tration is planned.
The licensee's startup testing program is considered to be acceptable, to date, and the startup testing preparation is progressing satisfactorily.
The inspector inquired if specific operator training was provided in the startup program. The licensee intends to use the shift meetings plus the test briefings and procedure walkdowns if necessary to assure operators are familiar with tests to be per formed.
2.2 Test Procedure Review The inspector reviewed the nine test procedures listed in Attachment A for the attributes identified in Inspection Report No. 50-412/87-31 Section 2.4.
The inspector identified the following items:
(1) IST-2.06.02 (Pressurizer Heater and Spray Ccoability Test): The current procedure (Rev. 0) provides instructions (Steps VII B.11 c through e) which imply that Pressurizer Power-Operated Relief Valves (PORVs) are placed in a Manual position prior to these steps.
In discussion with the licensee cognizant engineer, the inspector was informed that the PORVs would be placed in Auto during this heater capability test.
The steps as mentioned above were inadvertently left there during the licensee's procedure review process.
These steps will be deleted in the next procedure revision.
)
s
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
r o
.
(2)
IST-2.02.03 (Low-Power Physics Test):
During the performance of control rod worth measurement, Technical Specification (TS)
special test exception conditions may be entered which require tripping the reactor.
The current test procedure (Rev. 0) does not provide a clear instruction on this subject.
The licensee cognizant reactor engineer stated that an engineering calcula-tion would be performed to determine the test conditions requiring the activation of this TS requirement.
(3)
IST-2.02.03 (Low-Power Physics Test):
The current procedure (Rev. 0) does not provide clear guidance on how much heatup/
cooldown data are required for the isothermal temperature coefficient determination.
The cognizant licensee engineer stated that he would consult with the fuel vendor (Westing-house). A more clear guidance on this subject will be provided in the next procedure revision.
(4) Several of the procedures reviewed contained general statements for acceptance criteria.
The licensee agreed to review these procedures to assure specific acceptance criteria were defined.
The procedures will be reviewed again to verify the changes have been incorporated.
3.0 QA/QC Interface with the Startup Test Program During this inspection period, the inspector held discussions with the site QA surveillance supervisor and a cognizant QA engineer to monitor the QA's involvement in the startup test program.
The inspector noted the QA's participation in the test procedure review and development of a surveillance plan for the upcoming startup test coverage.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
4.0 Preoperational Test Program 4.1 Preoperational Test Witnessing 4.1.1 Scope Testing witnessed by the inspector included the observations of overall crew performance stated in Paragraph 3.1 of Inspection Report 50-412/86-43.
4.1.2 Discussion P0 2.01A.04, Safeguards Test Cabinet Actuation Test.
On April 28, 29, and May 1,
1987 the inspector witnessed preparation for and testing of several relays and their
f
.
<
issociated slave relays. Testing was witnessed for relays K612A (April 28), K609A and slave K609XA (April 29), K610A and slave K610XA (April 29) and preparations to test K611A and slave K611XA (May 1).
The inspector observed testing being conducted at the safeguards cabinets, the control room _and preparations in the Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG)
rooms.
All testing witnessed was being conducted in accordance with the written procedure and in a conservative manner.
QA/QC coverage was being provided continuously for all active periods of testing.
4.1.3 Findings No unacceptable conditions were identified.
4.2 Preoperational Test Results Evaluation Review 4.2.1 Scope The Test Result Reports and the completed test procedures listed below were reviewed to verify that adequate testing was accomplished to satisfy regulatory guidance and licensee commitments and to determine whether uniform criteria were being applied for licensee evaluation of completed Preoperational (PO) and System Operational Verification (SOV)
Tests in order to assure their technical and administrative adequacy.
-
P0 2.06.03, Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) Seal Water Injection Test, Revision 0, results approved by the licensee on April 28, 1987.
-
SOV 2.09.01, Primary Drains Transfer System Test, Revision 0,
results approved by the licensee on April 28, 1987.
4.2.2 Discussion During review of P0 2.06.03 the inspector noted that there were originally 22 test deficiencies identified during the perfor-mance of the test.
All deficiencies were corrected prior to licensee approval.
The inspector noted that test deficiencies (TD) 8, 9 and 10 were listed on the TD Record (index) but that TD forms had not been used.
This was discussed with the licensee.
The requirement for a TD form occurred on May 30, 1986. The procedure had been backfit to include the new TD form for all uncorrected TDs.
The three TDs in question had been corrected when identified during April 1986.
4.2.3 Findings No violations were identified during the above revie I
.
..
5.0 Independent Inspection Emergency Diesel Generator Instrumentation and Controls Vibration 5.1 Scope A review of the status and licensee action as committed to in the Beaver Valley 2 Safety Evaluation Report (SER), dated October 1985 and BVPS-2 FSAR Question 430.55 (Section 8.3) dated September 19, 1983, was conducted by the inspector.
5.2 Discussion It was determined via discussion with the EDG test engineer and preliminary review of P0 2.368.01, "EDG System Test" that vibration data were taken as committed to in the SER.
The vibration reading had been forwarded for engineering evaluation on April 27, 1987. The evaluation had not been initiated as of April 29. The results of the engineering evaluation will be used to determine if vibration levels of skid mounted instrumentation and controls are within the manufacturer's recommended values.
If values are unacceptable the instruments will be moved to a location that will yield acceptable vibration levels.
The inspector physically inspected the instrument racks for both EDG's.
Instrumentation in the racks includes instruments and switches that measure water, air and fuel oil pressures as well as other parameters.
The instrument racks themselves are vibration mounted with fluid system connections through flexible steel jacketed tubing. Lubricating system oil switches are attached directly to the engine.
5.3 Findings No violations were identified.
Determination of acceptability will be made by the licensee subsequent to the engineering evaluation and verified by the NRC.
The inspector stated that evaluation results could impact EDG operability and subsequently any operational mode requiring the EDGs to be operable.
6.0 Facility Tours 6.1 Scope 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.
_.__
- _ _. _ _... _ - (
.
.
6.2 Discussion Testing activities witnessed are discussed in Paragraph 4.1.
Particular attention was directed to plant cleanliness and evaluation of system / area completion.
Progress is being made in cleanup.
Scaffolding in many areas has been removed. Numerous areas have been cleared and painted.
Cable tray cover installation is an ongoing evolution as well as insulating activities.
In general the areas needed for initial fuel loading are receiving the major emphasis and progress is being made in those areas.
6.3 Findings No unacceptable conditions were observed. Material condition of the plant has improved.
7.0 Followup of Previously Identified Items (Closed) Unresolved Item (412/86-18-01).
Licensee to incorporate Code Hydrostatic test deficier.cies into the Test Deficiency Record system and resolve.
The inspector reviewed the information package provided by the licensee and held discussions with the licensee's representative.
The inspector accompanied a licensee representative into the containment and physically verified that blank flanges had been removed and relief valves (2CHS*RV260A, 8 and C) had been reinstalled.
The inspector found the licensee's corrective actions to be acceptable.
8.0 Exit Meeting An exit meeting was held on May 1,1987, to discuss the inspection scope and findings, as detailed in this report (see paragraph 1.0 for attendees).
At no time was written material given to the licensee.
Based on the NRC Region I review of this rcport and discussion held with the licensee representatives at the exit, it was determined that this report does not contain information subject to 10 CFR 2.790 restriction /
}
O
.
,
ATTACHMENT A STARTUP TEST PROCEDURES REVIEWED IST-2.02.01, Alignment of the Nuclear Instrumentation System, Rev. 0
--
IST-2.02.03, Low-Power Physics Test, Rev. 0
--
IST-2.04.01, Automatic Steam Dump Control Test, Rev. 0
--
IST-2.04.04, Load Swing Test, Rev. 0
--
IST-2.04.06, Verification of Plant Performance Following Plant
--
Trip / Rejection from Power, Rev. 0 IST-2.06.02, Pressurizer Heater and Spray Capability Test, Rev. 0
--
IST-2.06.04, Reactor Coolant System Flow Measurement, Rev. 0
--
IST-2.06.06, System Vibration and Thermal Expansion Testing
--
During Power Ascension Test, Rev. 0 IST-2.24A.01, Verification of Plant Operation Following Loss of Feedwater
--
Heater at Load, Rev. O I
.
_._
. - ~. _.
-
_
.
..
--
-
_ -. _
_ _ _
. _ _. _.
._.__