IR 05000454/1982006
| ML20053E832 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1982 |
| From: | Jackiw I, Ring M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20053E831 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-454-82-06, 50-454-82-6, NUDOCS 8206100135 | |
| Download: ML20053E832 (4) | |
Text
-.
'
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Docket No. 50-454/82-06(DETP)
Docket No. 50-454 License No. CPPR-130 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Byron Station, Unit 1 Inspection At:
Byron Site, Byron, IL Inspection Conducted: May 3-6, 1982 a
L-
'
~~
Inspector:
. A.
ng o rc
'
'
!
waL 0//4
'
Approved By:
If. Jac iw, Chief
/ rest Pydgram Section
/
'
Inspection Summary
,
Inspection on May 3-6, 1982 (Report No. 50-454/82-06(DETP))
'
Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection to review preoperational test procedures, witness the performance of preoperational testing, review the evaluation of preoperational test results, and review previous open items. The inspection involved 30 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector including 0 inspector-hours onsite during off-shifts.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
!
!
4
)
8206100135 820526 gDRADOCK 05000454 PDR
--_
_ - -
_,.
.
-. -
.- -
.-
. _ - -.. - -
-. -
. -..
-
-.
....
...
..--__
_
.
.
-
-
.
-
-.
i
'
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- R. Querlo, Station Superintendent
- C. Tomashek, Startup Group
- D.
St. Clair, Technical Staff Supervisor
- R. Ward, Assistant Superintendent, Administration and Support
- R.
Pleniewicz, Assistant Superintendent, Operations
- A Chomacke, Assistant Tech Staff Supervisor
.
- R. Westberg, QA Engineer, Operations
- R.
Schwartz, QA Engineer, Construction
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
Additional station technical and administrative personnel were contacted by the inspector during the course of the inspection.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.
(0 pen) Open item (454/82-02-01): This item involves providing acceptance values and tolerance ranges for data such as alarms and trip points being checked by a test (other than those values addressed as acceptance criteria in the FSAR). The inspector reviewed a Tech Staff Supervisor memo describing the licensee's method of providing these values. The item remains open pending review of the implementation of this method.
3.
Preoperational Test Results Evaluation The inspector reviewed the results of Preoperational Test 2.73.11 Safety Injection Accumulator System to verify the following attributes:
a.
All test. changes approved in accordance with administrative procedures, annotated in the procedures, and completed without changing the basic objectives of the test.
b.
Deficiencies resolved, resolution accepted by appropriate management, retest requirements completed.
c.
Engineering evaluation of results, agreement that testing
!
demonstrated the system met design requirements, comparison I
with established acceptance criteria.
l d.
Data sheets completed, data within acceptance tolerances, j
deficiencies identified, test steps properly initialed and
dated.
I l
e.
Quality assurance audit performed.
2
!.
y mv
-
+%'
3--pg 7-,.
y----yw-
--yag.
-
y--
g 9,
-.-q,5 me..te-m-
+-
g
-,-f-y--
-sy a-ei ww.ny-x--
--w.+--p-
-w-
-
r-
.
f.
Results approved in accordance with administrative procedures.
The inspector reviewed the test following completion of the Test Review Board review, but prior to Project Engineering review, con-sequently, attribute c.
above concerning Engineering evaluation is not complete and will be treated as an open item (454/82-06-01)
pending completion of Engineering evaluation and subsequent inspector review. The inspector noted that the test procedure did not clearly show how the calculations of L/D in the procedure demonstrated the objective stated in Table 14.2.31 of the FSAR that " flow rate is as expected" or the acceptance crieeria of Table 14.2.31 that " blowdown response is conservative with respect to the value used in the safety analysis." The licensee replied that the correlation between calcula-tion results and FSAR criteria would be provided by the Project Engineering Department. This is an open item (454/82-06-02) pending Engineering evaluation and subsequent review by the inspector. This test also was approved by the Test Review Board prior to issuance of the Technical Staff Supervisor memo referenced in Paragraph 1 of this report and dealing with acceptance values and tolerance ranges for data other than those addressed as acceptance criteria in the FSAR.
Ccusequently, the Safety Injection Accumulators did not have tolerance ranges specified for this " secondary" class of acceptance criteria.
Tim licensee intends to reassess the procedure with respect to the
" secondary" class of acceptance criteria and this is an open item (454/82-06-03) pending inspector review.
The inspector noted that Section 10.0 of this test provides for verification of operating procedures, however, most of the operating procedures were not available at the time of test performance and consequently not verified. The inspector questioned the licensee's method of ensuring that those operating procedures which require verification during the test program will receive verification and that those operating procedures not availabic at time of test procedure performance will be examined for possible verification by later test procedures. This is an open item (454/82-06-04) pending additional inspector review.
At the time of performance of 2.73.11, the licensee's Turnover / Testing Deficiency documentation form did not contain provisions for retest determination and signoff.
Subsequently, the Startup Manual and the Turnover / Testing Deficiency form have been updated to require. retest evaluation and to provide a retest signature. The evaluation of deficiencies associated with tests completed prior to the revision to the Startup Manual and the Turnover / Testing Deficiency form is con-sidered an unresolved item (454/82-06-05) pending inspector review to ensure adequate retest.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Preoperational Test Procedure Review The inspector reviewed test Procedure 2.18.10 Chemical and Volume Control - VCT and Charging Pumps against the FSAR, SER and Regulatory Guide 1.68.
The inspector made several comments against the procedure f
i
-. - -,. - - - - - - - - - - -, -,. - -
. -.,. _ - - _.- -,,-
-,
-, -,, - - - - - - - - - - -, -. - - -
,. -
- - - -
.
F
..
,
which the licensee agreed to review for incorporation. This is an open item (454/82-06-06) pending further discussion with the licensee.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Preoperational Test Witnessing and Related Items During the course of witnessing portions of the Diesel Generator Preoperational Test 2.22.10, the inspector noted and followed up on the following related items.
a.
The control room meter monitoring Diesel Generator output in kilowatts appeared to be inadequately sized.since the meter was a 0-6000 kw full range meter while the Diesel Generator had a 3050 kw two hour load rating. The inspector's review found the inadequately sized meter to be documented in the licensee's deficiency system.
b.
The inspector reviewed certificate of conformance records to determine that adequate documentary evidence was available at the site to show conformance to procurement requirements for diesel generator type qualification testing as described in IEEE-387.
c.
The 1A Diesel Generator suffered a " crankcase explosion" in March of 1982. The inspector attempted to review the circum-stances surrounding the event and the assessment of reportability with respect to 10 CFR 50.55(e). The licensee stated that Project Engineering had made the evaluation and that specifics of the assessment were not available at the site. This is an open item (454/82-06-07) pending review of the evaluation with Project Engineering.
6.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, Items of Noncompliance, or Deviations. An unresoloved item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in Paragraph 3.
7.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives denoted in Paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on May 6,1982.
The inspector summarized the scope of the inspection and the findings. The licensee acknowledged the statements made by the inspector with respect to the open items and the unresolved item.
4