IR 05000412/1987062
| ML20236G091 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1987 |
| From: | Eapen P, Hunter J, Wen P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236G086 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-412-87-62, NUDOCS 8711020412 | |
| Download: ML20236G091 (9) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _
.
.
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
I Report No.
50-412/87-62
Docket No.
50-412 License No.
NPF-73 Licensee: Duquesne Light Company
,
Post Office Box 4 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Facility Name:
Beaver Valley Unit No. 2 Inspection At:
Shippingport, PA
,
Inspection Conducted:
September 22 - October 2, 1987 7 !87 Inspectors:
(b
/0 Peter C. Wen, Reactor Engineer, DRS date
'
/Jb ?k 7
<
s J.
. HuYter III, Reactor Engineer, DRS da~te
'
,
k_ k
/AA.__
- /r 7 /d7 Approved by:
Dr. P. K. ~Eapen, Chief, Special Test crate
'
Programs Section, EB, DRS Inspection Summary:
Inspection on September 22 - October 2, 1987 (Inspection Report Number 50-412/87-62)
Areas Inspected:
Startup Test Program, Power Ascension Tests, and test results.
,
Results:
No violations were identified.
NOTE: For acronyms not defined refer to NUREG-0544, " Handbook of Acronyms and Initialisms."
f. f DY
,.
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ -
,
,.
\\i-8
'
s
,-
,
.,
ii
,
...
!
' DETAILS-
=1.0 Persons Contacted
"
.Duquesne-Light Company
- *J. Godleski, TCT' Engineer
- D..Hunkele',' Director, QA Operations
- *J. 0; Johns,1 Supervisor, QA Surveillance'
- *T. F..McGourty, Princip1e Engineer.
- A. R'.~Pietrangelo, Senior Test Engineer
.'
.
G. L. Shildt,. Senior-Test Engineer
- D. Szuc~s, Lead Compliance Engineer
.
- T. G.;Zyra,. Director, Site Test and Plant Performance U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission v
- J. Beall, Senior Resident Inspector y
The inspector also contacted other administrative and technical licensee d
personnel:during the course of the-inspection.
- Denotes' Mose present at the exit meeting held on October 2, 1987.
2.0~ Power Ascension Testing 2.1. Startup Test : Program
~
During this inspection period-(September 22 - October 2,1987), the '
licensee completed a two-week maintenance outage.
Plant heatup began L
, on September 22, 1987.
During heatup,.the Resistance Temperature i
Detector (RTD) Cross Calibration retest was performed at 250 F, i
350 F, 450 F. and 547 F plateaus. Criticality was achieved on September 24, 1987.
Two unplanned reactor. trips and several equip-a ment' problems.(mainly associated with the turbine generator) delayed the startup test schedule. At'the end of this inspection period, the unit had not. reached the 75% steady state test condition.
The two unplanned reactor trips are discussed below:
a.
At 0156 hours0.00181 days <br />0.0433 hours <br />2.579365e-4 weeks <br />5.9358e-5 months <br /> on. September 28, 1987, a reactor trip occurred from approximately 72% power due to low level' coincident with a i
steam flow / feed flow mismatch on.the "A" steam generator (SG).
j This event was initiated when the "B" main feedwater regulating
' valve (MFRV) failed open.due to a failed control circuit card.
,,
.The induced transient resulted in a steam flow / feed flow mis-
'
~
match in.the "A" steam generator.
Prior to this event, the "A'
.
SG already had a level (FWS*L475) bistable tripped due to its drift down scale. This formed the required trip coincidence that caused the reactor trip.
Plant systems responded as designed.
i
-_i__--___----_---_---_-----.-
-
!
, x;
,
,
.
'
!
j
,
b.
At.0219 hours0.00253 days <br />0.0608 hours <br />3.621032e-4 weeks <br />8.33295e-5 months <br /> on September:29, 1987, a.rea'ctor trip and safety j
injection'(SI) ~ occurred from approximately 2% power.due to low steamline pressure. A normal turbine startup was ip progress at the time'of the event and the. operator.was performing a'
j
,
turbineoverspeed protection controller (OPC) trip check.
Due j
.to.an. apparent inadequate. procedure change:for the 0PC' test
conditions:(to require this test to be performed 'at 1800 rpm _-
-
instead offat 550 rpm), when the test switch was: returned to
'the "IN SERVICE"' position, the turbine governor: valves and'
' intercept valves rsopened.
This'resulted in a.large, sudden
,
drop in~ mein steam line pressure, which initiated the reactor trip and SI. Approximately 2000 gallon.s of borated, water was _..
.
. injected into the core. All safety systems functioned as
.
designed.
The insoectorl independently verified that the testing prerequisites
- l for power ascension above 50% power wero completed. Test results I
were adequately reviewed by the appropriate' licensee groups (Joint-Test Group, Onsite: Safety Committee, etc.) and approved ~by'the-plant management.
'
-No unacceptable conditions were identified.
2.2' Test Results Review Those test results listed in Attachment A were reviewed'by the inspector to verify that:
test changes. ware approved and implemented in accordance with
--
administrative procedures; changes did not impact the basic objectives.of the test;
--
,.
test deficiencies and exceptions were properly identified,
'
--
t resolved,-and resolution accepted;
,
,
the cognizant engineering group had evaluated the test results
--
and signified that testing demonstrated design conditions were met; and, test results compared satisfactorily with established
--
acceptance' criteria or were properly resolved.
'All test results reviewed satisfied the abo've attributes.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
l i
t_ _
_. _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_
$
-
,
-
,
,
'
2.3 Followup o'f Anomalies Identified During Previous Tests Anomalies identified during previous startup tests were documented in the NRC inspection report 50-412/87-55.
The inspector verified that these anomalies.were resolved or followed up by the cognizant licensee group, as discussed below:
Incore Thermocouple and RTD Cross Calibration (P0-2.03.01)
During the post-core hot functional test, there was only one set of valid test data obtained.
This test was reperformed at 250 F, 350 F, 450 F and 547 F plateaus on September 22-24, 1987.
Test results obtained from this retest
,
satisfactorily resolved the previous concern regarding the lack of
!
valid test data.
Pressurizer Continuous Spray Flow Test (PO-2.06.10)
The inability of the pressurizer (PZR) spray bypass valves, 2RCS*51 (Loop A) and 2RCS*S2 (Loop B) to provide sufficient flow to maintain
"
spray'line temperature above the low temperature alarm (530 F) was identified.in the previous, test.
During the mid-September maintenance outage, the licensee disassembled and inspected both bypass valves.
No evidence of any damage or blockage was found.
The inspection of each orifice (3/8") in the bypass lines also revealed no blockage.
The problem of insufficient flow in the spray bypass line still persists.
To meet PZR temperature / pressure requirements, the system was operated by energizing the PZR back-up heaters to maintain a spray valve in a
,
-
throttled position, and thus keeping the spray line temperature above 530 F.
The licensee intends to continue this operating strategy through the first refueling outage. Although there is no immediate safety concern with regard to this operating strategy, the long term effects have not been thoroughly evaluated.
This subject was discussed at the exit meeting. A licensee representative stated that a safety assessment / evaluation would be performed.
The inspector will follow this up in'a future inspection.
'
2.4 Summary Testing for up to the 50% power. plateau was accomplished in accor-dance with approved procedures, data were acceptable, and test objectives were met.
Test-identified problems were properly dissemi-l nated to the appropriate groups for action.
Test deficiencies were j
followed up for resolution and carried forward to later test condi-tions when necessary. The licensee performance in the test area
'
is considered effective and acceptable,
,
I l
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
_,
_
. - _ - - - - - - - ---
j l>
'
,
- -
C
I
7,7 l
,
3.0 Independent Calculation / Verification
"
'
. a.-
The inspectorLindependently verified the Sequence of Events data e
obtained during the. Loss of Power Test (IST-2.04.03)
The' test-results verified the correct loading. sequence.
-
b.
In the' process of: following the test related problems with regar,d to
insufficient flow-in the PZR spray bypass line, the inspector noted
,
H
'that each bypass'line contained two 3/8" orifices.
These orifices n'
-were utilized to' provide.a. transition from Safety Class 1 piping j!
(spray line) to Safety' Class 2 piping (bypass line).
Per the
!
inspector's request, the-licensee provided' calculational results
.
indicating.that the maximum calculated break flow in the bypass line
. l is 127 gpm.. The-inspector independently verified the charging pump performance.: data which was obtained from the charging pumps and'
'
controls; test (P0-2.07.01).
The test data indicates that the 4-charging system is capable of delivering flow with.a high margin in
. j excess.of.the calculated break flow.
The inspector had no further questiono..
~4.0-'QA/QC Interface-
.The QA Surveillance group. consists of five licensee and three contractor personnel. -The group is responsible for conducting surveillance of startup testing activities at Unit 2, as they are performed ~and conducting
,
Lplanned surveillance of other Unit 1 and 2 activities including Beaver i
Valley Test Procedures (BVTs), Operations Surveillance Procedures (OSTs),
Maintenance _ Surveillance Procedures (MSPs), Preventive Maintenance Proce-
,;
,
.
dures (PMPs), security and training..The group utilizes surveillance
.
'y checklists to document their activities.
q
,
The QA surveillance personnel maintain a log to track all QA witness j
points which have been established in the Preoperational Tests (P0s),
System Operability-Verification (SOVs) and.the Initial Startup Tests (ISTs).
The'l'og contains the steps to be witnessed and documented ll evidence that the witness points were inserted into the test engineer and l-control room copies of the test procedures.
The QA personnel are called
]
by the personnel performing the test when a witness point is approached,
The responsible QA personnel sign-the. log upon witnessing or waiving the
witness points.
The log enables the group to effectively keep track of
.i
'
'the procedural' steps to be witnessed and which ones actually were
_i witnessed.
The notifications of the QA personnel are generally ~being performed, however, there have been cases when the notification step was not completed.
,
'The' inspector noted that witness points in the master copy of the completed ISTs were initialed by QA surveillance group personnel and that i
<
n -
,i
~.QA surveillance activities were documented in QA surveillance checklists.
.
.The' inspector' reviewed the surveillance checklists listed in Attachment B; l
,
and noted that the QA verifications included: test procedure reviews and
.
h
l
.
..
-f
.
-
-
-
-
-
,.
.'E,
'
1
}.
approvals; field change controls; personnel' awareness of test require-ments; test equipment identification and calibration dates; log entries;-
- ;
thst interruption and resumption controls; temporary modification
'
controls; and data entry controls. 'The surveillance checklist is also used to document the witness points which were signed off in the procedure by the QA surveillance personnel.
,,
The QA Surveillance group maintains a log to track the status of surveil-j lance deficiencies and provides monthly reports to management including j
'9',
the~ deficiencies issued, awaiting response and awaiting evaluation
!
'
verification.
-
>4 There was one unsatisfactory condition identifiedEin the surveillance i
checklists reviewed by the inspector. A Surveillance Deficiency Report
'
,
was written for Surveillance POT-300-87 of p0 2.03.01, "Incore l
Thermocouple and RTD Cross Calibration".
The deficiency was written because the test engineer failed to. notify QA prior to performing a QA
'
' witness point step in the procedure. Additionally, the QA surveillance group personnel determined that the test engineer hud not. performed a required step prior to proceeding to another step.
This Surveillance Deficiency Report remains open awaiting a response.
>
<
j The licensee's-QA surveillance group is providing adequate coverage for i
the IST program.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
j 5.0 Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
!
!
.(0 pen) Unresolved Item (50-412/00-00-15): Operator Training during Low I
Power Testing
'
The inspector reviewed the licensee's response to NUREG-0737 Action Item l
-
I.G,1,. Training During Low Power Testing.
The licensee is providing
!
operator training on natural circulation in the classroom and on the i
Unit -1 simulator which adequately simulates Unit 2 response with regard
!
to natural circulation. The licensee, however, has not yet incorporated' '
startup test.dat'a ihto the existing simulator training.
The licensee informed the-inspector that the test data outlined in their response to I.G,1 would be incorporated into the simulator training program within a month. This' item remains open pending completion of the licensee's i
updated simulator training program incorporating the applicable startup
test data.
,
'
(C1osed) Unresolved Item (50-412/87-45-01) Fuel Oil' System Cleaning
,
A number of discrepancies were identified during the review of the phase-1 documentation for the cleaning and flushing cf the fuel oil systems of the Emergency Diesel Generators (EDG) 2r1 and 2-2.
Six specific questions were raised in Inspec' tion Report 50-412/87-51. All of g
the questions were subsequently answered except for the one which dealt b
_ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- _ _ _
_
_ \\
,
.
.
_
.
_ _-
._
- _.
_.
_.
l
,
,
.,1 i
'
p'
, su
-
g is
,
,,
l with the-cleaning and flushing'of the fuel oilisupply lines of EDG-2-1
,
and 2-2.
The documentation' demonstrating the cleanliness verification of j
.the EDG'2-2 fuel oil supply lines was reviewed.and found' acceptable in d
.
~
' Inspection. Report 50-412/87-53. The documentation for EDG 2-1, however,
was=not available for review.
'The inspector reviewed documentationLfrom;the licensee's vendor verifying
!
that the fuel oil' supply lines'Were cleaned / flushed in.accordance with<
l
. the vendor's. requirements. The vendor confirmed :that both" units (EDG,2-1
and' 2-2) were tested under load, that all: systems were: flushed and sealed
and that there wasino need,- under normal circumstances, to flush the j
systems again in the field prior-to start up.
Based on the documentation cthat_the fuel oil systems were flushed by the vendor, this item is
' closed.
'
,
.
6.,0 Exit Meeting.
.;
O
.
.
o An. exit. meeting was_ held on October 2, 1987 to discuss theEinspection
~j scope and findings, as-detailed in"this report (see paragraph 1.0~for
'
attendees),.
At'no time during thisfinspection was written material provided to the y
111censee. Based on the NRC Region-I review of this report and l
' discussions held.with the. licensee. representatives at the exit, it was determined that this report doesinot contain information subject to 10 CFR 2.790 restrictions.
,j i
i f
i I
.)
.1
-
i s
b (
A mai__.._________._____.____.-__._____
, - _ - - - -
e
.p*
-4 L
,
ATTACHMENT A Test Results Evaluation
,
IST-2.04.04 Load Swing Test (30% and 50% power)
--
IST-2.02.04 Power Coefficient Measurement (30% and 50% power)
--
IST-2.04.03 Verification of Plant Performance Following a Turbine
--
Trip Coincident with a Loss of Offsite Power at Load
,,
--
IST-2.21A.02 Plant Performance Following MSIV Closure at Power IST-2.04.01 Automatic Steam Dump Control Test j
--
50V-2.240.01 Automatic Steam Generator Water Level Control Test
--
(30% and 50% power)
<
IST-2.24A.01 Verification of Plant Operation Following a Loss of
--
Feedwater Heaters at Load v
BVT-2.1-8.49.1 Power Distribution Limit Check (Flux Map #2103)
--
--
BVT-2.1-2.2.3 Nuclear Power Range Calibration (50% power)
SOV 2.45A.01 Loose Parts Monitoring System Test (up to 50% power)
--
P0-2.24B.02 Turbine-Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Test
--
--
P0-2.07.01 Charging Pumps and Controls Test (Pump Performance Data)
l l
.
>+
s
_ _
_
. _ _ _ _ - _ _ -
i
- .
.
,
t
...
-
,,
h..
L
.
.
i ATTACHMENT B
)
~ E t
Surveillance Procedure Surveillance y
No, No.
Procedure Title Date
!
POT-300-87 P0 2.03.01 Incore Thermocouple Cross 9/23/87
-!
Calibration Test IST-09M-87 IST 2,02.01 Alignment of NIS 9/15/87 IST-20A-87 IST 2.04.03 Turbine / LOOP at Load 9'/9/87
IST-37A-87 IST 2.21A.02 Plant Performance Following 9/24/87 MSIV Closure at Power IST-368-87 IST 2.43.02 Plant Radiation Surveillance 9/6/87
- ' "
and Ve'rification of Shielding Effects
,
,
n I
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ - - -