ML080280606
| 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
BYR CR PRE-SCREENING
SUMMARY
REPORT P 12123103 o
cd
\\***.:
Q.t5 *#'r,.*
Page 100 of 10 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 Identified by: DAVID C EDER Condition
Description:
In support of the AMAG recovery effort a review of various Westinghouse documents was being performed. During the review a Technical problem was discovered. The issue is as follows:
- 1.
Westinghouse letter CAE-03-107 was transmitted on 12/8/03. This letter stated "the common header locations at Braidwood 1 and 2 and Byron 1 and 2 are confirmed to be free from signal interference/contamination and can be used to provide future CROSSFLOW measurements. The baseline scans which were collected in accordance with Reference 3 are provided in the attachment to this letter for your records." Reference 3 of Westinghouse letter CAE-03-07 is AMAG-INS-FS-013-01 "Frequency Spectrum Using DIAGNOSE Software",
December 5, 2003.
- 2.
Step 6.1.12 of AMAG-INS-FS-01 3-01 states to select the A & B channel frequencies per the QA calc (and also states to set the HP and LP filters).
3!1 p6.1.15 of AMAG-INS-FS-01 3-01 states to perform the scan for uuency in the QA record.
4he Byron unit 1 QA calc CN-PS-03-30 rev 0 Page 156, there are 2 different sets of frequencies identified for the common header.
- 5.
The attached frequency scans provided with Westinghouse letter CAE-03-107 were reviewed and were found deficient. The following 2 items were noted:
- a.
The frequencies on the frequency scans for the Byron unit 1 common header do not match the QA calc exactly? (this was the same for 3 of the installations reviewed)
- 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 one set of frequencies was provided. (this was the same for 3 of the
./
installations reviewed).
The above items were brought to the attention of Westinghouse personnel (R. Doney, G. Kanupka) on 12/17/03. Further discussions with Westinghouse personnel on 12/18/03 confirmed that the scans provided with Westinghouse 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.
In short, Westinghouse letter CAE-03-107 is incorrect and'the provided scans cannot be used as official documentation for "a noise-free______.
installation".
During the 12/18/03 conference call (G. Kanupka was representing ouse) Byron requested Westinghouse letter CAE-03-107 and Wnts be retracted.
At the current time Byron and Braidwood do not have the official documentation required to support a "noise free Crossflow installation".
Name of Supervisory Reviewer: David Peterson Provide a clear statement of the Problem and Consequence, if necessary:
During a site review of AMAG documentation provided by a vendor, problems were discovered. The items were brought to the attention of the vendor, and a recommendation made to retract the incorrect documents.
Recommended Significance Level and Class (provide a basis for Level 3 and above): 4D.
Identify additional actions taken or required to be taken:
- Identify Extent of condition issues that require immediate actions: A generic concern exists with all vendor-supplied information. We must remain vigilant and maintain a questioning attitude when reviewing vendor-supplied information.
Suggested interim and long-term corrective actions: Action tracking already exist to ensure the CROSSFLOW installations are determined to be noise free prior to use. No further actions related to this issue are required.
Additional Comments: Dave Eder exhibited Good questioning attitude, recommend this be considered for a good catch award.
Name of SRO contacted for Shift Management Review. Larry Ruppert.
Further review by the Shift Manager is not required because the issue involved equipment not in use at this time.
Shift Management Comments Section Shift Manager Reviewer (Name):
Operable? (Yes/No) Basis:
Reportable? (Yes/No) Basis:
Additional Comments:
CAPCO/MRC Comments Section CAPCO Reviewer (Name): Matt Page CR. Owed to: A8850CAP Screening Comments:
No additional actions required.
CR AT 173510-47 and 48 exist to ensure noise free installation of AMAC
I
- 4.
BYR CR PRE-SCREENING
SUMMARY
REPORT L
P Owed To: ACAPALL CR:
191852 Disc Date:
12/17/03 Event Date: 12/08/03 How Discovered: ---
Unit:
01
,dMCT:,MAG-Westinghouse letter CAE-03-107 not accurate System: LW 121231037 age 101 of 10 Level: F41 Class: LO ORIGINATOR SECTION TRioes not currently impact either Byron or Braidwood site because Crossfiow is not in use. This does not affect future Crossfiow implementation because the new Byron and Braidwood implementation procedures will require new frequency scans per the approved Westinghouse procedures. This is being tracked by ATs 173510-47 & 173510-48.
This issue is related to Vendor documentation/procedure adherencefand Insufficient Technical Rigor by the vendor.
SCREENING SECTION prior to implementation.
Good Catch to Dave Eder initiated by Dave Peterson. Fundamentals displayed
- Questioning Attitude.
Inform P. Hayenga and B. Kartheiser of this CR for the Good Catch Program.
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?
OWD CODES Description PRD PROCESS-DOCUMENT Trd 2 Description PRDQ DOCUMENT QUALITY Trd 3 Description 3C COMMUNICATIONS Proc Org Rank CC25 VNDR P
BYR CR PRE-SCREENING
SUMMARY
REPORT
[P Owed To: ýACAPALL CR:
191852 Disc Date:
12/17/03 Event Date: 12/08/03 How Discovered:
-0 Unit:
-01
,CT:,MAG-Westin-ghouse letter CAE-03-107 not accurate System: [FE 12123103
'age 102 of 10 Level: F 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