IR 05000400/1986004
| ML18019A630 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1986 |
| From: | Jape F, Mathis J, Taylor P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18019A627 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-86-04, 50-400-86-4, NUDOCS 8603110414 | |
| Download: ML18019A630 (12) | |
Text
~It REGIr
~c,,
4o0 se A.
rg pip
~0
++*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLAN TA, G EO RG IA 30323 Report No.:
50-400/86-04 Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company P. 0.
Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602 Docket NoeI 50-400 License No.:
CPPR-158 Facility Name:
Harris
Inspection Conducted:
January 21-25, 1986 Inspectors:
P. A. Tay or
~J.
L. Mat s
Approved by:
F. Jape, Sect Chief Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety Date Signed
>/ss pC ate Soigne ate Soigne SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection entailed 62 inspector-hours on site in the areas of hot functional test witnessing, preoperational test procedure review and plant tour.
Results:
One deviation was identified -
FSAR Test Summary 14.2. 12.1.34, Auxiliary Feedwater System (AFWS) Test, the test objective a.4 and acceptance criteria d.3 are not fully incorporated into preoperational test procedure 1-3065-P-02, AFWS Test - paragraph 5.b(3).
BSOSi~OOie 86o~o+
pDR ADOCN, 05OOP>>
t'I I.
4'
lI
$ r
~-
If I
a I
I
'
"I I'f II*
f I
I
'I II ff I
I I
f'1,
~
II I
I
~.\\
\\
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J. L. Willis, Plant General Manager
- G. W. Traylor, Startup Supervisor - NSSS
- S. L. Mabe, Startup Supervisor - Balance of Plant
- C. S. Hinnant, Manager Startup
- R. T. Biggerstaff, Principal Engineer -
- H. F. Wagner, guality Assurance (gA) Supervisor - Operations
- C. E.
Rose, Jr.,
gA Supervisor - Operations
- D. L. Tibbitts, Project Specialist, Regulatory Compliance R. Duncan, Start Engineer S.
Rumble, Startup Engineer D. Brooks, Star tup Engineer R. Colthorpe, Startup Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators, and office personnel.
NRC Resident Inspectors G.
F. Maxwell S.
P. Burris
"Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on January 25, 1986, with those persons indicated in paragraph above.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings.
No dis-senting comments were received from the licensee.
The following new item was identified:
Deviation 400/86-04-01, FSAR Test Summary 14.2.12.1.34, AFWS Test, the Test Objective a.4 and Acceptance Criteria d.3 Are Not Fully Incorpo-rated into Preoperational Test Procedure 1-3065-P-02, paragraph 5.b(3).
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspection.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspectio <<fr C IIMM
'l
~)J, fu I'f I
IJ I
)I
>>
cu>>
I cu=
I Mll ut I <<I
'
<<
I M
I'
<<
I fl ll
I r
>>1 ll C>>f I
If M
I
~ IFII'f
$ 4.>>
<<CM
I I ""
Ml l>>lu
~ \\
'I ~
,>>
~il J I
M>>lu II<""'fs>>'
g I
'I lf>>
MI C
~
<<
I
'I C
>>
Mul fu C I( lu I
C
'"a f,f uP tu IC IMM
~ 4 My IC Cll c
= 'l Iut
<<
F
uf,I f
"
If I
~
I
~
w <<k)l>>
J J
~
If ui C
'
<< I C 4 I <<
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during the inspection.
5.
Preoperational Test and Integrated Hot Functional Witnessing (70312, 70314, 70438, 70447)
a.
1-2005-P-01, Revision 1, Hot Functional Test (HFT)
During this inspection, the licensee continued with integrated hot functional testing.
The inspectors observed control room activities and examined operations in progress to verify that prerequisites and plant conditions as required by the controlling procedure for HFT were established.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identi-fied.
'
b.
Preoperational Test Witnessing The inspectors witnessed portions of the tests listed below to verify that they were being performed in accordance with an approved pro-cedure, test data were being recorded properly, revisions and procedure changes were current and that equipment on component problems when applicable was being identified and processed in accordance with administrative controls.
(1)
1-2005-P-04,,
Revision 2, Pressurizer Pressure and Level Test The inspectors observed Sections 6.2.81 through 6.2.92 which demonstrated that the P-11, low pressure interlock, is activated at the required pressure.
RCS pressure was lowered slowly from normal operating range, utilizing pressurizer spray until the P-11 interlock was actuated.
Test results appear to have met the acceptance criteria.
The inspectors also observed Sections 6.2.8 through 6.2.11 which test the ability to transfer control of the pressurizer backup heaters from the main control room to the auxiliary control panel (ACP)
and demonstrate full control of the pressurizer backup heaters at the ACP.
The transfer operations were conducted satisfactory but the backup heat control switch would not spring return to off as required by its design.
The licensee identified a
loose connection external to the backup heater control switch.
Following repairs, a retest of the backup heater control switch was satisfactorily performed.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie W h
IV II
'I P
V i I
Ih (
S J
I il W
h t I hi, (vf N.', vj gh
)
~'
5<<
Jt Il V'
Il r V
<<V
'
fi(" h W
ll
'If*,
i C
I!,'
l<<
hll W
h'S h(.
J
'ie,,l 'I
~.
"
4i'
~
II(
VJ II.NI',W ll ih",
j'I S)
\\=
il ll
- I Il <<,
It f,
V V T V H HT r
I
'W 't I<<iti -
VI kv
'tr hl I
W h
I A
h HJ W
~
kV i (h L..
<<
'I
~
l h<<
'h. l ~
'V, V gli W
r'
IIV '.I V lt I
J!
J I I
'I tl Il It tl W
V
(2)
1-2060-P-01, Revision 1, Chemical Volume Control System Hot Functional Test The inspectors observed Section 6. 1, which is to verify the letdown line orifices flowrate.
The letdown flow from the RCS is controlled through three separate orifices which are sized to provide a nominal flowrate of 40 gpm,
gpm and
gpm respec-tively.
Isolation valves are provided for each orifice line.
The test required that different combinations of letdown orifices be placed into service to verify letdown flow paths and differential pressure drop across the reactor coolant filter is not excessive.
The test results indicated satisfactory flow paths and flowrates.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
(3)
1-3065-P-02, Revision 1, Auxiliary Feedwater System (AFW) Per-formance Test The inspectors witnessed portions of Section 6.8, the response time test of auxiliary system isolation valves.
Valves observed included flow isolation valves AF-55, AF-93, AF-74, AF-137, AF-143, and AF-149.
The valves were tested under normal operating system temperature, pressure and flowrates and response times met the acceptance criteria provided in the test procedure.
The inspectors observed preparations for conducting Section 6.2, which is the automatic start of the turbine driven AFW pump from cold conditions to demonstrate its reliability.
The test steps require that the steam turbine driven auxiliary feedwater pump to be started with the steam throttle control valve in automatic governor control and be allowed to accelerate, stabilize and subsequently maintain a stable turbine speed.
The steam turbine is then run for 10 minutes with the pump on recirculation flow-path.
The steam turbine is then stopped followed by a 30 minute waiting period, then this cycle is repeated a total of four times.
The inspectors noted that FSAR, Chapter 14.2, test summary 14.2. 12. 1.34 acceptance criteria d.3 required that five consecu-tive cold starts of the steam turbine auxiliary feedwater pump be performed to demonstrate reliability.
When this discrepancy was brought to the licensee's attention, a procedure change was issued to incorporate the fifth start into the test procedure.
The inspectors obseved that during the first run of the steam turbine driven auxiliary feedwater pump, the governor control of the steam throttle control valve was erratic, and would not stabilize; therefore, the test had to be stopped.
The licensee initiated troubleshooting procedures concerning the erractic governor
'control.
The inspectors also noted that the FSAR test summary 14-.2.12.1.34, test objective a.4 requires a demonstration of steam turbine driven auxiliary feedwater pump startup from cold condi-tions and measurement of steam pressure operating range.
Cold conditions would not be the case with only a
30 minute wait
~'I<<
~ I
'twh'I w
f It
=A lt II ii
'I ) 'LN)
h I
w.
hI'l f1 IN <<
w h
<<
II f/ 'I lt C
t
r et I
Nl
~,
IN I I
II
,F
'I I
I'Ih h
I
"
I I/th, w
Nl
, ll Ni '
.* fh I
ffNI'
I
,<<l lll $ f h
rNf*
I I ll
'I-
, If I.'
N I
N I, Il h'
lf e
~
~
Il
~
Wh NNP S
c A
- ,
lw
~
e y "Nf 1'
",, wh,t ff 'w,',
ll III I W I i I /If,"
I fl
e Alh
~
e
~:
~
I e I
th, ~ N h
between 10 minute runs of the steam turbine and no data were recorded or procedure steps provided to indicate the steam pres-sure operating range during the test.
This item was identified to the licensee as a deviation from the FSAR commitment for testing the steam turbine AFW pump - Deviation 400/86-04-01, FSAR Test Summary 14.2. 12. 1.34, AFWS Test, the Test Objective a.4 and Acceptance Criteria d.3 Are Not Fully Incorpo-rated Into 1-3065-P-02.
A conference call between Region II management and the manager of the Preoperational and Startup Group was held on January 29, 1986.
Region II was informed that a procedure change to Test Procedure 1-3065-P-02, was being made which would ensure cold conditions between starts of the steam turbine driven AFW pump.
In addition, data tables are to be added to the test procedure to record plant parameters and steam turbine parameters to document the conditions under which the test was performed.
The licensee actions in this area will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
1-2115-P-Ol Revision 0, Primary Sampling System The inspectors witnessed portions of Sections 6.4 and 6.5 which demonstrated the proper operation of the solenoid operated valves within the primary sample system, flow path verification and sample capability at sample panels lA and 1B respectively.
The sections of the test witnessed by the inspectors was successfully completed.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
1-2005-P-05, Revision 0, Steady State Vibration Test, 1-2005-P-06, Revision 0, Transient Vibration Test The portion of these test procedures witnessed by the inspectors was performed at the 557 F plateau in conjunction with the auxiliary feedwater preoperational test.
The tests demonstrated that piping and piping restraints will withstand dynamic effects due to testing actions such as pump and valve trips, and that piping vibrations are within acceptable levels both for transient and steady state conditions.
The inspectors verified that the prerequisites and acceptance criteria were met and any anomalies during the test were documented.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie I m
m II
)l" I'
4 " I'lm.
a r't II
<<wa C
a
'C
~
~
" ')I,ja W,
Im
)I
.
ICCWI a I'
<<
'I, C Iv Vr
i,lf w
It I
) ~
I M
"'L
.",
a I '1 1l a I'I r
'V1 "C.""
I
.v C ('"a
<<I I'v'I CvC li Il I
rm I
r m
I W
t 4 It
).
m
)=rl 1) i l'I=.I<<';
Crvw 4 ~l,t 4 tt r aa
~
v
Iv C
II II I,C ff C
)
llm I
~ r ~'J
',,I,I
~ 1 f 'g
)I W,
t
'ma
')
'i f a
ll,ltl WWC a
~
Ia
)4 vt I
4<<
~ )4))C IC
6.
Preoperational Test Procedure Review (70300, 70350, 70338)
The inspectors reviewed the following preoperational test procedures:
1-2115-P-01, Revision 0, Primary Sampling System Test 1-1095-P-Ol, Revision 0, Metal Impact Monitoring Test These procedures were reviewed to verify that the technical content in the procedures was consistent with FSAR Chapter 14.2 and Regulatory Guide 1.68, Revision 2.
The test procedures were also reviewed to verify that the requirements of Harris Plant Startup Manual Volume 1 have been incorporated into the test procedures regarding preparation; reviews; management approval; procedure format; and contained the required prerequisites, precautions; initial conditions; and acceptance criteria.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Plant Tour i
The inspectors toured the control room, reactor auxiliary building, con-tainment, containment annulus, and outside plant areas to observe work activities in progress, housekeeping and tag controls on equipment.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
/
II I
I fII Il 4'
ALAI ti '44 I
gt ~
tl iN 'I
,NIP li'
\\
ii UPJ'i
44 II ~ l
'N
".>'.fJ < Ni'
I J
I
~I,
I 4'4,44
A
<1',
<'IINI., 4 tt 7y; '
"I PT
~ 'L" jl l~jl
"
t'ai
'
a"I4 I I(
lr lkl~tii ii4,Iffy>fi'i g
I 4'4 I'j,'AN NI4 ')
~ )ll j)
, It II iiAtiI II j (NA fi N(i