IR 05000456/1985049
| ML20137H506 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 11/26/1985 |
| From: | Dunlop A, Ring M, David Williams NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137H485 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-456-85-49, NUDOCS 8512020408 | |
| Download: ML20137H506 (5) | |
Text
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-456/85049(DRS)
Docket No. 50-456 License No. CPPR-132 Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company Post Ofiice Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 Facility Name:
Braidwood Station, Unit 1 Inspection At:
Braidwood Site, Braidwood, Illinois Inspection Conducted:
October 2 through November 15, 1985 tnO Inspector:
D. L. Williams il /Jt. 05 Date (?
h e l'
,
A. Dunlop, Jr.
/ /- 2 A./'/
Date
- yX8Y Approved By:
M.A. Rind, Chief
/ / ~ k - E'
Test Programs Section Date Inspection Summary Inspection on October 2 through November 15, 1985 (Report No. 50-456/85049(DRS))
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection to review licensee actions on previous inspection findings and preoperational test procedure verifications.
This inspection involved 28 inspector-hours onsite and 17 inspector-hours in office by 2 NRC inspectors.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
$$k20$$Nd b f[
O
-
-
-
---
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
s
-
.
.
DETAILS 1.
P_er, sons Contacted Lxwonwealth Edison Conpany_(_CE_Co)
H. A. Zirmerman, Project Startup Testing Supervisor
- P. L. Barnes, Licensing and Compliance Engineer
- C. J. Tomashek, Project Startup Superintendent
- G. W. Nelson, Assistant Technical Staff Supervisor
- T. Quaka, Site Quality Assurance Superintendent
- T. Miosi Nuclear Licensing Administrator, G.O.
D. Paquett, Assistant Superintendent for Maintenance Additional station technical and administrative personnel were contacted by the inspectors cLring the course of the inspection.
- Denotes those personnel present at the exit neeting on November 14, 1985.
,
2.
Licensee Actions on_ Previous Inspec,ti_on Findings a.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (456/84-41-07):
This concerned the validity of specific gravity samples taken from the flare arrestor port.
The licensee gathered samples frcm the normal sample port and from the flare arrestor port. The readings from these samples were compared and no significant variations were noted.
In general, the readings from the flame airestor port were slightly lower and therefore more consemat'i ve,
b.
(Closed) Unra olved Item (456/84-41-08): This item addressed the lack of docunentation_of discussion or resolution of concerns by the TestReviewBoaro"(TRB). The licensee had initiated training for
all terbers 01' the TRB to properly docun.cnt discussions and resolution of concerns identified during the review prvcess. The inspector has
,
reviewed training records for TRB nenbers and they appear adequate.
-
Also during the review of preoperational test procedures the inspector i
has noted the' inclusion of TRB conunts for procedure reviews and results reviews.
c.
(Closed) Open Item (456/85008-02(DRS)): This item concerned satisfying Regulatory Guice 1.108, Section C.2.a(2), to den:onstrate proper diesel generator operation for design-accident-loading-sequence to design load requirements. The licensee has added Tenporary Change Request (TCR) ho. 28 to test procedure EF-11. "ECCS Full Flow," which ensures that this regulatory position is satisfied by additional acceptance criteria for the required testing.
d.
(Closed)OpenItem(456/85008-04(0RS)):
This item concerned satisfying Regulatory Guide 1.108, Section C.2.a(7), to de%nstrate the diesel generator engine will perform properly when switching from one fuel oil supply system to another to satisfy the 7-day
,
w
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
,
.
.
storage requirement. The Unit 1 diesel generators use two 25,000 gallon tanks each with both tanks on line at all times (r.o switching required) and the Unit 2 diesel generators each have one 50,000 gallon tank. No testing is required as there is no switchover in fuel oil supply systems for any diesel. This item is considered closed.
e.
(4 pen)OpenItem(456/83-20-04(DRS)): This item concerned the apparent lack of administrative controls for equipnent maintenance and protection after completion of preoperational testing. The licensee has initiated some administrative procedures that are supposed to control equipment maintenance and protection. The inspector has not had time to properly review the program and had experienced difficulty in contacting the proper personnel to discuss the program as implemented. On the last day of the inspection period a discussion was begun but no conclusions have been determined by the inspector. The inspector has been unable to determine the adequacy of implementation and will docunent the review in subsequent inspection reports; therefore, this item remains open.
f.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (456/85008-01(DRS)): This item concerned defining initial conditions of the diesel generators to determine if a hot or cold start was conducted. The licensee has initiated test change requests 47 and 48 that define ambient conditions for lube oil and jacket water temperatures. The licensee also conmitted to outline acticns by the system test engineers if temperatures should fluctuate and to define the time frame between stopping and starting of the diesel generators. All actions by the licensee appear to be complete and the inspector will monitor testing to detennine if the actions taken are adequate for an acceptable test.
This item remains open.
,
g.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (456/85016-04(DRS)): This item concerned the automaticswitchoveroftheAuxiliary)Feedwater(AFW)pumpssuction
'
frcn the condensate storage tank (CST to the Essential Service Water (ESW) system. The statements in the Braidwood Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and the preoperational test, AF-10, Revision 2, appear to be in conflict. The licensee's response, Memo:
Klopp to Schroeder, does not appear to answer the concern as it states "that cormitment (FSAR) was implemented by furnishing a low pressure alarm at a ' low' setpoint and a trip at a ' low-low'
setpoint." The FSAR states a switchover will occur from the CST to the ESW system at a ' low' setpoint and an AFW pump trip at a
' low-low' setpoint. Procedure AF-10 acceptance criteria 4.2 states a switchover occurs at a ' low-low' setpoint. There is no acceptance criteria for an AFW purp trip although the trip is tested. AF-10 tests three suction pressure interlocks on decreasing pressure.
These interlocks are (1) an alarm on ' low' suction pressure, 1.0-1.8 psig; (2) a supply switchover at a '1cw-low' suction pressure, 1.02-1.42" Hg Vac; and (3) an AFW pump trip, 4.4-4.56" Hg Vac. The conflict appears to be in the markings on the annunciators in the control room and the statements in the FSAR and the test
.
procedure. The inspector believes that the wording of the suction pressure interlocks is confusing. This item will remain open pending further clarification from the licensee on the conflicting wording.
h.
-(0 pen) Violation (85026-02a, b, c): This violation involved problems identified during the review of preoperational test deficiencies.
These problems included:
(a) failure to initiate a test deficiency in a timely manner; (b) test deficiency description did not adequately describe the deficient condition; and (c) test deficiency corrective action was inadequate to resolve the deficient condition.
The licensee has conducted formal training for all of the subject problems to provide guidance to startup personnel for proper initiation and closure of test deficiency reports. The inspector has reviewed the training and finds it adequate. Other actions taken by the 1*censee included the following:
(1) The licensee has initiated a review of previously completed preoperational test results to determine if all deficient conditions had been identified and test deficiencies written
.to document identification and cksure of any conditions not previously identified.
(2) Site Quality Assurance (QA) has the final responsibility to review closed test deficiencies for correctness of closure.
The site QA department has conducted formal training for all concerned personnel on what is required for proper closure of a test deficiency. The inspector has reviewed the training records and finds them adequate.
(3) One of the major contributors to the problems identified had to do with preparing and verifying operating procedures.
This responsibility has been formally assigned to the operating department. This should help reduce the potential confusion concerning licensee actions to prepare and verify operating procedures. The inspector has reviewed the Operating Procedure Verification Program and finds it adequate.
The response to this Notice of Violation appears adequate at this time.
In order to prcperly evaluate the implementation and adequacy of the program changes and training, further monitoring by the inspector will.be required and therefore the item remains open.
3.
Preoperational Test Procedur_e Verification The inspectors reviewed the following preoperational test procedure against Regulatory Guide 1.68 and applicable portions of the FSAR to verify the procedure adequately addresses NRC requirements and licensee ccrrmitments.
.
-
-
- -
m
....
.
BWPT LO-10, Revision 1, " Leak Detection System" The inspector has concerns that the test methodology may not be adequate to determine the sensitivity that is required by this system.
In order to properly evaluate the adequacy of the test methodology the inspector will witness appropriate sections of the preoperational test.
This is considered an open item (456/85049-01(DRS)) pending a determination of the adequacy of the test methodology.
No violations or deviations were identified.
However, a portion of this area requires further review and evaluation and is considered to be an open item.
4.
Open Items Open items are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, which will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which involve some action on the part of the NRC or licensee or both.
Open items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Paragraph 3.
S.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee and contractor representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) on November 14, 1985.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection.
The licensee did not identify any such documents / processes as proprietary.
The licensee acknowledged the statements by the inspectors with respect to open items.
.
i
.