IR 05000457/1987008

Safety Insp Rept 50-457/87-08 on 870217-20.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Test Procedures, Administrative Procedures & Practices & Personnel Qualifications & Staffing for Unit 2 Test Program

ML20212N413
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	03/05/1987
From:	Dunlop A, Dupont S, Wright G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20212N396	List: IR 05000457/1987008 ML20212N395
References
50-457-87-08, 50-457-87-8, NUDOCS 8703130013
Download: ML20212N413 (5)

Text

. .

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-457/87008(DRS)

Docket No. 50-457 Lfcense No. CPPR-133 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Braidwood Station, Unit 2 Inspection At: Braidwood Site, Braidwcod, Illinois Inspection Conducted: February 17-20, 1987 Inspectors: G ho 3/9/F7 Datt ' /

f44 %d-Andrew Dunlop kr V7 Da'te/ [

Approved By: Chief 3/6/87 Test Programs Section Date Inspection Summary Inspection on February 17-20, 1987 (Report No. 50-457/87008(DRS))

Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection to review licensee's test procedures, administrative procedures and practices, and personnel qualifications and staffing for the Unit 2 test program for the purposes of determining whether appropriate mechanisms are in place to provide a transfer

!

of experience from the Unit 1 test program and to perform a corcplete, accurate, and successful test program on Unit Results: No violations or deviations were identified.

l 8703130013 870310 PDR ADOCK 05000457 G PDR

-- .

- -

. .-

. .

DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted

• M. E. Lohmann, Superintendent, Project Startup

• P. Barnes, Supervisor Regulatory Assurance

• M. Inserra, Supervisor, TRB

• T. Lewis, Startup Staff

• T. Weis, (Onsite) Project Engineering

• P. Zalan, Quality Assurance Engineer

• Denotes those attending the exit meeting on February 20, 1987.

2. A_dministrative Control Procedures The inspectors reviewed several of the licensee's administrative control procedures including selected Braidwood operating procedures, administrative procedures, the Startup Manual, and the Lessons Learned Program. The major inspection effort was directed toward the following specific areas: The inspectors reviewed the program and noted that the licensee utilized the completed Unit 1 test procedures as the basic source documents for the development of the Unit 2 test procedures. Since Unit l'and 2 are virtually identical, this approach should yield a procedure at least equal to that used for Unit 1. Unit I retests, component demonstrations, test changes and correspondence are also factored into the development of the Unit 2 test. In order to avoid a repetition of problems or findings encountered during Unit I testing, the Lessons Learned Program for Unit 2 required the test engineer to review QA items, NRC items, contract reports, Deviation Reports (DVRs), Event Reports (LERs), Change Notices (ECNs, FCNs),

Action Items (AIRS) and the Programmed Action List (PAL) for problems which may affect the Unit 2 test. Checklists have been developed to implement these review The program also contained provisions for an exchange of testing information with the Byron testing organizatio The inspectors reviewed the Braidwood Startup Manual to evaluate the licensee's administrative controls for conducting preoperational testing on Unit 2 while Unit 1 is in operation. This condition demands good communications with careful interfacing to ensure the operating unit is not adversely affected by activities occurring in the preoperational unit. The inspectors noted that the Startup Manual required the Unit 2 test engineer to infom Unit 1 Operations of any tests dich have the potential of affecting Unit 1. The Startup manual also required specific Unit 2 preoperational tests to be treated as startup tests which requires interfacing with Operations and SR0 concurrence on changes. The inspectors reviewed the licensee's current list of procedures which may impact Unit I and found it to be adequat No violations or deviations were identifie , _ .-- ._

. _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ . _ _ - . . _ _

.. . Personnel and Staffing The licensee has chosen a different method of staffing to conduct the Unit 2 preoperational test program from that used for Unit 1. On Unit 1, the preoperational test program was perfomed by the engineers of the licensee's Technical Staff. Following licensing of Unit 1, some of these individuals continued through the startup (or post fuel load) testing and assumed the normal duties of an operating plant technical staff. To perfom the preoperaticnal testing of Unit 2, the licensee has utilized test engineers from Westinghouse. This change allows the Technical Staff to perfom its normal functions relative to the operating unit without diluting its capability by also trying to conduct testing on Unit Further, many of the engineers who perfomed the Unit 1 test progran remain accessibic to the Unit 2 test group as members of the Technical Staf In Order to staff the Unit 2 preoperational testing organization, the licensee has key individuals from the Unit 1 testing organization remaining in addition to new individuals who have previous testing and nuclear experience. The inspectors reviewed the new Unit 2 startup organization and the personnel qualifications of its members. The qualifications and training records of the Unit 2 test group were examined. The inspectors concluded that the average experience level of the Unit 2 Startup staff was adequat No violations or deviations were identifie . Test Procedures In order to support the licensing of Unit 1, NRC inspectors previously reviewed portions of fcur Unit 2 preoperational tests; DC power, diesel fuel oil and two auxiliary power tests. The results of these reviews are documented in Inspection Report Nos. 50-456/87003 and 50-457/8604 In this inspection, the following preoperational tests were reviewed as a sample indicative of the remaining Unit 2 tests:

BwPT/RH-50, " Residual Heat Ren. oval" BwPT/DG-50, " Diesel Generator 2A" BwPT/SI-50, " Safety Injection"

,

Several problems were noted with respect to those tests as discussed l below: BwPT/DG-50 (1) Several typographical errors were found in instrument designaticns, such as 2PS-DG089A instead of 2TS-DG089A, 2PS-DG074A verses 2PS-DG076A, 2PS-DG080A verses 2PSL-DG080A and 2TI-DG121A verses 2TI-DG122A. The licensee reviewed these errors and corrected them by issuing Test Change

!

Request (TCR)No.22.

! (2) The maximum governor limit prescribed in Step No. 9.15.7 of '

Unit 2 preoperational test as 61.0 Hz instead of 60.8 Hz as l

!

- - - _ _ -.

_ .__

. .

prescribed in the Unit 3 test. Further reviews revealed that the 61.0 value had been changed by a minor TCR during Unit 1 testing to 60.8 based on the fact that the switchover to the mechanical governor is 608 rpm and is the maximum speed that can be attained (equal to 60.8 Hz). The licensee agreed that 60.8 was still applicable as a governor limit and corrected the Unit 2 test by issuing TCR No. 2 BwPT/RH-50 (1) The prerequisite contained in Step No. 6.2.2 did not agree with the Startup Manual in that the Startup Superintendent was not required to accept the system for testing. The licensee agreed and issued TCR No. 7 to correct the error. The inspectors noted that this was an isolated erro (2) The discharge pressure recorded in Step No. 9.7.9 is required to be used to develop pump curves to satisfy Acceptance Criteria 4.1.5 and is required by the Startup Manual to be indicated with a "(." However, the indicating mark was omitted in the " authorized for testing" copy. The licensee agreed that the procedure was in error and issued TCR No. 7 to correct the error. The inspectors noted that this was an isolated occurrenc BwPT/SI-50 (1) Several variations were noted by the inspectors pertaining to changes in the required opening and closing times for various valves, such as Valves No. ESI-8812A and B timing were changed from less than 15 seconds (Unit 1) to less than 20 seconds (Unit 2). Further review revealed that the Unit 2 preopera-tional test reflected changes to opening and closing times as ,

prescribed in the FSAR, Amendment 46. The inspectors also verified that the change in valve timing did not adversely I affect the Unit I test dat (2) The inspectors also noted that the acceptance criterion for valve timing had changed for the Unit 2 test in that several valves' acceptance were previously based on closing during Unit 1 testing but were based on opening for Unit 2. The

, review revealed that in cases, where the acceptance had been i changed from opening to closing or closing to opening, were based on both the Byron and Braidwood Test Review Board (TRB)

l recomendations . The TRB had fcund that the acceptance criteria for the Braidwood Unit 1 test were in error and had i

corrected the deficiency in Revision 0, of the Unit 2 test.

l The inspectors agreed that the Unit 2 acceptance criteria is correct and also verified that the Unit 1 test data met the correct acceptance criteria.

!

!

l I

_ - . _ .__ -. _- . . . - - . . - . __ _ .

.- - . - - - -. . ..

. ..

.

, Conclusion Although several problems were noted the inspectors judged them not to.be significant and were isolated occurrences. The Lesson Learned Program for Unit 2 appears to be adequat . Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives denoted in Paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on February 20, 1987. The inspector summarized the scope and results of the inspection and discussed the likely content of this inspection report. .The licensee acknowledged the information and did not indicate that any of the information disclosed during the inspection could be considered proprietary in nature.-

l

5

. _ _ _ _ _ . . _