ML20129H682

Forwards Documents Re Issue 8 Concerning Hydrogen Control to Aid in Proceeding Relevant to Unit 1 Fuel Load Date

ML20129H682
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	07/15/1985
From:	Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
To:	Bright G, Gleason J, Kline J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#385-839 OL, NUDOCS 8507190321
Download: ML20129H682 (2)

Text

r _

f # Jo6 4

, ...)....__

- . . - . - . - . _ - - - . . - - - ...... - - - -.. . . _ - . .. _ _ gg . . . . _ . _

ss J

)ite

~

July 15, 1985 fhfE SE .

NC ('

James P. Gleason, Chairman

Atomic. Sof ety and LicenEing Board

$13 Gilmoure Drive Silver Spring. MD 20901 J-Dr. Jerry R.' Kline

Atomic Sore'ty and Licensing Boo'd r U.S. Nuclear Regulotory. Commission ,

WoShington,'DC 20555 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.5; Nuclear Regulatory Commtssion Washington, DC 20555 Re Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-440 and 50-441 () ( e Gentlemen:

For your information, Intervenor chio Citizens for Responsible Energy ('0CRE') has enclosed documents relevant to Issue #8, on hydrogen control, now before the Board, and of general relevance as to. Applicants' fuel load date for Perry Unit 1.

At Tr. 3609 and 3660 there was discussion of the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System (*RCIC') and its runction in a station blackout accident. Attachment 1 is a report filed by j

Applicants pursuont to 10 CFR 50.55(e) describing a deficzeney '

Which Would render RCIC inoperable during a station blackout.

It is not opporent from the report whether this deficiency Will be corrected.

At Tr. 3441-3444 and 3450-3453 there Was discussion of emergency procedure guidelines relating to containment venting and contoinment spray operation. Attachment 2 is a portion of the PNPP-Specific technical guidelines (Primory Containment Control Guidelines): the statements therein tend to contradict the Statements mode,by Applicants' Witnesses at the hearing.

(Although this document is dated January 1985, it was not made available in the LPDR until July 10, 1985.)

8507190321 850715 pl -

PDR ADOCK 05000440 )

O PDR l .

~

, a . ac.: e.

e-1 Attachment 3 is on NRC Inspection Report Which discusses negative trends in PNPP PreoPerotional testing and poorer than desirable-operator licensing examination.results; it is stated that the'-significant concerns in these creas may ofrect

' Applicants projected fuel lood date.

Sincerely,-

Nf W Susan L. Hioet CCRE Representative 0275 Hunson Re.

Mentor, OH 44060 ,.

(216) 255-3158 ..

i t ,

Enclosures:

os stated cc: Service List e

2 e

P e

/s u (l CI C- o' THE CLEVELAND ELECTR1C lLLUMIN ATING COMPANY P.O. BO X 5000 . CLEVELAND, OHIO 44101 -

TELEPHONE (216) 622 9800 .

ILLUMINATING BLOG. - $5 PUBLIC SOUARE Serving The Best Location in the Nation MURRAY R. EDELMAN UICE PRL5tOENT Nucu'R May 22, 1985 PY-CEI/OIE-0046 LQ Mr. James G. Keppler Regional Administrator, Region III' office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 RE: Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket Nos. 50-440; 50-441 Voltage Drop Affecting RCIC Valves (RDC 127 (85)]

Dear Mr. Keppler:

This letter is the final report pursuant to 10CFR50.55(e) on the potential significant deficiency regarding starting voltage d.rops in power feeder cables for three valves in the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) System. Mr. J. McCormick-Barger of your office was notified on January 30, 1985, by Mr. T. A. Boss of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company that this problem was being evaluated per our Deviation Analysis Report Number 222.

Interim reports were submitted on February 28, and April 18, 1985. We have determined that this condition does not constitute a significant deficiency per the requirements of 10CFR50.55 (e) .

Description of Potential Deficiency Calculations had indicated that various DC powered valves within the RCIC system might be incapable of operating due to reduced voltage at the valve operators. This condition results upp.n loss of a battery char.ger coupled with the. voltage drop in the valves

motor circuit conductors.

Results of Evaluation Section 5.4.6.1 of our FSAR currently states that the RCIC system can be utilized to mitigate the consequences of a Control Rod Drop Accident (CRDA). However, in the event that RCIC system '

ff062404gG-G50522-g ADOCK c500o44o PDR O [hhb

\

P,U/_.oi985

.u. - ,.

s _.

kA -

~~

.,.m ~

, ~ ~

i >

l 1

( ,/ May 22, 1985

, 5[l/, James G. Ki ,Jr tN[ 4 TV/6 nM I' operation becomes impaired due to the loss of a battery charger,.

,/;ijkgI the High Pressure Core Spray system would be available toAdditionally, the

[Mhk;!f respond.

i' r. initiates upon Low Low Reactor Water level, enabling the Low Pressure Core Spray and Low Pressure Core Injection to provide ,

k f core cooling and reactor inventory make-up.

i e ~

Discussions with our Nuclear Steam Supply System supplier,

/

4 General Electric (GE), indicate that they are in agreement with our determination that RCIC is not required to function to ij?'/J 4 mitigate the consequences of a CRDA. Documentation from GE is I forthcoming and we will notify you should our position change.

The documentation will be evaluated to determine if any changes to our FSAR are required.

In light of the above, the identified condition would not have had a significant impact on the safe operation of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.

Please call if there are any questions. - .

Sincerely, Murray R. Ede n Vice President Nuclear Group ,

MRE:sab cc: Mr. J. A. Grobe USNRC, Site Office Mr. D. E. Keating USNRC, Site Office Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission c/o Document Management Branch Washington, D.C. 20555 Records Center, SEE-IN Institute of Nuclear Power Operations 1100 Circle 75 Parkway, Suite 1500  ;

Atlanta, Georgia 30339

9 f Tf*/ld /(friENT 1 1

PGP l Page: i l Rev.: 0 THE CLEVEIAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT e

i PROCEDURES CENERATION PACKAGE Date Prepared: January 7,1985 8601150. Aid PDR ADOCK 05000440 i E PDR l

e

(_ h &W@m* wWee e+sq~ m .hgheet* e w w w- ee ' Weune W em ,hm - - -

,... , ,v l

PGP Page: 11 Rev.: 0  ;

Procedures Generation Package Table of Contents Sectio n Title Pjyge 1.0 PURPOSE 1 2.0 SCO PE 1 3.0 RESPONSIBILITY l .

4.0 REFERENCES

1 c

5.0 DEFINITIONS 2 I 6.0 CENERAL 4 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 5 7.1 Attac hment 1 - 0AP-0507, Preparation of Plant 6 l Emergency Instructions l 7.2 Attachment 2 - PEI Verification Plan 20 7.3 Attachment 3 - PEI Validation Plan 32 (1

i 7.4 Attachment 4 - PEI Training Plan 49 7.5 Attachment 5 - Perry Specific Technical Guide- 51 lines Development Methodology

, 7.6 Attachment 6 - Perry Specific Technical Guide- 55 l lines

! 7.7 Attachment 7 - Deviations from the Generic 108

! . Guidelines l

l W m-.- '

3 s - , ,,; . .

, PGP Page: 56 Attachment 6 (Cont.)

Perry Specific Tech-

! nical Guidelines Table of' Contents i

Page Table I PSTG Abbreviations 57 Table II Operator Precautions 58 RPV Control Guidelines 66 Primary Containment Control Guidelines 76 Secondary Containment Control Guideline Deleted Radioactivity Release Control Guideline 89 Contingency 1 - Level Restoration 90 2- Emergency RPV Depressurization 93 3- Steam Cooling 94 4- Core Cooling Without Level Restoration 95

,, 5- Alternate Shutdown Cooling Deleted g

6 - RPV Flooding 97 7 - Level / Power Control 104 e

5 I

-- ,, .aen-, .n=t=a- cm.-m. mm.. --

yu.aus- - ,, .

PGP

~

Page: 80 Attachment 6 (Cont.)

Perry Specific Tech-

~

nical Qaidelines ,

PC/P Monitor and control primary containment pressure.  ;

PC/P-1 Operate the fol?.owing systems, as required:

1. Containment pressure control systems. Use SOI-Mll .  ;

2. Drywell purge only when the tempera- ,

ture in the space being evacuated l 21 l  ;

is below 212*F (Maximum Noncondensi- -

ble Evaca?. tion Temperature) . Use ,

SOI-M14. -

If while executing the f ollowing steps containment spray has s been initiated, when containment pressure drops below (later) psig, terminate containment sprav.  ;

PC/P-2 Before suppression chamber pressure reaches the Pressure Suppression Pressure 8 (Figure 2) but only if containment pressure 18 is above (later) psig (Mark III Containment Spray Initiation Pressure Limit), initiate containment spray.

PC/P-3 If containment pressure cannot be maintained below the Pressure Suppression Pressure (Figure 2), EHER-GENCY RPV DEPRESSURIZATION IS REQUIRED. .i PC/P-4 If containment pressure cannot be maintained below '

the Primary Containment Design Pressure (Figure 3), ,

RPV FLOODING IS REQUIRED.

PC/P-5 If containment pressure cannot be maintained below the Primary Containment Pressure Limit (Figure 4),

then irrespective of whether adequate core cooling i is assured, initiate containment spray.

PC/P-6 If containment pressure exceeds the Primary Oon tainment Pressure Limit, then irrespec- l 22 I tive of the offsite radioactive release rate, vant the primary containment in accor-dance with (instruction for containment venting) to reduce and maintain pressure below the Primary Containment Pressure Limit.

l

i

,ji.j i.

.l.  ;.. .

l..i. i .

i 3

g. i

.;.l:

j .

i .

1 I j l' .j i i-:.! ' I l (JS FT. , Jf PSIG[ k j i,

! i

! ! /sl 8

i!'i j

i, !J; .' ..

,;I ,

j _..-4.. i . :t-

,. Ii -

3 i ; l. li

, i . . . .

..g...

l

. _ _ . . _ _.l_

l' s .. vn. .! _ _ . . _ . .._ . . . ._ j_

!. . . [g 3

be,ll l .

.l '

'l' .

!. ...$w 10 l

l . -

g ,

, << ! l _ _ _ _ _. .

a- i

. . _ _ . . .\ _ _ . .

ll' 3!

~ ~ - ~ ' ~

I .~ -(s.a' F'T.l, b.I f IPbl'G) ~.

..;m

. _ . . . _ _' . _~' _ . . .. _

.:E j . . . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ __ . ._

iI l . . . _ . . - .

l0; ,y j . . . . . _ . . . . . . .. _ ._ _.

l , 2, .

';I j . -

l _-

j}9l s i i

~

i  : ,.

i . . .

.g.

- . a..

n. 'l' n ..

r1 l.j- . . .

a t

}.n

'l s

w.

]

il-

',lll 'i . j -

l ii.! , -

,l.'

, t l so 20 30 No

.i -l.  !:I  ! CO4TAIN ENT WATE R LE EL (FEET)

PR llllM Alllllll R)l i-* !i  ! lll l lllllll  ;

PRIMARY CONTAINME NT DESIGN PRESSUR E' '

i i

I tI i 'l l  !

u E2 o n nm, i'77;s

! !: 6 .

. ll $M $-

e hm i.

an .

Yr 3

go g to H O n 0

.. , s *r

,:

• I v g -

..s -

e

.. ~,i ,, , yyy -

i ; ; !.3 i.

,I:

-: l l '

! l 777 j:y77;m

" l

i .. i

. inI l v7 .

'.l;

I u

,, I. ,

l i =

+ l . I 4l -

i t . . .. _ ;i .l

. .!.i.

~

_',il l' I l

i! i 3 ,

ll .l l'

I W,I l 70 ' l-

'.*l .

n; ,

l l

• .!. i ' s i

. .gij. ._ . . -

lei _i. f lI l ;

i i -

, M ' E . 9sl -

ji _

.[l-l '

! l5 t y ll! l ';-

l' i

i . ,I !3 eas., . . . ..I g

8 -1  : fo 40 !I I i 'o ~ lI l i i .1 W : i  :. .- .J@ FT.,57.6 FSIG). . . . 1.i .

iim,. i

cdIj35 l- \j ii ... . _ .

N~ s

~ -- -

i i nil- ,

s ,r ' l 1

~,3__

12.

! o!j ..4.

.l

. _ _ _ _ 1 l . . ._.. .]

!' I

i;W oii-

~

~

. . ~.

" ~

(as.s 0r.l, so'.s isid) ' '

I

~

.'. '.~

~

• i

.- l

. , 3 :, s, w E  ;

l.

• w I m ll ,!

. s .: i

(

n. '

I gg

. . m

'l

!' .I I Il.* "5 i ! . .. . . _ _ - PI

i ] is.* l

.lli .ll3 Ie j;.9 . v. .

._ ., o .. .

PGP Page: 203 Attachment 7 (Cont.)

Deviations from the Generic Guidelines Deviation Sheet: Number 95 EPG Step Number (s): PC/P-7 _ . . . . . . . _

PSGT Step Number (s): PC/P-6 .. __.

Deviation:

Phrase " irrespective of the of fsite radioactivity release rate" was added _ _ _ _. _

, Evaluator: C. S. Orogvany Date: 11/16/84 Justification:

Under these circumstances, venting is the only mechanism remaining which could prevent an uncontrolled, unpredictable and possibly irreparable breach of primary containment. Although venting v111 probably result in ,

the release of some radioactivity to the environnant, this is preferable '

to containment failure whereby adequate core cooling may also be lost and radioactivity is released with no control whatsoever.

Reviewer: C. S. Orogvany Date: 11/16/84 Approved: YES N0 h (circle one) l NDAS Lead Engineer: Date:

Approved: S NO (circle one)

GSO: _

d/w .) e Date: /1 /40 Incorporated: f/f ( ac e./ Date: u[ty

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

~~

, f 9m JUN!3 *C Docket No. 50~440 h]TYACA!E^]T b The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company ATTN: Mr. Robert M. Ginn Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Post Office Box 5000 Cleveland, OH 44101 Gentlemen:

This refers to the management meeting conducted with you and members of your staff by Mr. J. G. Keppler and members of the Region III staff on June 3, 1985, regarding preoperational test and operator licensing activities at Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, authorized by NRC Construction Permit No. CPPR-148.

The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas discussed during the meeting.

No items of noncompliance with NRC requirements were identified during the course of this meeting.

In accordance with the NRC's Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2, Section 2.790, a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

P 0

5 40 PDR 1

\\

, m -) n kW-

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating 2 JUN 131985 Company We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.

Sincerely, J@rf9fnh7 Stcr:cd By c.7. r:rallmu C. E. Norelius, Director Division of Reactor Projects

Enclosure:

Inspection Report No. 50-440/85036(ORP) cc w/ enclosure: '

J. J. Waldron, Manager, Perry Plant Technical Department M. D. Lyster, Manager, Perry Plant Operations Department L. O. Beck, General Supervising Engineer, Nuclear Licensing and Fuel Management Section DMB/Occument Control Desk (RIOS)

Resident Inspector, RIII Harold W. Kohn, Ohio EPA Terry J. Lodge, Esq. 1 James W. Harris, State of Ohio Robert H. Quillin, Ohio Department of Health s

RIII RIII RIII RIII RIII RIII McCormick-Barger/kja Knop g er Warnick N ius 06/11/85 o/g O (AW ]

l

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III Report No. 50-440/85036(DRP)

Docket No. 50-440 License No. CPPR-148 Licensee: Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Post Office Box 5000 Cleveland, OH 44101 Facility Name: Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Meeting At: NRC Region III Office, Glen Ellyn, IL Meeting Conducted: N June 3, 1985 Reported By: J.'A. Grobe t Approved By: R. C. Knop, Chief Reactor Projects Section 1C Date I

Meeting Summary Meeting on June 3, 1985 (Report No. 50-440/85036(DRP))

Areas Discussed: Management meeting to discuss recent problems with implementation of the preoperational testing program and the status and results of operator licensing examinations. The meeting involved a total of 28 inspector-hours by 14 NRC inspectors and regional staff.

Results: Significant concerns were discussed in the area of test procedure adequacy, test conduct and commitment implementation. It also was discussed that_the applicant's projected fuel date may be affected if the negative preoperational testing performance trend continued. No items of noncompliance were identified during the meeting.

.. '6033, 8

5000340 PDR PDR G

DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted The following persons participated in the management meeting on June 3, 1985, at the NRC Region III Office in Glen Ellyn, IL.

a. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company R. M. Ginn, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer .

H. L. Williams, Executive Vice President M. R. Edelman, Vice President, Nuclear Group-M. D. Lyster, Manager, Perry Plant Operations Department C. M. Shuster, Manager, Nuclear Quality Assurance Department G. R. Leidich, General Supervising Engineer, Nuclear Test Section

b. Nuclear Regulatory Commission c J. G. Keppler, Administrator, Region III (RIII)

A. 8. Davis, Deputy Administrator, RIII C. E. Norelius, Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP), RIII R. F. Warnick, Chief, Projects Branch 1 (P81), DRP R. C. Knop, Chief, Projects Section 1C (PSIC) F81 J. A. Grobe, Senior Resident Operations Inspector - Perry, PS1C J. F. Streeter, Technical Assistant, Division of Reactor Safety (DRS),RIII i L. A. Reyes, Chief, Operations Branch (08), DRS J. I. McMillen, Chief, Operator Licensing Section, 08 M. A. Ring, Chief, Test Programs Section (TPS), Engineering Branch R. D. Lanksbury, Lead Test Inspector - Perry, TPS

0. E. Hills, Inspector, TPS ,

G. F. O'Dwyer, Inspector, TPS J. J. Stefano, Licensing Project Manager, Division of Licensing, .

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

2. Management Meeting Mr. J. G. Keppler opened the meeting (Attachment 1) with a brief discussion of the problem areas in implementation of the preoperational test program and indicated that the applicant's projected fuel loading date may be affected if the negative preoperational testing performance trend continued. Following this introduction, Mr. R. C. Knop provided an ,

overview of the status of facility completion and NRC inspection program completion in each functional area of the physical plant and the operations, technical, and quality assurance departments. Mr. Knop concluded his remarks with a discussion of the status of open item closecut noting that a significant workload exists for the applicant to prepare items for NRC closecut with approximately 250 items outstanding.

2

A A detailed discussion of preoperational testing program implementation deficiencies was then presented by Mr. M. A. Ring (Attachment 2).

Significant concerns were presented in the area of test procedure adequacy, test conduct and commitment implementation. Messrs. J. F. Streeter and L. A. Reyes then presented a synopsis of the poorer than desirable operator licensing examination results (Attachment 3) and indicated that the number of licensed operators was sufficient to operate the plant but was less than the average number of licensed operators at other Region III NT0Ls.

The applicant responded to these presentations and discussed their corrective actions. Mr. G. R. Leidich presented corrective actions -

responding to the deficiencies in implementation of the preoperational testing program (Attachment 4). The applicant committed to better define thereviewresponsibilitiesofeachTestProgramReviewCommittee(TPRC) member to ensure adequate review. The applicant also committed to add another level of detailed review of each procedure as defined in a Special Project Plan. Mr. M. D. Lyster presented a results evaluation and discussed program improvements regarding success rate for license candidates (Attachment 5).

NRC Region III was satisfied that the applicant had addressed the major programmatic areas needing attention. The inspectors will continue to evaluate progress in these areas during future inspections. No -

additional items of noncompliance were identified during this meeting.

e 7

. n ATTACHME!Tf 1 PERRY MANAGEMENT MEETING REGION III JUNE 3, 1985 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . .

KEPPLER ,

STATUS OF INSPECTION PROGRAM . . . . . , , l . . . KNOP I

PREOPERATIONAL TESTING. . . . . . . . . . . LANKSBURY/ RING OPERATOR LICENSING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... STREETER CLOSING REMARKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KEPPLER G

g ..

l f

ATTACHMENT 2 : Page 1 PRE 0PERATIONAL TESTING PERFORMANCE

• ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS:

11 VIOLATIONS IDENTIFIED IN 5 INSPECTIONS (7 0F THE VIOLATIONS IDENTIFIED IN LAST 2 INSPECTIONS)

• INSPECTION OBSERVATIONS:

-EXCESSIVE NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS

-VIOLATION RATE TREND NEGATIVE

-PRIMARY PROBLEM INADEQUATE PROCEDURES

-MISLEADING STATEMENTS / COMMITMENTS

-INADEQUATE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

-UNTIMELY CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

-0BSERVATIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE IDENTIFIED AT OTHER PAST CATEGORY 3 PERFORMERS WHOSE SCHEDULES WERE ADVERSELY IMPACTED BY POOR PRE 0PERATIONAL TESTING PERFORMANCE

• CONCLUSION:

PERFORMANCE SALP CATEGORY 3. PRE 0PERATIONAL TESTING CONCERNS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED IN MANAGEMENT MEETING WITH M. EDELMAN. RIII LACKS CONFIDENCE IN QUALITY OF TEST, PROGRAM. IMMEDIATE MANAGEMENT ATTENTION NEEDED TO ADDRESS ACEQUACY OF PROCEDURES, TIMELINESS AND ADEQUACY OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS, ADEQUACY OF TEST CONDUCT, AND MISLEADING NATURE OF STATEMENTS /

COMMITMEN S.

l

ATTACILMENT 2 - Page 2 EXAMPLES OF INADEOUATE PROCEDURES (9 0F THE 15 PROCEDURES REVIEWED THUS FAR BY THE NRC WERE DEFICIENT)

STANDBY LIOUID CONTROL

1) BORON STORAGE TANK MIXING BY AIR SPARGER NOT TESTED ADEQUATELY.

2) ORIFICE FLOW NOT TESTED UNDER PROPER CONDITIONS.

3) DESIGN REQUIREMENT OF 10CFR50.62 NOT PROVEN.

INSTRUMENT AIR

1) SYSTEM LEAKAGE PER REGULATORY GUIDE 1.80 NOT TESTED.

2) PRESSURE DROP NOT TESTED OVER SUFFICIENT TIME.

RECIRC FLOW CONTROL

1) LOSS OF POWER TO HYDRAULIC CONTROL. UNIT NOT TESTED

2) AUTO TRANSFER OF POWER TRAINS FOR HYDRAULIC POWER UNIT NOT TESTED ANNULUS GAS TREATMENT

1) WRONG STANDARD USED

2) SYSTEM RESTORATION MISSING

. r. m ATTACHMENT 2 - Page 3 EXAMPLES OF INADE00 ATE TEST CONDUCT COORDINATION / COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN TEST AND OPERATIONS PERSONNEL OPERATING DG AND LPCS USE OF TEMPORARY OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS i

1) LED TO INADVERTANT SPRAYDOWN OF CONTAINMENT

. 2) LED TO OVERPRESSURIZATION OF EDG ESW HEAT EXCHANGER NOT USING SYSTEM OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS

1) INCONSISTENT WITH REGULATORY GUIDE 1.68 COMMITMENT

2) BASED ON PHILISOPHY THAT "T01s ARE BETTER" e

D

ATTACIfMENT 2 - Page 4 EXAMPLES OF MISLEADING STATEMENTS / COMMITMENTS COMMITMENTS TO REGULATORY GUIDES IN SECTION 1.8 0F FSAR CHANGING TPM TO CLOSE NRC ITEM THEN DELETING THE CHANGE COMMITMENT FOR MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE REVIEW TEAM TO

" REVIEW TEST PROCEDURES FOR ADEQUACY" ,

k I

e G

0 s

A o

O Y

e

j ATTACHMDIT 3 OPERATOR LICENSING PERFORMANCE

• EXAMINATION RESULTS: <

GROUP NO. CANDIDATES NO. PASSES (PASS RATE)

FIRST 26 , . 20(77%)

SECOND 26 15(58%)

TOTAL 52 35(67%)

• 0BSERVATIONS:

-PASS RATE TREND NEGATIVE

-N0 UNUSUAL PATTERN IN FAILURE CAUSES

-0VERALL PASS RATE (67%) IN LOWER END OF SPECTRUM FOR RIII NTOLS

-NUMBEROFLICENSES(35)ADEQUATEBUTLESSTHANOTHERRIIINT0LS

• CONCLUSION:

PERFORMANCE BORDERLINE BETWEEN SALP CATEGORY 2 AND 3. IMMEDIATE MANAGEMENT ATTENTION NEEDED TO DETERMINE AND CORRECT CAUSES OF LESS THAN DESIRABLE EXAMINATION PASS RATE.

F

~

t .

.- ATTACHMENT 4 - Page 1 l

l-i PREOPERATIONAL TEST PROGRAM t

Testing Status (5/31) r l

l PreoperationalTests 59 complete out of 106 (56%)

l l Acceptance Tests 105 complete out of 116 (91 %)

l l

l overall 164/222 (74%)

I I

i i

l I

a

[. .

,, ,, ATTACIDfENT 4 - Page 2 TEST PROCEDURE 5_- CONTENT o Original sample of five procedures and resulting comments t

e Formation of Management Procedure ReviewTeam(MPRT)

Improved confidence at Release forTest Management approach MPRT Recommendations s

l 4

, i- <<

a-

- ATTACINENT 4 - Page 3 Test Procedures - Current Enhancements

• Increased management attention /Special Project Plan i

e Test Program Review Committee (TPRC)

-- clarify review scope add Licensing to TPRC

-- train review groups e improve Lead Test Engineer overview Supervisor to Engineer ratio l

. . . . . . = . ._.- - - . - . . __-.- _ -. . - - -, . _. . . - ---. -

~ , , e.

ATTACHMENT 4 - Page 4 Test Procedures - Current Enhancements

,e Continue MPRTinterface with System Test Engineers e

-- at Release for Test ,

at Test Results - test objectives ongoing training / Lessons Learned e Enhance Review at Test Results k

t TPRC reviewers focus on procedures / processes /

methodology / commitments / tech specs i

e Retrofit Program i

MPRT to train select review group to review all completed tests for: .

• Procedures e Processes e Methodology e Commitments e Tech Specs -

e

~

ATTACHMENT 4 - Page 5

[

Test Procedures Sequence of Testina i

e Test Program has been modified to require specific sequence detailin procedures a

• Tests in Progress have been reviewed / modified to ensure level of detailis consistent f

e The procedure backfit program willinclude review of sequence performed for completed tests I

(

e f

e 0

J... * '

. ,,' . ATTAC19ENT 4 - Page 6 d

i Timeliness of Corrective Actions-Test Program

• Organizational changes within NTS Administration

. )

e implementation of Perry Operations Procedures 1601, )

NRC interface During Plant Operations I

e Reinforced within NTS -

-- timely communications '

- adequate identification prompt / complete resolution 4

e

ATTACHMENT 4 - Page 7 Timeliness of Corrective Actions - Test Program Data as of May 10 Exit Meeting:  !

Total Ready for Pendino Review i

items of Noncompliance 13 1 Unresolved items 10 0 Open item 26 1 Total 49. 2 (11 tracking)* .

Data as of May 31: )

i Total Ready for Pendina Review items of Noncompliance 12 3 Unresolved items 8 3 Open items 52 12 Total 72 18 (34 Tracking)*

• Tracking means that the NRC is waiting for an activity to be performed or condition to be attained before inspection or closeout.

i f

A.._________._____________.____._________.__________________________

ATTACletENT 4 - Page 8 Coordination / Communication between NuclearTest Section and Operations Section Enhancements e Shift Supervisors -

in charge of plant testing and ops dual reporting to test and ops trained to Test Program Manual

- function as Test Coordinator

)

e dperations chairs Test Plan of Day Meeting

• Transition of personnel test + ops e Transition of Test Program to Operations Phase e.g. Alarm Reponse Instruction Tagging M & TE Calibration Procedures e Performance of Surveillance Instructions underTest Program e.g. Local Leak Rate Testing I&C e Operations Planning Group in place s

-~~

,,.. ATTACfDENT 4 - Page 9 Use of System Operatino instructions (sol's) Durino Testino e Generally Temporary Operating Instructions (TOl's) have been used during testing I

e Upgraded TOl program to integrate TOl's with operations (shif t supervisor approval) e Used sol's in simulator training - high confidence from control room e issued directive to justify use of Tol's, otherwise use Sol's e Comments resolution joint NTS/ ops action t

l ATTACHMENT 5 - Page 1 US NRC MEETING 6-3 85 Chicano, Illinois A _

Examination Results Total Exams = 42 SRO Licenses = 25 of 32 = 78%

RO Licenses = 6 of 10 = 60%

INPO 1984 Survey SRO R

_O NTOL(14 locations) 75.7 % 61.1 %

All Plants (62 locations) 81.6 % '

74.5 %

Group Results 831 = 21/27 = 77%

84-1 = 13/21 = 62%

Asslanment to Groups March,1983 - License Class 83-1 started 30 week program October,1983 -

Simulator and written exams administered.

walkthrough exams postponed.

21 of 27 people passed both exams September,1984 - License Class 84-1 started 30 week program December,1984 - License Class 831 divided into 3 groups to complete an 8-10 week training program and receive oral exams.

I Exam Schedule February 7 people May 9 people April 5 people all of whom were upgrades or retakes from October,1983 exams. -

! February,1985 7 persons completed walk through exams and

, all 7 passed i April,1985 26 people completed written, simulator and l walk through exams ,

l l

l L

. - ,_-.m....

,- a ATTACl!MEttr 5 - Page 2

. Results: 5 written failures (2 RO, 3 SRO) 1 walk through failure (RO)

_ 1 simulator failure (SRO) 4 double failures (1RO, 3 SRO) -

May,1985 9peo walk ple completed throughs and all passed Results Analysis e

All written exam section failures (< 70%) were on Procedures.

(Section 4 of RO and Section 7 of SRO)

• 3 RO written failures did not answer last question of Section 4 which was on separate page e None of the people retaking examin April failed.

These were not considered especially significant nor were any other programmatic results distinguishable.

Review of Procram and improvements e Number 1 objective was to maximize on shift time to gain knowledge of Perry during testing phase.

Minimized program duration -

Minimized numberof participants Will pay large dividends in future e

Have instituted a more formal structure to the in-plant tours and observation.

Previous programs were very flexible due to varying backgrounds of theindividuals.

e increased use of simulator will be realized since it is now at Perry.

• More cumulative performance measures will be utilized in future '

programs instead of the previous " module" approach.

I

I

)

l ATTACHMENT 5 - Page 3

.iift Staffino Requirements i e FSAR - 5 shift rotation e SER 5 shift rotation + 2 extraglicensed people e Each shift at least 2 SRO and 2 RO licenses l With 22 Operations personnellicensed the SER requirement j can be met.

e 7 staff personnel with SRO licenses to augment as necessary.

e Generic letter 8416 Operating Shift experience requirements will be met. ,

e Shift experience may be augmented as necessary l by plant staff personnel (4) with extensive BWR experience.

l 1985 License Plans e License Program will start this month and complete in December l with 8 operators and 4 staff.

m e 10 reapplications will be processed on or before December.

l Summary e Exam results are not to our standards or satisfactions.

1 e Results su l'

participat,Hered due to our emphasis placed on plant testing ion.

e immediately implement some improvements in program, e Enough licenstu exist to adequately staff our shifts.

e well. trained motivated staff capable of accomplishing mission.

t '

i

.