IR 05000425/1988018

Insp Rept 50-425/88-18 on 880328-31.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Preoperational Testing,Including Test Procedure Review & Witnessing

ML20151N993
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	04/14/1988
From:	Jape F, Szczepaniec A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20151N982	List: IR 05000425/1988018 ML20151N978
References
50-425-88-18, NUDOCS 8804260060
Download: ML20151N993 (5)

Text

- -.

"-

,.

. e

UNITED STATES

./f Ettg*q #

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

< f y

~

n REGION il 101 MARIETTA STREET. j

's ATLANTA, G EORGI A 30323

%*..+/

Report N /88-18

' Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Docket No.: 50-425 License No.: CPPR-109 Facility Name: Vogtle Inspection Cond :ted: March 28-31, 1988 Inspector: ) em_

' "*

Y//Y!M Ddte 5'igned A. Sz~cYepanie Approved by: / //(64 0 4L.) A '/ V/

F. Jape, Section Chief [/ / D&te Signed Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SisHMARY Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection was in the areas of preoperational testing, including test procedure review and test procedure witnessin ;

Results: No violations or deviations were identifie ,

I

.

I

{

8804260060 880418 PDR ADOCK 05000425

'

Q DCD

, v

-

..

. .

.

REPORT DETAILS

' Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• E. D. Groover, Quality Assurance Site Manager - Construction

• S. M. Hall, Procedures Superintendent

• H. M. Handfinger, Project Startup Manager

• C. W. Hayes, Vogtle Quality Assurance Manager

• R. H. Pinson, Vice President

• P. D. Rice, Vice President and Project Director Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, operators, mechanics, and office personne NRC Resident Inspector

• R. Schepens, Senior Resident Inspector - Construction

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 31, 1988, with those persons indicated in paragraph I above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection finding No dissenting comments were received from the licensee. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspectio . Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspectio . Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio . Preoperational Test Program Review (70301)

An overall review was made of the Vogtle Ur.it 2 preoperational test program in the areas of Test Program Administ:stion; Temporary Modifica-tions, Jumpers and Bypasses; and Trainin In the area of Test Program Administration, formal methods have been established for the test organization to receive jurisdiction over systems, components, and instrumentation, before these items are begun to be tested. Formal administrative measures have been established for administrative control of system, components or instrumentation status e. 4

-

.

• *

. .

before, during and subsequent to testin Formal methods and measures have also been established for governing the control of testing, controlling scheduling of test activities and evaluating test result These controls, methods and measures are included in the Startup Manual (SUM) Chapters 7, 9, 12A, 12C and 1 Written administrative controls have also been established for controlling temporary modifications, jumpers and bypasses. A formal log is maintained on the status of jumpers, etc. and is under the responsibility of the test supervisor. The color purple is used as a means of readily identifying temporary jumper physical appearanc Controls have been established for assigning responsibility for determining when independent verification is required during installation or removal of temporary byparses on fluid system modifications. Controls also assign responsibility. for determining when functional testing is required for installation or removal of jumpers, lifted leads or fluid system modifications. Temporary Modifica-tion Control is covered by Chapter 10 of the Vogtle Unit 2 SU Training requirements have been established in the SUM for all personnel involved in test procedure preoperation, test procedure approval, test performance and documentation, and test results review and approtal. The required training includes administrative controls for testing, QA/QC for testing, and technical objectives. Individual certification is required and is kept on fil Initial Test Program certification is controlled by j the Vogtle Unit 2 SUM Chapter 24. The certification records of three .

individuals involved in the test program were reviewed and found to the satisfactor No violation or deviations were observed in this are . Test Procedure Review (70300, 70336)

'

Preoperational Test Procedure 2-38C-01, Residual Heat Removal (RHR)

System, was reviewed. The procedure meets Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) requirements, stated in Chapter 14, that are within the scope of this tes The procedure had proper management review and approval and <

Pertinent prerequisites and

'

the test objectives were clearly state required plant systems were identified, calibration checks were completed and test equipment was specified. Acceptance criteria against which the test will be judged are clearly identified, although a large number of complicated calculations are required to be made after testing data is obtaine The procedure does require comparison of results with acceptance criteria. Even though some graphical acceptance criteria is provided, the graph used was not logically graduated and therefore, not easily useable; in the attachments, a change in 50 psi is graduated in six increments, a change in 1000 psi in 35 increments and a change in 300 GPM in four increments, making plotting of intermediate valves difficul Futhermore, even though the pump curves used in the test are those provided by the vendor, and apparently correct for the pump installed, it was also

'

observed that the curve provided in the FSAR in Figure 5.4.7-3, as the

.

.,

, - - - - - - ,- - , - - . --...,_.,.----~-,---,..,..,--_.,_,,-.~-.,-...m_-. v.,,.m, ., , , . _ . , . .-. , , - . -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

.

.

,

l

RHR pump curve does not adequately represent the actual pump curve as shown in the test procedur Initial test conditions were specified, these included valve lineups, electrical power and control requirements, and temporary installation The procedure included references to FSAR sections, drawings and speciff-cations. Step by step instructions appeared to be complete to the extent necessary to assure that test objectives are meet. Provisions are available for documenting all items are verified as having been performe Provisions are also made for recording details of the conduct of the tes The procedure recognizes restoration of temporary jumpers and provides for the identification of personnel conducting the testing and evaluating the test data. The procedure also provides for independent verification of critical step . Test Procedure Witnessing (70312, 70436)

During the inspection, Section 0.19 of Preoperational Test Procedure 2-3BC-01, RHR System, was witnessed by the inspecto The procedure had been reviewed earlier as discussed in Paragraph 6 above. Section 6.19 of the procedure was titled "Train A RHR Pump (P6-001) and System Performance Verification and Cold Leg Recirculation". The testing witnessed was conducted in accordance with the approved procedures. The test results that were obtained, that could be independently verified, were found to be acceptable. The pump flows and valve timing test data which were reviewed met the acceptance criteria provide Test prerequisites sampled were verified to be net and proper plant systems were in service. As discussed in Paragraph 5, training records of three selected test personnel were reviewed and found to include training in administrative controls for testing, QA/QC indoctrination, and technical trainin Approved procedures were available to personnel conducting the test. A test log was utilized by the test supervisor to document test interruptions and changes to the procedures, but it was observed that the log entries did not provide any detail into the numerous delays encountered during the tes .

!

A number of the delays observed could have been avoided or minimize During the course of performing Section 6.19, three change requests needed to be writte One involved flow path isolation and the other two involved proper valve position sequencing due to logic requirements. One other delay involved a concern over installation of test equipmen Mechanics were called to check the equipment installation. Arra ngements to have an electrician available during the test for test jumper installa-tion, appeared act to have been made, and could have caused a delay, but did not only due to the chance availability of a nearby electrician. One other delay was caused by a problem which developed on a system which was needed to support Procedure 2-3BC-01. The support system was allowed to be worked on and the occurrence of that problem caused a delay in continuing 2-3BC-01. The problem was eventually corrected and the test

'

completed.

L

4

.

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

.

. . .

,

,

4 ,

Although none of these problems would have ~ had any safety .ignificance during the test, they-did cause unnecessary delays and required additional effort diverted from the main objective of performing the tes It was also noted however, that all of the situations were handled professionally, and were adequately resolved, and lead to the satisfactory completion of the test.

'

Crew actions were correct and timely during the performance of the test, I and adequate coordination existed among crew members to conduct the test properly. Dath was collected by the proper personnel. Test results indicated that the portion of the test observed was performed correctly and, pending further computations required in the procedure itself, the test acceptance criteria appears as though they would be me No violation or deviation were observed in this are , Licensee Action In Previously Identified Inspection Findings (92701)

(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 425/88-15-02 ,

Followup of compliance of resolution of findings 2RR-03A-005 in Section 6 of Readiness Review Module 03A, to meet FSAR requirements 14.2.8.1.57 regarding air dryer dewpoint capabilit l

,

'

The licensee had provided a commitment to revise Section 9.3.1 of the FSAR i to make it consistent with ANSI /ASI standards and with the system design

'

criteria. This will therefore change the Chapter 14 testing requirements, ,

allowing the test procedure to be consistent with the FSA i  !

. i

+

r

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