IR 05000280/1994013
| ML18153A975 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1994 |
| From: | Kellogg P, King L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18153A974 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-94-13, 50-281-94-13, NUDOCS 9406270135 | |
| Download: ML18153A975 (5) | |
Text
Report Nos. :
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W., SUITE 2900 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323-0199 50-280/94-13 and 50~281/94-13 Licensee:
Virginia Electric and.Power Company Glen Allen, VA 23060 Docket Nos.:
50-280 and 50-281 Facility Name:
Surry 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted:
May 16-20, 1994 License Nos.:
DPR-32 and DPR-37 Inspector~.~- ~~.,
. *
awrence P. King
- /
Approved Scope:
by:*~~
Paul *i<lcigg,Chief Ope rat i ona 1 * Program Section Operat~ons Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY
- 5,h~,/9=/
Date Signed * -
f.~/erv*
Date Signed This was a special announced inspection in the areas of Low Head Safet Injection floK testing and review of setpoint calibrations and scaling.. The inspector reviewed the periodic test of the Unit 2 Low Head Safety Injection Pumps to determine if degradation had occurre The inspector also reviewed administrative procedures, calculations and sch~dules to determine the licensee progress on the setpoint validation progra Results:
The inspector determined that the inservice testing required in the past was done using a recirculation flow at shutoff hea This would not provide adequate data to accurately predict degradation but met the requirements of the ISI progra The last two eighteen month surveillances have generated a pump curve over the full range of flow No degradation is evident.. The licensee program for setpoint validation is on schedule and as a result a design change has been prepared and the low pressurizer trip setpoint change will be impl~mented to provide more margin between the actuation of safety systems and the safety analysis requirements for the low pressurizer pressure trip. The inspector considered the licensee setpoint validation program a strength and in particular the Instrument Procequre Support Document No violations or deviations were identifie PDR ADOCK 05000280 G
e REPORT DETAILS 1. * Persons Contacted
- B. Benthall, Licensing Supervisor
- M. Kansler, Station Manager
- R. MacManus,Supervisor System Engineering
- W. McBride, Supervisor Corporate Electrical Engineering
- G. Mietus, Senior Staff Engineer, Electrical Engineering
- J. Munro, Senior Staff Engineer, Electrical Engineering
- T. Raspanti, System Engineer
- V. Shifflett, Licensing Engineer
- T. Sowers, Superintendent of Engineering
- S. Stanley, Supervisor of Procedures E. Watts, Supervisor of Design Electrical Engineering NRC Representatives M. Branch, Senior Resident Inspector
- S. Tingen, Resident Inspector
- Attended Exit Interview Background bn Unit 2, Low Head Safety Injection (LHSI) Pumps In March 1992, a flow test was conducted on the Unit 1, LHSI system based on NRC findings documented in IR 50-280,281/92-0 The results of this flow test indicated the Unit 1, LHSI pumps were unable to produce the required flo Because of the results of the Unit 1, LHSI flow test, the licensee tested the Unit 2, LHSI pumps in March 199 The NRC findings were documented in IR 50-280,281/93-0 Two concerns were identified as a result of the March 1993 testing. The first concern was that the licensee did not have a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) analysis to cover the shortfall in LHSJ pump flow, and the second concern was that the pumps might be experiencing degradatio An unresolved item (URI) was written to review the LHSI performance data, and the licensee was to reanalyze the LOCA. analysis and submit a 10 CFR 50.46 report!
The results of the NRC review are documented in paragraph.
Background on Setpoint Review In January 1993, a special, announced inspection in the area of Plant Instrumentation Setpoints was conducte The results are documented in IR 50-280,281/93-0 Inspector follow-up item 93-01-01 was written to review upgraded Channel Statistical Analyses (CSA), setpoints, and calibration procedure The results of the NRC review are documented in paragraph *
Report Details 2 Unit 2, LHSI Pump Test
- The inspector reviewed the 10 CFR 50.46 report dated April 27, 199 The analysis used the revised Westinghouse BASH code to reanalyze the core and predict the fuel's Peak Centerline Temperature (PCT).
The 100°F penalty was removed as a result of including the power shape sensitivity mode The results of the large break LOCA calculated a PCT of 2114°F when the LHSI pumps delivered 2970 gpm at a Reactor Coolant System (RCS)
backpressure of O psig with a full refueling water storage tank (RWST).
A review of the licensee periodic test 2-PT-8.3C dated March 24, 1993, documented that the Unit 2, LHSI A pump delivered 2999.5 gpm and the B pump delivered 3013.5 gp The test wat considered acceptable because the pumps were capable of delivering more than the required 2970 gp.
Review of Safety-Related Setpoints Pressurizer Low Pressure Safety Injection (SI)
Inspection Reports 50-280/93-01 and 50-281/93-01 identified that the
- pressurizer setpoint required was 1715 psig. This is 15 psig higher than the required technical specification (TS) value of 1700 psi When the Safety Analysis Limit - Channel Statistical An~ly~is was taken into account, there was a small margin of conservatism. * The inspector-reviewed Technical Report EE-0100 Appendix 7, "Pressurizer Pressure Protection," which developed the scaling requirements for the Low Pressurizer Pressure Actuation Signal and found it adequat The inspector ~lso reviewed Design Change 93-005-3 which replaced the installed Rosemount Model 1153 Series D RCS pressurizer transmitters with Rosemount Model 1154 Series H transmitter The replacement of these transmitters is due to excessive channel inaccuracies calculated for press~rize~ low SI actuation during harsh envirorimental condition The setpoints will be changed from 1715 to 1775 to provide allowance for channel statistical allowance and to ensure operability. * The new transmitters have been installed ori Unit 1. and will be installed on Unit 2, during the next mini outage in Jun Raising the operational setpoint in combination with transmittet replacement, will assure safety injection on low-low pressurizer pressure even though the current accident analysis does not take credit for this functio RCS Low Flow Trip Inspection report 50-280/93-01 and 50-281/93-01 stated that the CSA for RCS Low Flow Trip calculated in EE-0138 was 3.09 percent of,pan instrumentation error which was greater than the error assumed in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
The inspector reviewed EE-0183 Rev.2 dated March 22, 1994, which calculated the CSA for reactor trip to be 1.74 percent. A review of EE-0101 Rev.a, Appendix A-1, "Analytical Limits, Setpoints and
- Report Details
Calculations 11 indicates a CSA value of 1.37 percen The CSA of 1.74
- percent is for delta pressure span and the CSA of 1.37 percent is for percent of flow spa The inspector reviewed the calculation that proved this relationship. The present calculations support a margin value of 3.63 percen The margin value plus the CSA is equivalent to 5 percent difference between the trip setpoint of 92 percent and the safety analysis limit of 87 percent~ SI Accumulator Level Insp~ction Reports 50-280/93-01 and 50-281/93-01 stated that the inspectors review of the CSA for SI Accumulator Level found a transmitter span of 23.83 inches water column (w.c.) use This was not consistent with EE-0376, SI Accumulator Level Transmitter Spans Revision 0, which calc~lated.a span of 23.68 percent The inspector recalculated the span found in EE-0376 and determined the allowance was +/-2.43 percent of span instead of +/-2.28 percent of spa The inspector reviewed ET No. CEE-94-015, Rev 0, dated May 4, 1994, which addressed this concer The calculation contained in the ET N CEE-94-015, Rev 0, demonstrated that the original calculation, No. EE-0377, Rev 0, Addendum OA, dated October 7, 1992, provided satisfactory bounding informatio The calculation showed that by reducing decimal rounding errors and inserting the transmitters high line pressure adjusted span of O - 23.68 inch w.c., the resultant CSA value is bounded by the-value present in EE-0377..
The inspector reviewed DR S-94-920 dated April 7, 1994, which stated
.that while researching documents related to the SI Accumulator
~p~rade~. it was discovered that the SI Accumulator Level Curve in DRP, Att., Rev 21, did not match the design data contained in EE-0376 Rev The inspector talked to engineering and found that changing_
the level versus volume curve should not have occurred as a result of the new CSAs developed. This issue is considered clos~d~ Setpoint Validation Program The licensee has made significant progress in the setpoint and validation progra C9rporate Engineering was working in conjunction with the procedures group at the plant to develop all the supporting documentation for the safety-related setpoints. The documents reviewed included Instrument Procedure Support Documents (IPSO), Channel Calibration Procedures, Scaling Documents, and Technical Reports developed by Corporate Engineerin The inspector verified that the values.used in the calibration procedures were in agreement with the information generated in
- the IPS A direct correlation was found in the procedures reviewe The IPSDs identified the basis for the values and information contained in the Functional Tests and the Channel Calibration procedures. Within the scope of this inspection the following procedures were reviewed:
- Report Details
l~IPSD-MS-FLOW; "IPSD Steam Line Flow Channels" 1-IPSO-RC-FLOW, "IPSO Reactor Coolant Flow Channels" 1-IPSD-FW-FLOW, "IPSO Feedwater Flow Protection and Control" l-IPT~CC-FW-F-476, ~Feedwater Flow Loop F-1-476 Channel Calibration" l-IPT-CC-RC-F-414, "Reactor Coolant Flow Loop F-1-414 Channel Calibration" 1-IPT-CC-MS-F-474, "Steam Line Flow Protection Loop F-1-474 Channel Calibration" 7 Exit Meeting The inspection scope and finding were summarized on May 20, 1994, with those persons identified in Paragraph The inspectors described *the areas inspected, and discussed in detail the inspection finding ITEM IFI 93-01-01 URI 93-08-01 STATUS*
Closed Closed DESCRIPTION Review* of upgraded csas, setpoints, and calibration*
procedures Review of LHSI pump performance data Unit 2