IR 05000416/1981051
| ML20040E678 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1981 |
| From: | Jape F, Andrea Johnson, Whitener H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040E620 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-416-81-51, NUDOCS 8202050235 | |
| Download: ML20040E678 (4) | |
Text
.
4 UNITED STATES 8"
%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
E REGION 11 Y
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100
%*****j ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Report No. 50-416/81-51 Licensee:
Mississippi Power and Light Company Jackson, Mississippi Facility Name:
Grand Gulf Docket No. 50-416 License No. CPPR-118 Inspection at Grand Gulf site near Port Gibson, Mississippi Inspectors:
_
.
///A5[dgf A. H. Johnso Date Signe wn}
(,gt,
_Lle Sigfti_
a5 H. L. Whi te r D
Accompanying Personn K. E. Davenport
.
Approved by:
/
A F. J a ge,'
ectio___ hie
// _ _.
Dat Signed
_
Engineering Inspection Brantfi Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspection on November 9-12, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 96 inspector-hours on site in the areas of preoperational and special test procedure review, and preoperational and special test witnessing.
Results Of the 2 areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in I area; 1 was found in 1 area (Failure to follow procedure, Grand Gulf Startup Manual -
paragraph 5.a).
8202050235 820120 PDR ADOCK 05000416 G
,
. _.
_
..
.
.
_
..
_
.
,
.
-..
..
i REPORT DETAILS
,
1.
Persons Contacted i
Licensee Employees
- C. R. Hutchinson, Startup Manager T. E. Reaves, Jr., Quality Assurance Manager
- B. Stewart, Construction Manager
- T. H. Cloninger, Project Engineering Manager
- C. L. Stuart, Assistant Plant Manager
- D. L. Hunt, Plant QA Superintendent
- J. C. Roberts, Startup Supervisor t
- J. W. Yelverton, QA Supervisor
- M. A. Lacey, QA Representative i
'
Other licensee employees contacted included startup engineers, shift super-visors, and operators.
Other Organizations M. G. Farschon, Site Operations Manager, General Electric Corporation j'
T. Enright, GE, STD&A Engineer NRC Resident Inspector
.
- A. G. Wagner
- Attended exit interview
2.
Exit Interview
'
l The inspection scope and findings were summarized on November 12,~1981 with j
those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
j 3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
!
Not inspected.
/
l 4.
Unresolved Items I
linresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
i
'
5.
Preoperational and Special Test Procedure Review and Test Witnessing i
j a.
Containment Local Leak Rate (LLRT) Testing The inspector reviewed portions, including completed and signed off
data sheets, of special test procedure 1-M61-ST-01 Rr.v. 2, Containment Local-Leak Rate (LLRT)~ Testing. The inspector observed that step 6.9.1 i
_ ~. - -
-
,
_
_ _,,
_ _ _. _..
-., _ _ _
.
.
- -
,
~
--
-
-
-
_. _ _
.___
__
_
_
_
_
_ _ _ _
_.
.
.. -
..
1 allows the local leak rate testing on systems turned over to MP&L to be performed without the authority of a Construction Work Permit, which is
,
contrary to the Grand Gulf Startup manual (higher tier document). The Grand Gulf Startup Manual, Section SUM-5000, paragraph 4.4.3 states
,
that Bechtel CTO and construction personnel are only permitted to perform testing or work function on systems turned over to MP&L.
(green / green and white tagged) under the authority of a Construction
'
Work Permit. With the Startup Supervisor's signature of approval on the Construction Work Permit (CWP), Bechtel CTO and/or Construction is authorized to accomplish the described work (after required safety tagging).
The final signature on the CWP by the Startup Supervisor indicates the documentation associated with the CWP which performs the work and subsequent _ testing has been properly reviewed and is accept-able.
<
,
The following are examples of systems turned over to MP&L, where leak rate testing was performed:
SYSTEM DALE OF MP&L TURNOVER DATE LLRT PERFORMED
.
j RHR"C" June 21, 1981 August 13, 14 & 19, 1981
]
RWCU March 24, 1981 September 10 & 16, 1981
!
Component June 19,1981 August 20, 21 & 22, 1981 Cooling Plant Chilled November 25, 1980 August 19 and 20,1981 Water i
Demineralized November 21, 1981 September 22, 1981 Water
!.
RCIC April 8, 1981 June 22,1981 Fuel Pool March 26, 1981 August 24, 25 & 26, 1981 Cooling Standby June 24, 1981 August 15, 17 & 18, 1981
This failure to follow procedure was identified as a violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V and 0QAM, MPL-Topical-1 paragraph
'
5.4.1 (Violation 416/81-51-01).
~
b.
Reactor Recirculation and Flow Control System Preopeational Test
.
The inspector reviewed and witnessed portions of preoperational test
procedure IB33PTO1, Rev.
1, Reactor Recirculation and Flow Control System.
,
s b
-
..
,.-.
--
-
.
.~.
- _..,. _
.. _ _. _. - _. _ _ _. - _, _... -, _
- _ -,,
-
_
..
- - - -.
. _ _ - - -
.-
. _..
-
..
---.
-
--
_ - _
..
.....
I
I c.
HPCS Diesel Generator Preoperational Test The inspector reviewed and witnessed portions of preoperational test
'
procedure IP81PT01, Rev.1, HPCS Diesel Generator.
6.
Thermal Expansion (Hot Operations)
During this inspection the reactor and recirculation system were at the hot operating condition (510 degrees F) on pump heat. The inspectors performed an independent inspection on the recirculation system piping, supports and restraints and found no significant piping interferences or inoperable sup-ports and restraints except as previously identified by licensee personnel during heatup. The inspectors also observed licensee crews inspecting the piping and taking support and restraint measurement, there were no problems
,
j identified concerning the adequacy of the inspection crew performance.
Test procedure changes, test exceptions, identified problems and samples of the test data were reviewed by the inspectors. Some of-the problems identi-
'
fied during the heatup were as follows:
.
a.
A hold on system heatup was established at 460 degrees F due to failure of the steam lines to expand as expected. The data indicated a level 1-criteria (pipe stress greater than code allowable stress) would be
,
t exceeded if heat up continued. Investigation showed that the predicted movement was based on 550 degrees F but the piping was actually about
'
200 degrees F.
This problem was resolved when predicted movement was
calculated for the appropr.iate temperature.
i b.
Interference between a recirculation Water Cleanup System whip. _ _
Restraint and a Reactor System snubber clamp.
The clamp was,
,
removed for continued heatup.
Final resolution will be obtained through a field disposition report.
I c.
Other less significant interferences were identified and the resolution will be tracked through the field report or construction work permit systems.
The inspectors concluded that problems were being identified and tracked and had no questions in this area.
j Review of the test data and discussion with test personnel show that
~
five recirculation loop "A" and two. recirculation loop "B" measured displacement points did not meet the Level 2 acceptance criteria. The Level 2 criteria is the pipe displacement predicted by thermal calcu-lations, but does not represent overstress of the piping and does not i
prevent continued heatup. 'The most significant deviation from pre-
!
dicted movement concerned recirculation loop "A" pump discharge' piping.
'
Measurement indicated a vertical downward movement of 1.3 inches. The prediction for this point was 1.84 to 2.03 inches downward movement.
System walkdown did not identify any physical restraint to movement.
This matter will be referred to the system designers for resolution.
.
i i
,
. ~ -,
,,
n.
m n..
--
-
,
,
--
--
-
-- ----~