ML080280606

CR 19852 - AMAG-Westinghouse Letter CAE-03-107 Not Accurate

ML080280606
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	12/23/2003
From:	- No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
FOIA/PA-2008-0046
Download: ML080280606 (3)

Text

\***.: Q.t5 *#'r,.* BYR*** CR PRE-SCREENING

SUMMARY

REPORT P 12123103 Page o 10 100 of cd Owed To: VCAPALL __

D52 Disc Date: 12/17/03-, =Event.Date:, 2108/03 How Discovered: H-2 Unit: 01 Level: EE SJ&--CT:ý,MAG-Westinqhouse letter CAE-03-107 not accurate J System: EW7 Class: Ei0 I-1NATOR=S EVeTI0N- -- SCREENING SECTION CR No: 191852 Name of Supervisory Reviewer: David Peterson Identified by: DAVID C EDER Provide a clear statement of the Problem and Consequence, if necessary:

During a site review of AMAG documentation provided by a vendor, Condition

Description:

problems were discovered. The items were brought to the attention of the vendor, In support of the AMAG recovery effort a review of various Westinghouse and a recommendation made to retract the incorrect documents.

documents was being performed. During the review a Technical problem was discovered. The issue is as follows: Recommended Significance Level and Class (provide a basis for Level 3 and

1. Westinghouse letter CAE-03-107 was transmitted on 12/8/03. This above): 4D.

letter stated "the common header locations at Braidwood 1 and 2 and Byron 1 and 2 are confirmed to be free from signal Identify additional actions taken or required to be taken:

interference/contamination and can be used to provide future CROSSFLOW measurements. The baseline scans which were collected in accordance with - Identify Extent of condition issues that require immediate actions: A Reference 3 are provided in the attachment to this letter for your generic concern exists with all vendor-supplied information. We must records." Reference 3 of Westinghouse letter CAE-03-07 is remain vigilant and maintain a questioning attitude when reviewing AMAG-INS-FS-013-01 "Frequency Spectrum Using DIAGNOSE Software", vendor-supplied information.

December 5, 2003. Suggested interim and long-term corrective actions: Action tracking

2. Step 6.1.12 of AMAG-INS-FS-01 3-01 states to select the A & B channel already exist to ensure the CROSSFLOW installations are determined frequencies per the QA calc (and also states to set the HP and LP to be filters). noise free prior to use. No further actions related to this issue are 3!1 p6.1.15 of AMAG-INS-FS-01 3-01 states to perform the scan for required.

uuency in the QA record.

4he Byron unit 1 QA calc CN-PS-03-30 rev 0 Page 156, there are 2 Additional Comments: Dave Eder exhibited Good questioning attitude, different sets of frequencies identified for the common header. recommend this be considered for a good catch award.

5. The attached frequency scans provided with Westinghouse letter CAE-03-107 were reviewed and were found deficient. The following 2 items Name of SRO contacted for Shift Management Review. Larry Ruppert.

Further were noted:

review by the Shift Manager is not required because the issue involved

a. The frequencies on the frequency scans for the Byron unit 1 common equipment not in use at this time.

header do not match the QA calc exactly? (this was the same for 3 of the installations reviewed) _* Shift Management Comments Section

b. Per AMAG-INS-FS-013-01 step 6.1.15 a frequency scan should be /

,performed for each set of frequencies in the QA calc but a scan for only Shift Manager Reviewer (Name):

one set of frequencies was provided. (this was the same for 3 of the ./

installations reviewed).

Operable? (Yes/No) Basis:

The above items were brought to the attention of Westinghouse personnel Reportable? (Yes/No) Basis:

(R. Doney, G. Kanupka) on 12/17/03. Further discussions with Westinghouse personnel on 12/18/03 confirmed that the scans provided with Westinghouse Additional Comments:

letter CAE-03-107 did not meet the requirements of AMAG-INS-FS-013-01.

Westinghouse personnel stated this occurred because the scans were collected prior to the generation of AMAG-INS-FS-013-01.

• ---- CAPCO/MRC Comments Section In short, Westinghouse letter CAE-03-107 is incorrect and'the provided CAPCO Reviewer (Name): Matt Page scans cannot be used as official documentation for "a noise-free______.

installation".

CR. Owed to: A8850CAP During the 12/18/03 conference call (G. Kanupka was representing Screening Comments:

ouse) Byron requested Westinghouse letter CAE-03-107 and be retracted. No additional actions required.

Wnts At the current time Byron and Braidwood do not have the official CR AT 173510-47 and 48 exist to ensure noise free installation of AMAC documentation required to support a "noise free Crossflow installation".

I

• 4. BYR CR PRE-SCREENING

SUMMARY

REPORT LP age 121231037 101 of 10 Owed To: ACAPALL CR: 191852 Disc Date: 12/17/03 Event Date: 12/08/03 How Discovered: --- Unit: 01 Level: F41

,dMCT: ,MAG-Westinghouse letter CAE-03-107 not accurate System: LW Class: LO ORIGINATOR SECTION SCREENING SECTION TRioes not currently impact either Byron or Braidwood site because prior to implementation.

Crossfiow is not in use. This does not affect future Crossfiow implementation because the new Byron and Braidwood implementation Good Catch to Dave Eder initiated by Dave Peterson. Fundamentals procedures will require new frequency scans per the approved Westinghouse displayed

- Questioning Attitude.

procedures. This is being tracked by ATs 173510-47 & 173510-48.

Inform P. Hayenga and B. Kartheiser of this CR for the Good Catch This issue is related to Vendor documentation/procedure adherencefand Program.

Insufficient Technical Rigor by the vendor.

How discovered:

Review of provided documentation.

Immediate actions taken:

Notified Westinghouse of the problems.

Westinghouse took an action (G. Kanupka)to revoke Westinghouse letter CAE-03-107.

Name & organization of supervisor personally notified to perform Supervisory Review. David Peterson Optional Section What activities, processes, or procedures were involved?

O 1 the condition happen?

What are the consequences?

No actual consequences.

Potential consequences could have been the implementation of AMAG without sufficient vendor documentation to ensure a "noise free installation."

Were any procedural requirements impacted?

no changes required.

Were there any adverse physical conditions?

Identify who was notified?

Jeff Drowley, Terry Printz, George Kanupka (Westinghouse), Brian Ledger, Brad Adams.

List of knowledgeable individuals:

Repeat or similar condition?

Description Trd 2 Description Trd 3 Description Proc Org Rank PRDOWD PROCESS-DOCUMENT CODES PRDQ DOCUMENT QUALITY 3C COMMUNICATIONS CC25 VNDR P ICR SI GN 0.FF

" ...." BYR CR PRE-SCREENING

SUMMARY

REPORT [P'age 12123103 102 of 10 Owed To: ýACAPALL CR: 191852 Disc Date: 12/17/03 Event Date: 12/08/03 How Discovered: -0 Unit: -01 Level: F

,CT: ,MAG-Westin-ghouse letter CAE-03-107 not accurate System: [FE Class: F-]

Ext Dept Oriq Date Approved By Date EDER DAVID C 08830 12/19/03 PETERSON DAVID J 12/19/03 Shift Manager Info Screening Info Approved By Date Approved By Date MRC CONSIDERATIONS ( CR ATTRIBUTE:

Regulatory Impact Human Performance OPEX TS OPERABLE: DEPT/CREW RESET: NER:

REPORTABLE: DEPT/CREW RESET: NNOE:

SDP: DEPT CLOCK RESET:

PLANT CLOCK RESET:

MRC Comments:

Bring Back to MRC? Yes/No