ML20134D319
| ML20134D319 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 08/13/1985 |
| From: | Dave Hills, Lanksbury R, Oduyer G, Odwyer G, Ring M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134D285 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-440-85-42, NUDOCS 8508190184 | |
| Download: ML20134D319 (18) | |
See also: IR 05000622/2008002
Text
F
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-440/85042(DRS)
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
Inspection At: Perry Site, Perry, Ohio
Inspection Conducted: June 22 through August 2, 1985
Inspectors: 3MI[
"
Date
YN f
G. F. O'D /3 6
,.-
Date
R y fg
Date '
"
Approved B . g, ef 3[
Test Programs Section Dat'e
Inspection Summary
-Inspection on June 22 through August 2, 1985 (Report No. 50-440/85042(DRS))
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of previous inspection
findings, preoperational test procedure verification, preoperational test
procedure review, preoperational test witnessing, preoperational test results
verification, preoperational test results review, overall preoperational
test program review and preoperational test program implementation. The
inspection involved a total of 146 inspector-hours onsite by 3 inspectors
including 20 inspector-hours during off-shifts. In addition, there were
121 inspector-hours spent offsite.
Results: .0f the eight areas inspected, no violations or deviations were
identified in six areas. Within the remaining two areas, three violations
were identified (Paragraphs 4.a, 4.b, and 4.f - failure to provide adequate
preoperational test procedures; Paragraph 9.a - failure to provide adequate
administrative controls for temporary alterations; Paragraph 9.b - failure
to provide adequate administrative controls for jurisdictional tagging).
85081901g4 850613
~
{DR ADOCK 05000440 PDR
.
.
DETAILS
1. Persons Contacted
- M. D. Lyster, Manager, Perry Plant Operations Department
- F. R. Stead, Manager, Nuclear Engineering Department
- C. M. Shuster, Manager, Nuclear Quality Assurance Department
- G. R. Leidich, General Supervising Engineer, Nuclear Test Section
- G. H. Gerber, Element Supervisor, Administration, Nuclear Test Section
- R. J. Tadych, General Supervising Engineer, Operations
- D. J. Takacs, General Supervising Engineer, Maintenance
- B. D. Walrath, General Supervising Engineer, Operations Quality Section
- P. A. Russ, Compliance Engineer, Perry plant Technical Department
- B. S. Ferrell, Licensing Engineer, Nuclear Engineering Department
- M. W. Gmyrek, Senior Operations Coordinator, Perry Plant Operations
Department
- K. E. Turosky, Associate Staff Analyst, Perry Plant Technical
Department
The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees including members
of the quality assurance, technical, operating, and testing staff.
- Denotes persons attending the exit meeting of July 31, 1985.
2. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Items
(Closed) Open Item (440/85017-03(DRS)): Final Safety Analysis Report
(FSAR) discrepancies identified during the review of TP IE22-P001, "High
Pressure Core Spray (HPCS)." The relief valve described in FSAR
Section 6.3.2.2.1 as being located between the two isolation valves of
the test line to the condensate storage tank has been replaced by a
bypass line and check valve. The inspector verified that a FSAR Change
Request has been initiated to correct the discrepancy. In regards to
HPCS injection valve IE22-F004 opening time prescribed in FSAR
Section 6.3.2.2.1 as 12 seconds following receipt of a signal to open,
the actual design requirement is an opening time of 27 seconds following
the initiation of a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) signal. The
inspector verified that this design requirement had been properly tested
in the preoperational test and that an FSAR Change Request has been
initiated to correct the discrepancy. The inspector has no further
concerns in this area.
(Closed) Noncompliance (440/85013-09(DRS)): Alarm Response Instructions
(ARI) for the preoperational test program not being generated and made
available to control room operators. The inspector verified that Test
Program Instruction (TPI)-6 has been revised to ensure consistent
implementation with regards to ARIs. This prescribes initiation,
2
_ . _ -
,
-
.
revision, and' implementation of ARIs.to be in accordance with Perry
Plant Operations Department Procedure OAP-0506. The inspector has
no further concerns in this area.
.(Closed) Open Item (440/85017-02(DRS)): Responses to Field Questions
046362 and 046363 to be reviewed. The inspector reviewed the identified
documents and found them satisfactory. The inspector has no further
concerns in this area.
(Closed) Open Item (440/85029-02(DRS)): Test addendum to be provided to
add clarifications to TP-IE21-P001, " Low Pressure Core Spray," test
results package. _The inspector reviewed Test Addendum No. 1 and verified
that the-identified clarifications had been addressed. The inspector has
no further concerns in this area.
(Closed) Open Item (440/85017-11(DRS)): Licensee management to provide
uniform guidance on the implementation'of test exceptions and work
authorizations. The inspector verified that procedural requirements
for test exceptions and work authorizations have been identified to
applicable personnel in the. training program. The inspector has no
further concerns in this area.
.(Closed) Open Item (440/85017-04(DRS)): Licensee management to stress to
personnel the importance of keeping the System Test Engineer completely
cognizant of activities affecting systems under Nuclear Test Section
control. The inspector verified that this item has been stressed to
applicable personnel through the training program. The inspector has
no further concerns in this area.
(0 pen) Noncompliance'(440/85013-01(DRS)): Failure to provide adequate
preoperational test procedures. The inspector verified that additional
examples of this violation, pertaining to TP IE12-P001, " Residual Heat
Removal System," Revision 1, as identified in Inspection Report
50-440/85017, have been corrected by incorporation of Test Change
Notices 55 and 57 into the test procedure. Additionally, the inspector
verified that other examples of this violation pertaining to TP IB33-P002,
" Recirculation Flow Control Valves," Revision 1, that were -identified
in the same report have been corrected in Addendum 1 to that procedure.
However, further examples of this violation have been identified in-
Paragraph 4.h of this report for TP IC41A-P001, " Standby Liquid Control
System," Revision 0. As a result of concerns over inadequate
preoperational test procedures, the licensee formed a Management
Procedure Review Team (MPRT) to determine the extent of the problem and
to present recommendations for corrective actions. In implementing the
MPRT recommendations, the licensee-has developed Special Project
Plan 1102, " Test Procedure Assurance Review." The intent of this plan
- . is to ensure preoperational test procedure adequacy by providing an
additional review of all preoperational and selected acceptance test
procedures, reinforcement of attention to detail to ensure technical
3
,
.
.
adequacy of the test procedures, increased supervisory involvement
during the evolution and conduct of test procedures and revisions,
-additional training for test personnel, a re-review of licensing
commitments, a periodic status of progress, and a final summary of
these efforts. The effectiveness of these activities will be further
evaluated and tracked by this inspection item. The item remains open
pending complete implementation of the above actions and inspector
review of their effectiveness.
(Closed) Open Item (440/85002-05(DRS)): Test personnel appear to
rely on General Electric or Gilbert Associates Incorporated test
specifications without being totally cognizant of design and testing
requirements contained in licensing documents. This item is being
addressed by the licensee's Special Project Plan 1102, " Test Procedure
Assurance Review," and thus will continue to be tracked by previous
inspection item 440/85013-01(DRS).
(Closed) Open Item (440/84-11-11(DRS); 441/84-11-11(DRS)): Complete
review of preventative maintenance controls during testing. The
inspector reviewed this area as described in Paragraph 8 of this report.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (440/85002-02(DRS)): Consideration of instrument
inaccuracies in determination of preoperational test procedure acceptance
criteria. The licensee has develeped a Special Project Plan,
" Coordination of Setpoints and Interrelated Documents," which is to
address this item in addition to several related issues as described
in Paragraph 4.a of this report. Expected completion of this project
with a written final report is August 26, 1985.
(Closed) Open Item (441/84-11-15(DRS)): Review licensee's response to
how their program will minimize problems identified in preoperational
testing at other facilities. The licensee has provided a written
response which the inspector has reviewed and determined to be adequate.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (440/85013-06(DRS)): Resolve inspector
coments/ concerns for preoperational test procedure TP 1C41A-P001,
Revision 0, " Standby Liquid Control System." This item has been upgraded
to an example of a violation as described in Paragraph 4.h of this report
and will be included with the other examples of inadequate procedures
identified under violation 440/85013-01(DRS). Therefore, this item
'is considered closed.
(Closed) Open Item (440/84-22-02(DRS)): Licensee to submit and have
approved all required FSAR test abstracts. As noted in Paragraph 2.c of
Inspection Report 50-440/85017(DRS), the inspector had an open issue with
the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) regarding which test
abstracts are required to be included in FSAR Section 14. A response
from NRR has been received and it appears no additional action by the
4
i
I
'
.
.
licensee is required at this time. If additional or modified test
abstracts are later found to be necessary NRR will deal directly with
the licensee. This item is therefore considered closed.
(Closed) Open Item (440/85013-03(DRS)): Licensee to change the FSAR to
upgrade their commitment from ANSI N510-1975 to ANSI N510-1980. The
inspector reviewed FSAR Change. Request No. 493 and verified that the
licensee was taking appropriate action to resolve this concern and had
approved this change. The inspector has no further concerns in this
area.
3. Preoperational Test Procedure Verification
The inspector verified that the following preoperational test procedures
were prepared, reviewed, and approved in accordance with the requirements
of Regulatory Guide 1.68, the Test Program Manual (TPM),.the FSAR, the
Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and the Quality Assurance (QA) Program
and found them satisfactory except as noted below:
TP OG41-P001, " Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup System," Revision 2
.TP OM23/24-P001, "MCC Switchgear and Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment
Areas HVAC System and Battery Room Exhaust System,"
Revision 2 _
TP OP41-P001, " Cooling Tower Makeup Isolation System," Revision 0
TP OP47-P001, " Control Complex Chilled Water System," Revision 0
TP OP49-P001, " Emergency Service Water Screen Wash System," Revision 2
TP 1C61-P001, " Remote Shutdown System," Revision l'
TP 1F42-P001, " Fuel Transfer Equipment," Revision.1
TP 1M32-P001, "Emergeacy Service Water Pumphouse Ventilation System,"
Revision 1
TP 1M36-P001, "Off Gas Building Exhaust System," Revision 1
TP 1M43-P001, " Diesel. Generator Building Ventilation System," Revision 2
TP 1P42-P001, " Emergency Closed Cooling System," Revision 2
TP 1R23-P001, "480 Volt Load Centers," Revision 0
TP 1R42-P001, " Class 1E Bus Independence and Division 1 and 2, DC
Power System," Revision 0-
TP 2R25-P001, "120 VAC Class 1E Instrument and Miscellaneous Distribution
Panels," Revision 0
-TP 2R42-P002, " Class 1E DC Power Systems Division 3," Revision 0
TP 0G60-A001, " Miscellaneous Sump System, Service Water Valve Pit,"
Revision 0
TP OP41-A001, " Service Water System," Revision 1
TP 1C85-A002, " Steam Bypass and Pressu"e Regulator HPU," Revision 0
TP 1N21-A001, " Condensate System," Revision 0
TP 1N33-A001, " Steam Seal System," Revision 0
TP.1N62-A001, " Condenser Air Removal," Revision 0
TP 1N71-A001, " Circulating Water System," Revision 0
TP IP44-A001, " Turbine Building Closed Cooling System," Revision 2
TP 1P52-A001, " Instrument Air System," Revision 1
5
,
.
..
'
TP 1R52-A001, " Maintenance and Calibration Communications System,"
Revision 0
TP-1N23-A001, " Condensate Filtration System,". Revision 1
TP 2R42-A001, "Non-Class 1E. Power Systems," Revision 0
TP'2R11-A002,:"LH-2-B Interbus Transformer Energization," Revision 0
_TP 1P48-A001,." Service Water Chlorination System," Revision 2
TP 2R11-A001, "LH-2-A Interbus Transformer Energization," Revision 0
TP 1P33-A001, " Turbine Plant Sampling," Revision 0
TP 2S11-A001, "Startup Transformer Energization," Revision 1
TP 2R11-A003, "LH-2-C Interbus Transformer Energization," Revision 1
-TP 1P12-A001, " Condensate Seal Water System," Revision 0
TP 1P11-A001, " Condensate Transfer and Storage System," Revision 2
TP 1P51-A001, " Service Air System," Revision 1
TP 1N35-A001, " Hydrogen Supply System," Revision 0
TP 1N34-A001, " Lube Oil Purification," Revision 0
-TP 2P52-A001, " Instrument Air System," Revision 0
TP 1N24-A001, " Condensate Demineralizer System," Revision 1
TP 1M49-A001, "HVAC Smoke Venting," Revision 1
TP-1M47-A001, " Steam Tunnel Cooling," Revision 1
'TP 1R11-A002, "LH-1-B Interbus Transformer Energization," Revision 1
TP 1M45-A001, " Circulating Water Pump House Ventilation System,"
Revision 1
TP 1M42-A001, " Turbine Power Complex Ventilation," Revision 2
TP 1M41-A001, " Heater Bay Ventilation," Revision 1
TP 1M35-A001, " Turbine Building Ventilation," Revision 2
TP OP84-A002, "Hypochlorite Generation Cooling Tower Feed and Plant
Discharge Dechlorination System," Revision 0
'TP OP34-A001, " Nuclear Sampling System," Revision 0
TP 1P83-A001, " Cooling Tower Acid Addition System," Revision 0
TP OP55-A001, " Building Heating System," Revision 1
TP OP22-A001, " Mixed Bed Demineralizer and Distribution," Revision 0
TP 1R14-A001, "120 VAC Vital-Inverter and Distribution Equipment,"
-Revision 0 ,
TP OP20-A001, " Makeup Water Pretreatment," Revision 0
TP OM48-A001, "Radwaste Control Room HVAC System," Revision 1
TP 1P86-A001, " Nitrogen Supply System," Revision 0 .
TP OM46-A001, " Miscellaneous HVAC Systems," Revision 0
TP OM31-A001, "Radwaste Building Ventilation," Revision 2
TP 1M33-A001, " Intermediate Building Ventilation, " Revision 1
TP 1S11-A001, "Startup Transformer Energization," Revision 1
TP 1R55-A001, " Permanent Plant Telephone System DC Equipment,"
Revision 0
TP 1R42-A001, "Non-Class 1E DC Power Systems," Revision 0
TP OP64-A001, " Plant Industrial Wastes System," Revision 0 '
-TP IL51-A001, " Turbine Room and Circulating Water Pumphouse Overhead
Cranes," Revision 2
TP OP21-A001, "Two-Bed Demineralizer and Distribution System,"
Revision 1 l
TP 1R11-A003, "LH-1-C Interbus Transformer Energization," Revision 1
6
.
.
TP 1R11-A001, "LH-1-A Interbus Transformer Energization," Revision 0
TP OP65-A001, " Auxiliary Boiler Chemical Treatment System," Revision 1
TP OP62-A001, " Auxiliary Boiler Fuel Oil System," Revision 0
TP OP40-A001, " Service Water Screen Wash," Revision 1
TP OM37-A001, " Water Treatment Building Ventilation," Revision 0
TP OL51-A003, " Service Water Pumphouse Overhead Crane," Revision 0
No violations or deviations were identified.
4. Preoperational Test Procedure Review
The inspector reviewed the following approved test procedures against .
the FSAR, the SER, Regulatory Guide 1.68, QA Manual, Test Program Manual,
'
applicable Regulatory Guides and American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) Standards and docketed correspondence and found them satisfactory
except as noted below:
a. TP 1C71-P001, " Reactor Protection System," Revision 1. During this
review, the inspector noted that the test procedure was not
consistent pertaining to the acceptance criteria for Turbine Control
Valve Fast Closure Trip Setpoint. Acceptance criteria 7.6
prescribed a setpoint and tolerance of 530t15 psig while the test
step 6.7.1 indicated 530130 psig. The licensee indicated that
530t30 psig was the appropriate setpoint and tolerance and therefore
acceptance criteria 7.6 tolerance was incorrect. In addition, the
inspector noted that in step 6.7.1.1, the Turbine First Stage
Pressure Low Power Setpoint was prescribed as 178.2 psig while in
step 6.16.2.2 it was given as 232 psig. The licensee indicated that
178.2 psig was the appropriate setpoint and therefore step 6.16.2.2
was incorrect. Also, in step 6.15.1, data sheet 4 prescribed the
removal of various fuses to initiate annunciators. However, the
test procedure did not provide for restorational replacement of
these fuses as required by Test Program Instruction (TPI)-18,
" Temporary Alterations," and TPI-7, "Preoperational Acceptance
and Special Test Procedure Preparation Review and Approval." These
items are considered an example of a violation in conjucntion with
the examples described in Paragraph 4.b and 4.f in that this
procedure was inconsistent with administrative requirements and
applicable design values (440/85042-01a(DRS)).
In addition, the inspector noted that the procedure prescribes
reactor protection system response time testing to be accomplished
during the preoperational test in accordance with Initial Checkout
and Run-in (IC&R) test procedures. The licensee indicated that
these IC&R procedures had not yet been written and approved by the
Test Program Review Committee (TPRC) but would be provided for NRC
review upon TPRC approval. This is to remain an open item until the
licensee has provided these TPRC approved procedures and they have
been reviewed by the inspector (440/85042-02(DRS)).
7
.
.
i
The inspector also noted that acceptance criteria 7.1 prescribes
a Reactor Vessel. Steam Dome Pressure High trip setpoint as
1064.7 15 psig while Perry " Proof and Review" Technical
Specification Table 2.2.1-1 gives a trip setpoint of _1064.7 psig
and allowable value of 1079.7 psig. Therefore, the test procedure
tolerance allows the trip setpoint to be as high as the technical
specification allowable value. This same problem was also
identified in respect to the Automatic Depressurization System
timer as described in Paragraph 4.e of this report.
These tolerances appear to be inconsistent with the proposed Perry
specific setpoint methodology which has not yet received approval
of NRR. This specific methodology involves establishment of a
" leave-as-is" zone based on setpoints that are determined from the
General Electric setpoint methodology. Under this plan, the
instrument would not have to be recalibrated until calibration
checks have revealed that it has drifted out of this " leave-as-is"
zone. The " leave-as-is" zone is to be established in such a manner
as to ensure compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.105, " Instrument
Setpoints," Revision 1, which states that "setpoints be established.
-
a with sufficient margin between the technical specification limits
for the process variable and the nominal trip setpoints to allow for
-(a) the inaccuranc of the instrument, (b) uncertainties in the
calibration, and (y)c the instrument drift that could occur during
the' interval between calibrations." The examples of test procedure
setpoint tolerances given above signify the establishment of this
" leave-as-is" zone as up to and including the technical
-
specification allowable value. This clearly conflicts with the
proposed Perry specific setpoint methodology. It appears that there
has been little consistency or direction provided for the establishment
of " leave-as-is" zones. Therefore, if this methodology does receive
NRR approval, the possibility exists that extensive effort may be
needed to ensure that " leave-as-is" zones have been established
correctly and that instruments are recalibrated when discrepancies
such as these are discovered. This is considered to be an
unresolved item (440/85042-03(DRS)). In order to address this and
other related concerns, the licensee has developed Special Project
Plan, " Coordination of Setpoints and Interrelated Documents." This
plan establishes a review team to investigate various problem areas
such as test acceptance criteria versus instrument inaccuracies, the
" leave-as-is" zone, consistent setpoint terminology and definitions,
and dynamic interfaces between setpoint design documents. The
special project plan is expected to be complete by August 26, 1985,
with the issuance of a final report to describe the various problems
identified in detail, prescribe an action plan for resolution of
any identified problems, and identify the responsible organizations
for completion of the action plan. >
8
c
.
.
b. TP 1C71-P002, " Reactor Protection System (RPS) Motor Generator
Sets," Revision 0. FSAR Section 8.3.1.1.5.4 indicates that
" provision is made to prevent connection of both RPS buses to the
alternate source at the same time." This design feature, consisting
of the K2A and K2B relays and corresponding contacts, is to ensure
that both RPS buses are not simultaneously supplied from the
alternate power source so that these buses are not vulnerable no
single failure. The inspector noted that this particular interlock
was not tested in the preoperational test procedure. This iten is
' considered an example of a violation in conjunction with the
examples described in Paragraphs 4.a and 4.f in that this procedure
did not adequately test system design features (440/85042-01b()RS)).
c. TP 1N278-P001, "Feedwater Leakage Control System," Revision 1.
d. TP 1G43-P001, " Suppression Pool Makeup System," Revision 2.
e. TP 18218-P001, " Automatic Depressurization System (ADS / Safety
Relief Valves (SRV)," Revision 1. The inspector noted that
acceptance criteria 7.1.1 and 7.1.3 prescribes the ADS Timer
setpoint as 10512 seconds while Perry " Proof and Review" Technical
Specification Table 3.3.3-2 gives a setpoint value of _105 seconds
and an allowable value of 117 seconds. Therefore, the test procedure
tolerance allows the setpoint to be as high as the technical
specification allowable value. This tolerance appears to be
inconsistent with the proposed Perry plant specific setpoint
methodology utilizing a " leave-as-is" zone as described previously
in Paragraph 4.a of this report and thus is considered part of
the same unresolved item (440/85042-03(DRS)).
f. TP 1M51-P001, " Combustible Gas Control System (CGCS)," Revision 0. ,
The inspector noted that permanent plant instrumentation used to
provide acceptance criteria data in the test procedure were not
designated with the symbol "(AC)" on the Instrument Suninary Sheet.
Examples of the numerous discrepancies identified include the sample
flow indicators, sample inlet pressure indicators, and sample
temperature indicators on hydrogen analyzer panels 1H51-P022A and
1H51-P022B, used to provide data for acceptance criteria 7.1.a and
7.1.b, and the air flow meter on panel 1H51-P174A, used to provide
data for acceptance criterion 7.3.a.1. TPI-7, "Preoperational,
Acceptance, and Special Test Procedure Review and Approval,"
Section 4.1.2.2 and Attachment 6.5 prescribe the use of the
Instrument Summary Sheet. Instructions on the Instrument Suninary
Sheet require that the symbol "(AC)" be inserted for all instruments
involved with verifying acceptance criteria. This symbol indicates
those instruments requiring signature /date verifications to ensure
that they have been calibrated within six months of the start of the
test and to ensure that they receive post-test calibration
verification. This is considered an example of a violation in
9
r
.
.
conjunction with the examples described in Paragraphs 4.a and
4.b in that this procedure was inconsistent with administrative
requirements (440/85042-01c(DRS)).
In addition, the inspector expressed concern pertaining to CGCS
compressor flow rate acceptance criteria as it relates to system
design requirements. Present test procedure acceptance criteria
prescribes 500150 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) CGCS
compressor capacity under an equalized atmospheric pressure
condition between the drywell containment areas and 600160 scfm
capacity under equalized but higher pressure conditions during the
Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT). The licensee has
now indicated that they intend to change the acceptance criteria
at atmospheric pressure conditions to a minimum of 500 scfm and to
include calculations to normalize test data to the design
temperature of 60 F for comparison to the acceptance criteria.
In addition, the licensee intends to delete the testing done under
containment ILRT conditions and to instead perform testing as an
Initial Checkout end Run-in (IC&R) test at a containment pressure
of 22.1 psia during depressurization following completion of the
ILRT. This pressure is the postulated containment pressure at which
the compressors are started approximately 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> after a Loss of
Coolant Accident to ensure that hydrogen concentrations do not
exceed the 4.0 percent limits of Regulatory Guide 1.7. The
inspector advised the licensee that the plan to do the higher
,
pressure test as an IC&R test instead of a preoperational test may
'
not be consistent with the intent of Regulatory Guide-1.68s
Section C.3, which states in regard to preoperational testing,
"to the extent practical, the plant conditions during the tests
should simulate the actual operating and emergency conditions to
which the structure, system, on component may be subjected." This
is an unresolved item until the inspector has reviewed the planned
procedure revision and determined its compliance with regulatory
requirements (440/85042-04(DRS)).
The inspector also noted that preoperational testing of the hydrogen
recombiners was not as extensive as that required by the 18 month
surveillance prescribed by Perry " Proof and Review" Technical
Specification Section 4.6.7. The surveillance requires that the
recombiner sheath temperature must attain between 1225 F and 1450 F
within 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> and maintain temperature within that range for an
additional 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />. The preoperational test procedure, however,
just verifies that the sheath temperature will stabilize at
1225110 F with no specified time periods. The licensee has
indicated that the test procedure will be revised to make it
consistent with the technical specification surveillance
requirements. This is to remain an open item until the inspector
- has reviewed the procedure revision to ensure compatibility with
the technical specification surveillance (440/85042-05(DRS)).
10
m
s
m
.-
)
g. TP IC418-P001, "St'andby Liquid Control Transfer," Revision 0.
h. TP.1C41A-P001, " Standby Liquid Control System," Revision 0. As
-
indicated in Inspection Report 50-440/85013(DRS) (unresolved item
,440/85013-06(DRS)) the inspector had a number of comments / concerns
y for this preoperational test procedure that required additional
-
inspection effort in order to determine if they were violations.
.This inspection effort is now complete and unresolved item
440/85013-06 has been upgraded to an example of a violation and
is included with the other examples 'of inadequate test procedures
, identified under violation 440/85013-01(DRS). The following is
a list of the examples.of violation identified in TP 1C41A-P001.
The test methodology for verifying the systems restricting
orifice flow was inadequate because it did not take into
consideration the elevation difference between the location
where the static test measurements were performed and the
lower level where the orifice flow entered the system
primary flow path (pump suction). In addition, consideration
of the dynamic effects in place when the system is running
were not included. General Electric (GE) and onsite review
of this concern,resulted in a new acceptance criterion being
generated that took~the above items into consideration.
Further review indicated that sufficient data was taken
during the conduct of'the test (wnich occurred prior to
- resolution.of this concern) to allow it to be used to
demonstrate this portion ~of system operation through
additional calculations and without any retesting being
required.
- The test methodology used initially to demonstrate that the
Standby Liquid Control-(SLC) system storage tank air sparger
would perform as' designed was inadequate in that it did not
demonstrate that it was capable of mixing the boron solution
after the^ maximum time allowed between Technical Specification
(TS) surveillances'(*38 days). In addition, it-did not
determine how much sparging time is required to ensure that
7' ~
the samples taken for the TS surveillances are representative
of the tank contents. The above must be demonstrated since
the boron solution will stratify-out over time with a higher -
concentration layer near the bottom and a lower concentration
layer near the top (where the TS samples will be taken).
- 10 CFR 50.62 requires that the SLC system be designed to have
,
a minimum flow capacity and boron content equivalent in control
capacity to 86 gpm of 13 weight percent sodium pentaborate
solution. This equivalent control capacity is for a
251 inch-diameter reactor vessel. Since Perry has a smaller
size reactor vessel, a different (lower) flow would provide
11
e
v s.
~
equivalent control. A GE analysis in response to this concern
resulted in GE.providing the site with an equation whereby
compliance with the equivalency requirement can be shown by
substituting plant-specific parameters. The original test
procedure failed to include consideration of this design
requirement. Subsequent review by the licensee has determined
that sufficient data had been collected during the original
testing.to allow demonstration of the required control
equivalency through the use of the above noted GE equation.
No additional violations or deviations .were identified. However,
2 open and 2 unresolved items requiring further evaluation as
described in the preceding paragraphs were identified in the review
of this program area.
5. Preoperational Test Witnessing
-The inspector witnessed the following preoperational test to ascertain
through. observation and review of documentation that testing was conducted
.in accordance with approved procedures and that test results appeared to
be acceptable or proper corrective actions were taken. Additionally, the
performance of licensee personnel was evaluated during the test. These
were_found to be satisfactory.
_
SP_1E61-001, " Local Leak Rate Test," Revision 0.
The inspector witnessed step 6.5 which consisted of testing per
Surveillance Instruction SVI-821-T9122, " Type C Local Leak Rate
Test of B21 Penetration P122," Revision 0, to determine the local
leakage rate from Main Steam Line C. This testing determined that
'the combined leakage from Inboard Main Steam Isolation Valve (MSIV)
1B21-F022C, Outboard MSIV 1821-F028C, Outboard Before Seat Drain
Valve 1821-F067C, MSIV Leakage Control System (LCS)-Inlet Valve
1E32-F001J, and MSIV LCS Drain Valves 1E32-F02J and IE32-F026J
was' within acceptance limits.
No violations or deviations were identified.
j -6. Preoperational Test Results Verification
The inspector verified that the following preoperational test results
were documented, reviewed and approved by the licensee in accordance
with the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.68, the TPM, the FSAR, the
'
.SER, and the QA Program and found them satisfactory.
TP OG41-P001, " Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup System," Revision 2
TP OM23/24-P001, "MCC Switchgear and Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment
Areas HVAC System and Battery Room' Exhaust System,"
Revision 2
TP OP41-P001, " Cooling Tower Makeup -Isolation System," Revision 0
12
,. __ -_.
.
.
TP OP47-P001, " Control Complex Chilled Water System," Revision 0 )
TP OP49-P001, " Emergency Service Water Screen Wash System," Revision 2
TP 1C61-P001, " Remote Shutdown System," Revision 1
TP 1F42-P001, " Fuel Transfer Equipment," Revision 1
-TP 1M32-P001, " Emergency Service Water Pumphouse Ventilation System,"
Revision 1
TP 1M36-P001, "Off Gas Building Exhaust System," Revision 1
TP 1M43-P001, " Diesel Generator Building Ventilation System," Revision 2
TP IP42-P001, " Emergency Closed Cooling System," Revision 2
TP 1R23-P001, "480 Volt Load Centers," Revision 0
TP 1R42-P001, " Class 1E Bus Independence and Division 1 and 2, DC
Power Tystem," Revision 0
TP 2R25-P001, "120 VAC Class lf Instrument and Miscellaneous Distribution
Panels," Pe :sion 0
TP 2R42-P002, " Class IE DC Pc,ier Systems Division 3," Revision 0
TP OG60-A001, " Miscellaneous Sump System, Service Water Valve Pit,"
Revision 0
TP OP41-A001, " Service Water System," Revision 1
TP 1C85-A002, " Steam Bypass and Pressure Regulator HPU," Revision 0 -
TP 1N21-A001, " Condensate System," Revision 0
TP 1N33-A001, " Steam Seal System," Revision 0
TP 1N62-A001, " Condenser Air Removal," Revision 0
TP 1N71-A001, " Circulating Water System," Revision 0
TP IP44-A001, " Turbine Building Closed Cooling System," Revision 2
TP IP52-A001, " Instrument Air System," Revision 1
TP 1R52-A001, " Maintenance and Calibration Communications System,"
Revision 0
TP 1N23-A001, " Condensate Filtration System," Rcvision 1
TP 2R42-A001, "Non-Class 1E Power Systems," Revision 0
TP 2R11-A002, "LH-2-B Interbus Transformer Energization," Revision 0
TP 1P48-A001, " Service Water Chlorination System," Revision 2
TP 2R11-A001, "LH-2-A Interbus Transformer Energization," Revision 0
TP 1P33-A001, " Turbine Plant Sampling," Revision 0
TP 2S11-A001, "Startup Transformer Energization," Revision 1
TP 2R11-A003, "LH-2-C Interbus Transformer Energization," Revision 1
TP 1P12-A001, " Condensate Seal Water System," Revision 0
TP 1P11-A001, " Condensate Transfer and Storage System," Revision 2
TP 1P51-A001, " Service Air System," Revision 1
TP 1N35-A001, " Hydrogen Supply System," Revision 0 1
TP 1N34-A001, " Lube Oil Purification," Revision 0
TP 2P52-A001, " Instrument Air System," Revision 0 >
TP 1N24-A001, " Condensate Demineralizer System," Revision 1
TP 1M49-A001, "HVAC Smoke Venting," Revision 1
TP 1M47-A001, " Steam Tunnel Cooling," Revision 1
TP 1R11-A002, "LH-1-B Interbus Transformer Energization," Revision 1
TP 1M45-A001, " Circulating Water Pump House Ventilation System,"
Revision 1
TP 1M42-A001, " Turbine Power Complex Ventilation," Revision 2
TP 1M41-A001, " Heater Bay Ventilation," Revision 1
13
. - _- - _- . -~ . - . - . . - - . ._-
'
.
< .
TP 1M35-A001, " Turbine Building Ventilation," Revision 2
. TP OP84-A002, "Hypochlorite Generation Cooling Tower Feed and Plant
Discharge Dechlorination System," Revision 0
TP OP34-A001, " Nuclear. Sampling System," Revision 0
TP 1P83-A001, " Cooling Tower Acid Addition System," Revision 0
-TP OP55-A001, " Building Heating System," Revision 1
TP OP22-A001, " Mixed Bed Demineralizer and Distribution," Revision 0
-TP 1R14-A001, "120 VAC Vital-Inverter and Distribution Equipment,"
Revision 0
,
TP OP20-A001, " Makeup Water Pretreatment," Revision 0
TP OM48-A001, "Radwaste Control Room HVAC System," Revision 1
TP 1P86-A001, "Nitroge'n Supply System," Revision 0
TP OM46-A001, " Miscellaneous HVAC Systems," Revision 0
- TP OM31-A001, "Radwaste Building Ventilation," Revision 2
TP 1M33-A001, " Intermediate Building Ventilation, " Revision 1
TP'1S11-A001, "Startup Transformer Energization," Revision 1
TP 1R55-A001, " Permanent Plant Telephone System DC Equipment,"
'
Revision 0
TP 1R42-A001, "Non-Class 1E DC Power Systems," Revision 0
,
'
TP 0P64-A001, " Plant Industrial Wastes System," Revision 0
-TP IL51-A001, " Turbine Room and Circulating Water Pumphouse Overhead
Cranes," Revision 2
t
TP OP21-A001, "Two-Bed Demineralizer and Distribution System,"
, Revision 1.
TP 1R11-A003, "LH-1-C Interbus Transformer Energization," Revision 1
- TP 1R11-A001, "LH-1-A Interbus Transformer Energization," Revision 0
1
~ TP OP65-A001, " Auxiliary Boiler Chemical Treatment System," Revision 1
~
TP OP62-A001, " Auxiliary Boiler Fuel Oil System," Revision 0
'
TP OP40-A001, " Service Water Screen Wash," Revision 1
TP OM37-A001, " Water Treatment Building Ventilation," Revision 0 .
TP.OL51-A003, " Service Water Pumphouse Overhead Crane," Revision 0
v
~
No violations or deviations were identified.
7. Preoperational Test Results Review
l
The inspector reviewed the results of the following tests against the
i FSAR, the SER, Regulatory Guide 1.68, the QA Manual, and the Test Program
Manual, and determined that-test changes and test exceptions were
processed in accordance with administrative controls, test deficiencies
were identified, processed, and corrected as required, results were
'
evaluated and met the acceptance criteria, and the results were reviewed
and approved as required.
4
TP 1C41B-P001, " Standby Liquid Control Transfer," Revision 0.
-No violations or deviations were identified.
1
!
.
14
f
-
r - , - . , . - , , , _ , , - , - - , - , , . , . , . . , . . . ~ , , , , . . , , , - - n.,, -, , . . - - , _ , - . _ , , , , ,r,---. , . - -. , , , , , , , . . p rn.--n,---an- .n
.
.
8. Overall Test Program Review
The inspector verified that controls for preventative maintenance and
equipment protection during and following preoperational testing have
been established including:
periodic surveillance as required
protection from environmental extremes
implementation of periodic maintenance and calibration programs
maintenance of cleanliness
The inspector also verified that administrative controls have been
established which require preparation and retention of maintenance
records. During this review, the inspector noted that administrative
controls for preventative maintenance were spread throughout several
governing documents contributing to confusion as to the applicable
controls and could be conducive to program implementation errors.
The inspector also noted that Perry Plant Department Interface 7-1301,
" Maintenance Program Coordination," had not been revised since August 8,
1983, and thus contained references to procedures which no longer exist.
As a result of these concerns and also since Perry Plant Department
Interface 7-1301 was almost redundant with Perry Plant Department
Interface 7-1304, " Preventative Maintenance Program," the licensee
deleted the former after assuring that any remaining administrative
controls had been transferred to the other procedure. Furthermore,
the licensee revised Perry Plant Department Interface 7-1304 to reference
Test Program-12, " Work Authorizations," instead of the incorrect reference
to Project Administration 1107, " Work Authorization Process."
No violations or deviations were identified.
9. Preoperational Test Program Implementation
a. The licensee's implementation of jurisdictional tagging was reviewed
during this inspection period. Test Program Instruction (TPI)-9,
Revision 1, Section 4.1.7, provides instruction on how the licensee's
jurisdictional tagging program is to be implemented for systems
undergoing preoperational testing. This section requires that: for
i
electrical equipment, blue jurisdictional tags or stickers be placed
on all electrical components and the associated control switches and
breakers; for mechanical equipment, the tags or stickers be placed on
all mechanical components such as valves, tanks, pumps, etc.; and
for instrument and control equipment, the tags will be placed on all
gauges, panels, readily accessible sensing devices, tubing racks,
etc. Because of the large amount of instrument and control
equipment in the Control Room, the licensee decided to designate
everything therein as under Nuclear Test Section (NTS) control and
to not individually mark each item. As each instrument or control
completed preoperational testing and was turned over to Operations,
15 l
.
.
it was required to be tagged / marked by a green tag / sticker to
indicate this status in accordance with Perry Administrative
Procedure (PAP) 1401, " Equipment Tagging."
During the review of this area, the inspector found that the
Operations personnel had processed a change (Test Change Notice
No. 5) to PAP 1401, effective June <1, 1985, which deleted the
requirement for green tagging /stickering any systems / components
for Unit 1 or Unit 1/2 common required for Unit 1 operation. The
justification for this change was that all these systems / components
had been turned over from construction to NTS and therefore the
previous method of indicating that the system / component was under
construction jurisdiction (i.e., no tags / stickers) could now be
used by Operations and thereby minimize the amount of paper being
processed. The inspector noted that this was a reasonable course
of action on the part of the licensee except that NTS's method of
identifying jurisdiction in the Control Room had not changed.
Therefore, it was not possible to identify what instrument,
controls, electrical equipment, etc., were under NTS jurisdiction
and which were under Operations jurisdiction. This is considered
to be a violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XIV, in that
adequate measures to indicate the status of equipment within the
Control Room were not established and implemented (440/85042-06(DRS)).
b. The licensee's implementation of control of temporary electrical
alterations was also reviewed during this inspection period.
TPI-18, Revision 3, provided instructions of how their temporary
alteration program was to be implemented. Section 4.1.1 of TPI-18
stated that prior to release for preoperational or acceptance test,
it is not necessary that the System Test Engineer (STE) review and
approve the implementation and removal of temporary alterations.
Section 4.1.2 stated that at anytime after system turnover to NTS,
the STE may control the implementation and removal of temporary
alterations on a system under his jurisdiction by submitting a
memorandum to the Test Coordinator which informs him of the
effective date of that control. Section 4.1.4 stated that the
Test Coordinator shall approve implementation or removal of
temporary alterations without the review signature of the STE
after the effective date on the memorandum or after connencing
preoperational or acceptance testing, whichever occurs first.
The ' inspector's review of this revision of the program revealed the
following problem. The period of time between a system's release
for test authorization and the time that the test commences was not
addressed. The release for test package includes, among other
things, a walkdown of the system by the STE to verify that the system
is per design and a review for any temporary alterations. At this
point, baseline data as to the status of the system with respect to
temporary alterations is established by the STE. By not requiring
the STE to control temporary alterations from this point on renders
16
_-
JJ
,
.
%
the baseline data suspect since the commencing of actual testing may
be months after the release for test authorization. If a temporary
alteration is made during this time frame and is still in place when
testing is being performed, the results of that testing may not be
valid. Section 1.0 of TPI-18 allows temporary alterations to be
made and removed without following the requirements therein if it is
specifically required by an approved test procedure which contains
signature verifications for implementing and returning to normal.
The Test Coordinator is also required to be notified prior to the
alteration and upon its return to normal if the alteration affects
a system in operation. It is not clear that just contacting the
Test Coordinator instead of the affected STE will ensure that the
affected STE's testing is not invalidated by the alteration.
In either case, the potential for invalidating test results exists
and, depending on how the temporary alteration affects the system
operation, this may go undetected.
During the course of this inspection and prior to the inspector
identifying the above concerns, the licensee issued Revision 4 to
TPI-18. This change basically transferred control for
implementation of all new temporary alterations to PAP-1402,
" Control of Lifted Leads, Jumpers, Temporary Electrical Devices,
and Mechanical Foreign Items." Removal is still controlled by
TPI-18. TCN-005 to PAP-1402 was also issued to require the STE's
concurrence to any temporary alteration. This programmatic change
resolves the inspector's first concern with respect to any temporary
alterations processed under PAP-1402. However, the inspector still
has concerns with respect to the effect the old program may have had
on testing performed under it. In addition, with respect to the
second concern noted above, the new PAP-1402 procedure still has the
same exception to its requirements as existed in Section 1.0 of
TPI-18 except that it does not even require the Test Coordinator
be notified of the implementation or removal of any temporary
al terations.
The failure of the Perry test program to address the above noted
problem areas is considered to be a violation of 10 CFR 50,
Appendix B, Criterion XI, and Criterion XIV in that adequate
measures were not established to insure that the STE was aware of
the status of his system while it is undergoing testing and to
thoroughly ensure that the required testing demonstrated that the
structures, systems, and components will perform satisfactorily
-
inservice (440/85042-07(DRS)).
,
17
-. .--_- - . . . .. .-, __ -- . , . -.
. .
.
10. . Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which information is required in order
to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance,
or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are
discussed in Paragraphs 4.a, 4.e, and 4.f.
11. Open Items
Open items are matter which have been discussed with the licensee which
will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which involve some action
on the part of the NRC or licensee or both. Open items disclosed during
the inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 4.a and 4.f.
12. Exit Interview
The inspector met with licensee representatives denoted in Paragraph 1
on July 31, 1985. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of
the inspection and discussed the likely content of this inspection report.
The licensee did not indicate that any of the information disclosed
during the inspection could be considered proprietary in nature.
The licensee acknowledged the statements by the inspector with respect
to the violations in Paragraphs 4.a, 4.b, 4.f, 9.a, and 9.b.
18