ML20092N410

Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Rept 50-454/84-16.Corrective Actions:Retest of 1A & 1B Containment Spray Pumps Conducted

ML20092N410
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	06/14/1984
From:	Farrar D COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20092N394	List: ML20092N404 ML20092N410
References
8785N, NUDOCS 8407030103
Download: ML20092N410 (8)

Text

.

~,;

y

') One First National Plaza, Chic!go, lihnois z.

Commonwealth Edison

[

v

C~J

' Addrzss Reply to: Post Office Box 767

'N Chicago, Illinois 60690 June 14, 1984 Mr.~ James G'.

Keppler.

Regional Administrator U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

.799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL-60137

Subject:

Byron Generating Station Units 1 and 2 I&E Inspection Report No. 50-454/84-16

References (a):

April 17, 1984 letter from R. D. Walker to Cordell Reed.

.(b):

May-18, 1984 letter from D. L. Farrar to J. G. Keppler.

Dear Mr. Keppler:

This letter provides a revised response to the Notice of Violation issued in reference (a).

Attachment A to.this letter.contains

'the-revised response which addresses NRC comments on our original response.- This response supersedes the one provided in reference (b).

Pleasel address any questions-you may have regarding this matter

to this office.

Very truly yours,

__4 w

D. L. Farrar Director of Nuclear Licensing

'Im Attachment S407030103 840620 PDR ADOCK 05000454 G

PDR 8785N j$ 15

m s 3 7.~--"-

3:

^

m", - <,%,er

~

@F4-

' d#

x:1,L, m, g%d:- >m%~

<vu, 9

,q q@

+, _ x r

s,*

i.

' n%

x

=

~

M_ ~m t

?

. +.

~-

- v _. '

i

% 33 m;

y' m.

3 4

"s

[ 1 Wy

[

My ATTACHMENT:Aq, s m._

g.

_ m

.,l::'_

i,

.j J -

RESPONSE'TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION.

~

.u d

y IX Q Q

l' 99 y

A

VIOLATIONV aY

~ '

.I i

l....;.. W W

10 CFR150,qAp't!n' dix B,(Criterion;XI;. Test 4 Control, as. implemented.by thel p

7 c '

< Commonwealth: Edison? Qualitya Assdra'nne Manual, Quality l Requirement 11.0 ignd the~ByrontStartup Manual.requiras that: test results be evaluated-to l

xcssure 2i:onforniance. with design' an'd performance. requirements; that the

~

idatat displayJ the adequacy afy the-er uipmentn to -meet-specified requirements;1and that appropria,te and calibrated test equipment betused.

s.

r

^

.Contrarysto:the.above, theifol' low!ng examples /of inad. equate implementation l

' ? off theltest (programE wera zidentifie.d:' -

. ~,,,

r.. : -

3 n.

a

~

.s

.~

s, g.

11.L NThe Byron 1'. Test,ReviewQBoa'rd analyzed the incoriset curves for the two

[

"containmentJspray?pumpssinsthe evaluat' ion of"the,results ofLpreopera-i

' ~

itional? test procedure CS:17.-10,'" Containment Spray."

Commonwealth Edison's Project Engiileering Department failed to correct the. Test Review. Board error.

j

. g:a

.s

+

, _ L2.'.1Th'e Byron -Test (Review Board analyzed 5ttie 'ini:orrect curves' for the two

residual (heat rerdoval-pumps sin the. evaluati'on of -the results ' of 9

preoperational? test procedure RH 67.10 h"Retiidual He'at-Removal."

i H

LCommonwealth Edison's' Project Engineering Depa'rtmentffailed.'to

__ correct the Test ReviewgBoard error.

L a

F *:3.'-

s <..

1

' ~

iThe Byron (StationIfailed tol pro (vide all:of~the strip chart recordings from"preoperationalitestsproce' dure EF 26.ll, "ECCS Full' Flow," to the

~

Project 1 Engineering -Department so that a complete evaluation of the fresults:could'be7made.

r 3

4'. 1The: cal'ibrited signal generator chosen by the\\ Byron' Technical Staff

~

to / serve 2as!'a calibrationf check.of,the strip chart recorders used in i

rpreoperational: testy proc'e' dure EF 26.11, ' ECCS Full Flow,"' was not b"-

, ' appropriate in that 1tssfsetting was changed and itt, calibration

~

rendered-meaningless..

P

~--

,d

5.1 : Both safety: injection pu,mps were' operated'at less, than 45 gpm in svi'olati'orof precaution!8.5.1. of preoperational test: procedure SI v

73.12 36.- /Bdt$y, 4' Safety Injection-F1'ow Balance."

-n Iresidual heat removalfpumps were oper'ated at les's than'500 gpm

~

1'

'ingviolation of precaution;8x6.'l of preoperational test procedure SI i

17V.12,f"SafetyDInjection-FlowlBalance."

3 m g.

4

'M+

g.

y a

~

v.\\

yy-7 A'

8785N U F

po '

an

?

. (.

E,' '

,T

,+

g:.,.l$.

c Q., u s

s x

. Z _1.- o -. --. - - _ ~ _ _ _. -.. _ _ _ _ _ - -. - _.., _. - _ _.,. _ - -.,.. _.

g,

na/

- r,g, r

llds.

kin D '~; '

~

av Of

'Responselto Items 01'an'dl :

l 2

m

~

JAsfnotedLin.the inspection report, the Byron Test Review Board.

!(TRB); misinterpreted lthe pump-curve.

The axis of _ each pump curve was

' considered:to1be,the total? pump discharge' head instead of the total pump developed; head.: gAlthough1this-incorrect interpretation of the pump.

. curves Lwas cused by 'the Byron rTRB :in Ltheir. evaluation of ' the containment

,$spraysandyresidual heat removal pumps, Project Engineering's review of

z

~fpre-operationalXtests"CS-17.i10 and RH-67.10 determined the performance of l

e

the CSiand RHR" pumps to'be acceptable through the correct-interpretation o f;: the ' pump' ~ curves.

ProjectLEngineering's review discovered the:

11ncorrectlinterpretation orcthe; pump curves;by the TRB but neglected to idiscloseithis4findingDto?theTRB'in their-comments.

f l

jIt$wasfalsoflater-l'dentified by TRB that-the curves initially used by l

TTRBrtofanalyzefthe CS pumps were not.the certified curves.

They were i

Jcurves which_had been supplied as.a part offthe pump vendor's proposal.

,! Certified:curvesnwere. requested and received from-the pump ~ manufacturer._

.a

..Uponfreview ofithe' certified ~ pump curves,_the performance o'f the 1A

.c

' - 'CS:pumpiwast found to be above the pump 1 performance curve whereas the data

foritherla CS pump 1was found to be below the-pump performance curve and

? indicated 5 marginal performance.

Further' investigation.of the pump and l

frotoriserialLnumbers determined that.theD"A" pump impeller (low flow):was Llocated in the1B pump (high flow)? casing and that the "B" pump impeller

)(hightflow) wastlocated in:the "A" pump.~ Based upon-this evaluation, a 4

JpotentialH10CFR'50.55(e).reportLwastmaderto:NRC - Region III identifying-j Lthis pump impeller. deficiency.. Subsequentito this report, both.the 1A' t

~

fgnd 1B CS_ pumps _were pulled and'the impellers.were reinstalled.

Changing-

'I otheimotorsDwasEnotirequired since the motors.are similar.

By. design, the m 7 710w flow; impeller -is to be positioned in-the " A" pump : location. and the l

high flow-impeller:in thel"B": pump. location.

~

iThe;RHRipumps'iperformanceEwas determined to.be acceptable.

j TCorrective-Action Taken on Items'l and'2:

g 10n::,3une 9 Eand 10,E a retest of the lA 'and -IB containment -spray = pumps Jr?+(wastconductediwiththeproperipump/impelleralignment. indicate 1thatLpumpLperformance m

.Preliminar The

_7 Lretestrwill1betreviewed_by!TRB.and~ Project Engineering for final i

' acceptance.1

~.

r

+

E

/

F

?S 4

P i

5 -

s

~

w: ?

. Additionally, Project Engineering has re-reviewed the following listed preoperational-tests.

The purpose of this re-review was to reconcile any discrepancies between the Station TRB results and Project Engineering TRB results with respect to acceptance criteria.

03.10f Auxiliary Feedwater-18.11 CVCS 31.10 Fuel Pool Cooling 46.10 I & C Power 51.10 Main Steam 51.11 Main Steam - PORV's 52.10-Excore Detectors 63.11

-RC MOV 63.12 RC I & C 69.10 Pressurizer 73.12 Safety Injection 86.10 Diesel Generator Ventilation

-99.10 Switchgear. Ventilation Action to Prevent'Further Violations:

Project Engineering _ personnel have been. instructed to clearly list

any future corrections or differences with regard to the TRB analysis of results-in the PED review. letter to the TRB.

The station's Post TRB Checklist.(TSM 110) has been modified to include an item to remind the TRB to specifically call out any items requiring PED response.

TRB will review pump curve data to ensure axial coordinates are

labeled properly-and that' test data meets the test acceptance criteria.

Also, a Tech Staff seminar will be conducted on the use of pump curves at the next Tech Staff meeting on June 22.

Full Compliance Date for Items 1 and 2:

LJune 22, 1984 8785N' l

,e--

---

r-

~

y. 7

<.,1 i.

4e l

) ~

l 5

cResponse toLItem-3::

. :The LByron; Station TRB ' initially f ailed to : provide PED with all of the sstrip?chartstforLthe EF-26.11 preoperational test.

Upon PED request some

stripicharts wereisubsequently provided.

After identifying that PED had

.not received _ all of the. strip -charts, the balance of the strip charts

were transmittedLtoLPED'for review.

The review of all strip charts'

~

findicated that!the partial strip charts which-were previously transmitted l

2cnd-reviewed were sufficient to perform the complete test review.

r

~

Corrective Action ~Taken on Item 3:

PEDianalyzediand approved the EF-26.11 test results based *Jpon the

.stripscharts. initially provided for their evaluation.. - Subsequently, PED 16asDappraised'that allsof the. strip charts had-not been submitted to

them.1,The. complete. strip charts were then reviewed by PED and it was determinedithat~-.their initial. acceptance and approval was not l

invalidated. ' All strip charts sent -to PED for pre-operational test l

s review prior:to.the review of EF-26.11 have been verified to be correct i

~tnd test ' data.was; found to be interpreted correctly.

Action to Prevent'Further Violations:

.TheE ost1 Test Review Checklist, which is contained in Tech Staff P

SupervisoraMemo #10 has been modified to include a statement to determine that' data (rough ~or final) should be included in the review package to 1

TPED.

A:checklistLis also being used to ensure all necessary_information 45 tis"sent.to andjreceived by PED.

Full Compliance Date for Item 3:

~

May315,jl984 w -

8785N i

d F

m-Twrwe

+

ee c

m y

9-y-%

ww y

e 7

,gw+-

--y y

--7-+-

.75-y 7y-

y'a - -e?

h.

4

x

,g.

m et' yy

_ x s

m

_.5 m

J n

- ; Response to-Item 4:1 y

'dDuring[thefcollection-of1 acceptance criteria-data'for the EF-26.ll 7preoperationalitest,snon-certified strip chart recorders were' utilized, sTo compensate;forgthis,fa calibrated digital. signal-generator was.

'connectedito:the; recorder,to provide actime base.on the strip' charts.

s.

fUpon? investigation,ait1was determined that the linear dial setting on

~

~

n

~

tthe digital signal: generator was positioned to.a frequency other than the

<f

desiredsfrequencycof 11hz,.resulting in an error-in the time base on the-

strip charts.-

... jHowever,jduringtheactualmeasurement-andcollectionoftestdata Jthelsigna10 generator-input was disconnected-from the strip chart recorder

'And the: recorder speed was set to 10mm/sec.

The test data collected was s

Tsvaluat'ed: based on.the recorder speed input and not the signal generator-l

~

~

Ltrace.;

Correciive" Action ~Takenon-Item:4:

Ea"ch strip 1 chart-recorder used to collect data'was subsequently I

ichecked;to verify'itscaccuracy.

For a chart speed of 10mm/sec, the j

,recorderstwere= determined to be accurate to within 1 5%. ' Project 0

t

.Engineeringiindependently' evaluated the test results and determined that

, ~the chartLspeed'was accurate. ~ Based on these analyses by the TRB and i

PED,'the'testidata for pre-operational-test'EF-26.ll was found to be acceptable.

i

.Actionito' Prevent 1Further Violations:

-Byron Station has reviewed previous uses of strip chart recordings for: data collection-in order to ensure the adequacy of test results.

Furthermore, Tech Staff Supervisor Memo #35, " Guidelines for Strip Chart

Recorders" has<been revised to incorporate comments as necessary.

--Full' Compliance Date for Item,4:

i June *1~, - 1984 i

q i

l i

6 8785N1

}[-

r-c

-y

> E i..

m,

~

/

l j:lM g o, z.

y

" Response-toTItems 5 and 6:

iWithin/preoperational' test procedure.SI-73.12, precaution 8.5.1 tstates""Doinot:' operate a_ safety' injection pump at less than the design minimum; flow ofL45;gpm". 'Also, precaution 9.6.1 in the SI-73.12 test 1 states ~"Do notLoperate~a residual: heat removal pump at less than the

' design. min'imum flow o f ' 500_. gpm"..

Within'the~e'xecution of-SI-73.12 both the SI and:RHR pumps were ioperated;below;these minimum flow levels.

In both cases the STE was L-f awarelof-the; precautions-and hadEdetermined no' damage would occur at the

~

ilower flow rstes.

However,'noLdeficiency or test change request was E

written.1

Corrective' Action Taken on Items'5 and 6:

40peration of:theLRHR and.SI pumps'below the flowrate listed in the

.~

test " Precautions"E was reviewed by the STE and PED:and found'to be (acceptable.

-Therefore,Lno corrective action is. required.

JActionito Prevent Further Violations:

xTechnical~ Staff Supervisor Memo 107, " Documenting of Improper /

Incorrect l Actions During Testing" was expanded to specifically include

precautions and required corrective actions.

- Full" Compliance Date for-Items-5-and16:,

f MayJ15,fl984 s

l 3 e' v

i 18765N; i

p.

_u c

j ";*..

-Extended-Review Based Upon NRC Comments:

Inladdit' ion to the: review of EF-26.11, the Integrated Hot Functional

Test RC 63.10 was reviewed byfthe Test Review Board to assess final

-disposition.of open items, open deficiencies, and PED comments as well as

cttentionEto the' comments' raised by the NRC which may be applicable to this~non-compliance' citation.

Test Review Board determined that Ledditional testing must be conducted during Unit 1 Hot Operations scheduled-in Augustr1984, to resolve open items resulting from data taken in.section 9.311and inconsistencies in the cooldown rate. data listed in

Section.8.0 (Precautions) and Operating procedure BGP 100-5.

These open

~

items and any other deficiencies identified during the Hot Operations test till be--resolved between the TRB and Project Engineering.

It should be inotedethat: strip chart. data,taken during:the IHF test properly conforms

'to the' Tech Staff. Memo:#35 and was sent to PED for their final review and

-approval.;

8785N i

I

, :