IR 05000354/1986055

Insp Rept 50-354/86-55 on 861110-19.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Overall Power Ascension Program Including Test Results Evaluation & Test Witnessing, Independent Measurements & Verifications & Qa/Qc Interfaces

ML20215A095
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	11/28/1986
From:	Florek D, Wink L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20215A076	List: IR 05000354/1986055 ML20215A072
References
50-354-86-55, NUDOCS 8612110156
Download: ML20215A095 (13)

Text

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No. 50-354/86-55 Docket No. 50-354 License No. NPF-57

,

Licensee: Public Service Electric & Gas' Company  ;

80 Park Plaza

!

Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Facility Name: Hope Creek Generating Station, Unit 1 Inspection At: Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey (

i Inspection Conduct d: November 10 - 19, 1986

. Inspector: d L. Wi

. Ed 1 eactor E1gineer kN

,

'

ddte Approved by: , //b [/1 D.'Florek, Chief, Test Programs Section i daAe 08, DRS Inspection Summary: Inspection of November 10 - 19, 1986 (Inspection Report No. 50-354/86-55).

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the overall power ascen-sion program including test results evaluation and test witnessing, independent measurements and verifications and QA/QC interface Results: No violations were identifie NOTE: For acronyms not defined, refer to NUREG-0544 " Handbook of Acronyms and Initialisms."

8612110156 861204 4 PDR ADOCK 0500 G

. .. .

_ - _ _ _ .

.

.

DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G)

• G. Chew, Power Ascension Results Coordinator

• G. Connor, Operations Manager P. Dempsey, Shift Test Coordinator M. Farschon, Power Ascension Manager

• B. Forward, Power Ascension Manager

• A. Giardino, Manager-Station Quality Assurance (QA)

• R. Griffith, Sr., Principal Engineer-QA F. Harris, Senior Nuclear Shift Supervisor

• P. Krishna, Assistant to the General Manager M. Massaro, System Engineer

, S. Pope, Shift Test Coordinator

• Schell, Power Ascension Technical Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• D, Allsopp, Resident Inspector R. Borchardt, Senior Resident Inspector

• Denotes those present at the exit meeting on November 19, 1986.

The inspector also contacted other members of the licensee's staff including senior nuclear shift supervisors, test engineers and members of the technical staf .0 Power Ascension Test Program (PATP)

2.1 References

Regulatory Guide 1.68, Revision 2, August 1978, " Initial Test Programs for Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants" ANSI N18.7-1976, " Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants"

Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) Technical Specifications, Revision 1, July 25,1986

HCGS Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Chapter 14, " Initial Test Program" l HCGS Safety Evaluation Report (SER), Chapter 14, " Initial Test Program"

!

l (

l 1 - . _ _ _ _- - .. -. . .

.

.

Station Administrative Procedure, SA-AP.ZZ-036, Revision 3,

" Phase III Startup Test Program"

'

Specification NEB 0 23A4137, Revision 0, " Hope Creek Startup Test Specification HCGS Power Ascension Test Matrix, Revision 8 2.2 Overall Power Ascension Test Program The inspector held discussions with various members of the PATP staff to assess the overall status of the test program and the test results review. The licensee completed Test Condition 3 (45%-75% rated power) on November 6, 1986 and immediately commenced testing along the 100% rod line. Test conditions 4 (natural circulation) and 5 (55%-65% rated power) were completed on November 8, 1986 and the power ramp u test condition 6 (95%-100% rated power) was begu The unit was first brought to 100% of rated power (1111 MWe) on November 10, 1986. During the performance of power ascension test TE-SU.CH-242, Turbine Control Valve Surveillance, on November 14, 1986, a reactor scram occurred (see discussion in paragraph 2.3).

The unit was brought to cold shutdown on November 16, 1986 to repair a leaking RWCU flange and to replace a damaged RHR pum The inspector reviewed the test plateau matrix test procedure for 100% rod line testing, TE-SU.ZZ-007, Revision 0, Approved November 6, 1986, to verify conformance with the FSAR commitments and to insure that testing deferred from previous test conditions had been incorporated. In addition, the inspector reviewed the minutes of the Technical Review Board (TRB) meeting held on November 8, 1986, to assess the results of testing in test conditions 4 and 5 before recommending the commencement of test condition 6. During this review the inspector noted that it did not appear that the testing in Test Condition 4 conformed to the description of this Test Condi-tion in the FSAR or the test plateau matrix, TE-SU.ZZ-007. Both documents indicate that Test condition 4 is natural circulation testing between the 95% and 100% rod lines. Test data from this Test Condition appears to show that the tests were performed below the 95% rod line. The inspector discussed this point with the Power Ascension Manager and learned that an engineering evaluation was on going to assess the adequacy of test Condition 4. Pending comple-tion of this evaluation and review by the NRC the question of the adequacy of Test Condition 4 testing will remain unresolved (354/86-55-01).

On November 18, 1986, the inspector attended a Technical Review Board (TRB) meeting held to evaluate test results of turbine stop and control valve testing performed in Test Condition 5. The TRB review involved verification of conformance to acceptance criteria I

-

.

.

and resolution of independent reviewers comments. In addition, since the performance of one of these tests (TE-SU.CH-242) in Test Condi-tion 6 had resulted in a reactor scram, the TRB discussed modifi-cations to this procedure and alterations in test method to preclude a reoccurrenc Also on November 18, 1986, the inspector attended a Station Opera-tions Review Committee (SORC) meeting (86-301) to observe management oversight of the power ascension test program. During this meeting the SORC reviewed and recommended approval of on-the-spot changes to procedures, revisions to procedures, safety evaluations and a test hold condition due to an identified results deficiency (RDF #185).

The discussions on the results deficiency included the steps that would be required to be completed to resolve the deficiency prior to SORC recommending the lifting of the hold conditio Findings Within the scope of the inspection, no violations were identifie One unresolved item was identifie .3 Power Ascension Test Witnessing Scope The inspector witnessed the performance of the power ascension tests listed in Attachment A and discussed below. The performance of these tests were witnessed to verify the attributes previously defined in Inspection Report 50-354/86-3 Discussion TE-SU.ZZ-019. The purpose of this test is to determine the rate of decrease in reactor water quality without the RWCU system in service, the efficiency of the RWCU filter demineralizers and the faction of moisture carried over with the steam to the main condenser. The test commenced at 0654 on November 13, 1986 when the RWCU filter demineralizers were bypassed. During the next several hours the inspector made periodic observations of the increase in reactor water conductivity. The increase observed was relatively slow, indicating a feed and condensate system with little intrusion of contaminate In the early afternoon, preparations were underway to inject a test solution of sodium hydroxide (NA0H) to artificially increase reactor water conductivity and measure moisture carryover. A test rig was installed between the suction pressure transmitter (IAD-PT-1645C) and the discharge pressure transmitter (1AD-PT-1646C) of the 'C' Second-ary Condensate Pump (1CP137). To prevent a pressure disturbance

..

.-

from causing a trip of the secondary condensate pump (on low suction pressure) the test procedure called for placing the "PSL 1645C Test" switch in the test position to defeat the low suction pre:sure trip function while the solution was injected. When the switch was placed in the test position the 'C' Secondary Condensate Pump tripped. The trip of this pump produced an immediate runback of the feedwater and reactor recirculation systems and reactor power decrease from approxi-mately 97% to 72%. No operator actions were required during this transient and all systems responded as designe Following the event an investigation revealed that cause of the error was a misinterpretation of the circuit by the test engineer who developed the procedure. The installed circuit was verified to be in accordance with the wiring diagrams and it.was verified that the test switch would produce a false low suction pressure trip signal. The licensee is continuing to evaluate the circuit design to assess the need for a modification-to allow bypass capability of the trip function. The inspector will review the licensee findings during a subsequent routine inspectio Following recovery from the runback and modification of the procedure to provide an alternate method of bypassing the low suction pressure trip function, the solution was successfully injected and the testing continue The inspector continued to periodically monitor reactor water conductivity following the injection and return of the RWCU filter demineralizers to service and verified the expected system respons The test was concluded on November 14, 198 RW-SU.CH-241. This test was performed to determine the maximum power level at which surveillance tests of the main turbine stop valves can be performed with adequate margins to all scram setpoints. The inspector observed the testing of MSV #4 (previously determined to produce the greatest disturbance) at 97% power and confirmed a very mild transient with adequate margins to all scram setpoint TE-SU.CH-242. This test was performed to determine the maximum power level at which surveillance tests of the main turbine control valves can be performed with adequate margins to all scram setpoints. The inspector observed the testing of MCV#1 (limiting valve) at 97%

power. At 0912 the nuclear controls operator began the test by closing MCV#1, as soon as the valve indicated fully closed the inspector noted a marked increase in reactor pressure followed almost immediately by a reactor scram. Test perscnnel immediately left the control area and operations personnel began their actions in response to the scram. All plant systems responded normally and the unit was quickly stabilized in a hot shutdown condition with the pressure controlled by bypass valves. The performance of the operations crew in response to the event was judged by the inspector to be excellen .

.

Following the event the inspector reviewed the transient traces from the GETARS computer. The inspector determined that the reactor scramed on high pressure due to the reactor steam production rate exceeding the capacity of the three remaining MCVs and the main turbine bypass valves (constrained by the maximum ccmbined flow limiter). The inspector also reviewed the licensee's extrapolations of test results from three lower power levels and confirmed that, based on these results, adequate margin to the high pressure scram setpoint was indicated for the performance of this test at 97% powe The licensee's evaluation of this test failure is continuing with plans being made to reperform the test at a lower power level with possible modifications in test procedure. The inspector will follow-up on the licensee's actions during a future routine inspectio Findings No unacceptable conditions were note .4 Power Ascension Test Results Evaluation Scope The Power Ascension test results listed in Attachment B were evaluated for the attributes identified in Inspection Report No. 50-354/86-24. All test results evaluated had received a detailed review by an independent reviewer and the licensee's Technical Review Board although not all had been formally accepted by management. The inspector will verify formal management acceptance of the test results during a subsequent inspectio A summary of significant test results and identified test results deficiencies is provided in the discussion belo Discussion TE-SU.ZZ-006. The inspector reviewed the test matrix results package for test condition three. In addition, the inspector reviewed the sixty-six (66) results deficiencies that remained open at the end of Test Condition Three and the test deferred to 100% rod line testin The inspector concluded that sufficient testing had been satisfac-torily performed to justify the plant's commencement of testing along the 100% rod lin TE-SU.BB-02 Radiation measurements taken throughout the plant at a power level of 54.5% of rated identified six areas that did not meet the pre-established zone limits. Result deficiencies (RDFs)

1. 120 through 125 were issued to document these results and letters were sent to the radiation protection manager to insure appropriate control of these areas and system engineering for evaluation and resolution of these deficiencie . - . .-. __ -_ --

. . . - -

.

.

TE-SU.SE-112. An RDF was issued to document the failure to calibrate four (4) LPRMs that were inoperable during this test. All other LPRMs (164) were successfully calibrate TE-SU.SE-122. All APRMs were conservatively calibrated at 67.6% of rated thermal powe TE-SU-BJ-152. This test (Run #7) was performed following turbine control loop re-tuning and hydraulic system adjustments to resolve previously identified deficiencies. All acceptance criteria were satisfied with a time to rated flow of 18.7 seconds (acceptance criterion is less than 27 or equal to 27 seconds).

TE-SU.ZZ-161. The accuracy of the bottom head drain temperature indicator was successfully verifie TE-SU.ZZ-164. This test was performed twice, once following the trip of a single recirculation pump (B) and again following the trip of both recirculation pumps. All acceptance criteria were satisfie TE-SU.ZZ-176. ~All~ acceptance criteria for thermal pipe expansion were satisfie TE-SU-BB-191. This test was performed three times: Test Condition 3 (74.8% power, 98.6% core flow), Test Condition 4 (40.5% power, 38.4%

core flow) and Test Condition 5 (61.6% power, 55.3% core flow). All

'

acceptance criteria were satisfied and the results are summarized below:

Test Condition 3:

Parameter Measured Value Limit LHGR (KW/Ft) 9.37 s13.4

.

i CPR 1.899 21.23 APLHGR(KW/Ft) 7.49 510.75 Test Condition 4:

Parameter Measured Value Limit LHGR (KW/Ft) 5.85 s1 CPR 2.46 21.47 APLHGR 4.58 s10.75

g---- -m -

P ^7 -"-"'TT*

'

d -""*-'*''T+'""' -

^ * - ' "-"^

.

t

,s

-

%o ., t1 8 ' ', ,

.

$e Test Condition 5: l

'i n \

Parameter Measured Value Limit '

.

'

LHGR(KW/Ft) 7.99 51 .

\ .

' ')

CPR 1.902 21.381 .

,

s APLHGR 6.41 s10.77 TE-SU.BB-221. The acceptance criteria for pressure regulator response and stability were satisfied. However, an RDF was issued when the steady state steam flow variations with the ' A' regulator in control exceeded the limit of .5% of rated steam flow (variattan

.53%). ,

?,

. 5 TE-SU.AE-231. An RDF was issued to document exceeding the quarter-wave damping acceptance criteria for reactor water level, feedwater ,

' [' '

flow and turbine speed for three feedwater pumps in service. 'All acceptance criteria were satisfied for two pump operatio TE-SU.AE-235. Two RDFs were issued. One involved failure to meet the peak overshoot criteria during small (<10%) flow disturbancei while the other documented insufficient data to evaluate the average flow response rate of the 'B' feedwater pump during large (>10%) fl,ow, disturbances. All other acceptance criteria for system stability and' ,

response were satisfie TE-SU.BB-301. All acceptance criteria were satisfie ,

'

TE-SU.BB-302. A Level 1 RDF occurred for exceeding the 4.5 second time constant flow coastdown criteria. An engineering evaluation s was made and operation was authorized to 100% power and flow with -

a penalty of .02 added to the operating limit critical power ratio (CPR). This will allow the integrated flow coastdown response to be evaluated during the full power generator load reject tes TE-SU.BB-303. All acceptance criteria for recirculation system nozzle and riser plugging were met. An RDF was identified when instrumentation unavailability prevented the determination of the recirculation pumps efficiencie TE-SU.BB-332. All acceptance criteria for recirculation piping steady state vibration were satisfie TE-SU.ZZ-335. All acceptance criteria for HPCI system piping steady state vibration were satisfie \

\

,

e

,

i TE-SU.AB-793. This test was reperformed following maintenance and modifications of the acoustic monitors. All baseline data was obtaine TE-SU.CH-241. This test was performed at 64.3% power. All acceptance criteria were satisfied and extrapolation indicated that the test could be successfully performed at power levels up to 100%.

TE-SU . CH-242. This test was performed at 64.3% power. All acceptance criteria were satisfied and extrapolation indicated that the test could be successfully performed at power levels up to 97% (steam flow limiting). See paragraph 2.3 for a discussion of the performance of this test at 97% powe Findings No unacceptable conditions were identifie .,

3.0 Independent Measurements and Verifications The inspector performed multiple independent measurements and verifica- tions during test results evaluation to determine conformance to accept-ance criteria (paragraph 2.4) such as HPCI response time, power distri-bution limits, pressure regulator stability and decay ratios, feedwater F

system stability and decay ratios and margins to scram setpoints during recirculation pump trips and recoveries and turbine control and stop valve testin In all cases the inspector's measurements and verifications agreed with those of the license No unacceptable conditions were note .0 QA/QC Interface with the Power Ascension Test Program During the course of evaluating power ascension test results, the inspector verified that the test results packages had been reviewed by QA engineers and that their comments had been appropriately resolve .0 Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to determine whether they are acceptable, an item of noncompliance or a deviation. Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in paragraph .0 Exit Interview At the conclusion of the site inspection on November 19, 1986, an exit meeting was conducted with the licensee's senior site representative (denoted in paragraph 1.0).

4

\- l

s

,- - . .

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

.

!

At no time during the inspection was written material provided to the

'

licensee by the inspector. Based on the NRC Region I review of this report and discussions held with licensee representatives during the inspection, it was determined that this report does not contain information subject to 10 CFR 2.790 restriction ,

k

-

I I

.,a f

'

.g

-

.

.o s

., !!

.y [ 't

'

'

.

/ a

I' d ( ,

a f

i f5

i i if ll

f s..'

- , . . - . _, . - . - - . . . . - . -. -

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

...

-

ATTACHMENT A e-

.

Power Ascension Tests Witnessed

.

TE-SU.ZZ-019 Chemical and Radiochemical Reactor Water No-Cleanup-Test, performed November 13 - 14, 1986

'

TE-SU.CH-241 Turbine Stop Valve Surveillance, performed November 14, 1986

TE-SU.CH-242 Turbine Control Valve Surveillance, performed November 14, 1986 -

,

b

,

I

.

!

i .

. r s

I

-

f,

-

i wr- *--'-m **w-* * --

ATTACHMENT B

.

Power Ascension Test Results Evaluated Test Condition Three TE-SU.ZZ-006 Test Plateau Matrix Test Procedure for Test Condition Three, Revision 6, completed November 6, 1986, results accepted November 6, 1986 TE-SU.ZZ-021 Radiation Measurements, Revision 3, completed October 16, 1986, results not yet accepted TE-SU.SE-112 Local Power Range Monitor Calibration, Revision 2, completed October 31, 1986, results not yet accepted TE-SU.SE-122 Average Power Range Monitor Calibration at Power, Revision 4, completed October 30, 1986, results not yet accepted TE-SU. BJ-152 High Pressure Coolant Injection System Reactor Pressure Vessel Injection, Revision 8, completed November 2, 1986, results not yet accepte TE-SU.ZZ-161 Bottom Drain Temperature Test, Revision 4, completed October 28, 1986, results not yet accepted TE-SU.ZZ-164 Post Recirculation Pump Trip Temperature Stratification Test, B pump, Revision 3, completed November 1, 1986, results not yet accepted TE-SU.ZZ-164 Post Recirculation Pump Trip Temperature Stratification Test, Two pumps, Revision 3, completed November 1, 1986, results not yet accepted TE-SU.ZZ-176 BOP Systems Piping Expansion During Power Operation, Revision 4, completed October 15, 1986, results accepted October 24, 1986 i

TE-SU.BB-191 Core Performance, Revision 3, completed October 31, 1986, results not yet accepted TE-SU.BB-221 Pressure Regulator Test - Control Valves Controlling, Revision 9, completed October 29, 1986, results not yet accepted TE-SU.AE-231 Feedwater System level Setpoint Changes, Revision 5, completed October 27, 1986, results not yet accepted TE-SU.AE-231 Feedwater System Level Setpoint Changes, Revision 5, completed October 27, 1986, results not yet accepted

.

o ATTACHMENT B

.

TE-SU.AE-235 Manual Feedwater Flow Step Change Test, Revision 4, completed October 28, 1986 results not yet accepted TE-SU.BB-301 Recirculation System Single Pump Trip Test, Revision 3, completed November 1,1986, results not yet accepted TE-SU.BB-302 Recirculation System Two Pump Trip Test, Revision 2, completed November 1, 1986, results not yet accepted TE-SU.BB-303 Recirculation System Performance, Revision 4, completed November 2,1986, results not yet accepted TE-SU.BB-332 Recirculation System Piping Steady State Vibration, Revision 2, completed October 26, 1986, results not yet accepted TE-SU.ZZ-335 High Pressure Coolant Injection Piping Vibration, Revision 3, completed October 23, 1986, results not yet accepted TE-SU.AB-793 Safety Relief Valve Acoustic Monitor Baseline Data, Revision 5, completed October 14, 1986, results not yet accepted Test Condition Four TE-SU.BB-191 Core Performance , Revision 3, completed November 8, 1986, results not yet accepted Test Condition Five TE-SU.BB-181 Core Performance, Revision 3, completed November 7, 1986, results not yet accepted TE-SU.CH-241 Turbine Stop Valve Surveillance Test, Revision 1, completed November 8, 1986, results not yet accepted TE-SU.CH-242 Turbine Control Valve Surveillance Test, Revision 3, completed November 8, 1986, results not yet accepted