IR 05000416/1985011

Insp Rept 50-416/85-11 on 850416-26.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Witnessing & Reviewing Startup Testing,Independent Insp Effort & Followup on Previously Identified Items

ML20127K903
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	05/06/1985
From:	Burris S, Jape F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20127K901	List: IR 05000416/1985011 ML20127K897
References
50-416-85-11, NUDOCS 8506270638
Download: ML20127K903 (6)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _. - - _ _. ! , , ! [AKio UNITED STATES o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [" REGION 11

n ' g ,j 101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.

ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323 %,..... f Report No.: 50-416/85-11 Licensee: Mississippi Power and Light Company Jackson, MS 39205 Docket No.: 50-416 License No.: NPF-29 Fac. ity Name: Grand Gulf Inspection Conducted: April 6-26, 1985 Inspec r:

/E . Burris / (/ r Date Signed Approved by:

A[[C F. Jape, Section Chief (/

' Date Signed Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope: This routine unannounced inspection involved 73 inspector-hours on site in the areas of witnessing and reviewing startup testing, independent inspection effort, and followup on previously identified items.

Results: No violations or deviations were identified.

l l ' 850627 8 850509 gDR A M 05000416 l PDR l .

. -_ ' . REPORT DETAILS 1.

Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• J. D. Bailey, Compliance Coordinator
• J. E. Cross, General Manager
• D. G. Cupstid, Startup Test Supervisor
• L. F. Daughtery, Compliance Superintendent J. Dozier, Quality Assurance Engineer
• M. G. Farschon, General Electric Startup Manager
• J. C. Roberts, Technical Superintendent
• R. F. Rogers, Assistant to General Manager Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen, engineers, technicians, operators, mechanics, security force members, and office personnel.

, Other Organization B. Wilson, General Electric Startup Test Organization Engineer M. Hide, General Electric Startup Test Data and Analysis Engineer NRC Resident Inspectors

• R. C. Butcher, Senior Resident Inspector
• J. L. Caldwell, Resident Inspet. tor
• Attended oxit interview 2.

Exit Interview I The inspection scope and findings were summarized on April 20 and 26, 1985, with those persons indicated in paragraph I above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings.

No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.

The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for startup testing and witnessed testing in progress. Previously identified items were followed up as discussed in paragraph 7.

The licensee identified that test criteria for the recirculation pump flow coastdown could not be met and would require resolution prior to exceeding test condition 3.

This item was identified as an Inspector Followup Item in Paragraph 6.b.

l Inspector Followup Item 416/85-11-01, Resolution of Data for Level 1 i Criteria in Startup Test 1-833-SU-30-3 subsection 4.7, figure 4 paragraph 6.b.

! . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - - -

__

.

The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.

3.

Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspection.

4.

Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.

5.

Independent Inspection Effort (92706) Plant Tour The inspector conducted a general tour and informed management of the following observations: plant cleanliness appeared to be satisfactory and test personnel and the operations staff appeared to maintain an atmosphere of professionalism and appeared knowledgeable in their respective areas.

Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.

6.

Startup Test Program Inspection (72400, 72302, 72514) The inspector witnessed performance of tests listed below and reviewed the completed test results to verify that: test deficiencies were documented, reviewed and resolved under as required by the administrative program; test acceptance criteria, as outlined in the test procedure had been met; test method met the required conditions as established by the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Test Abstract 14.2.12.3.27, Test Number 30, Recirculation System; test changes were performed in accordance with applicable plant procedures; Plant Safety Review Committee approval (PSRC) was obtained prior to implementation of the change, if required; limits and precautions were met; and test equipment used was calibrated.

a.

I-F41-SU-34-3, Reactor Internals Vibration Measurement 60 Percent Load Line The purpose if this test was to obtain vibration measurements on the reactor internals to demonstrate mechanical integrity of the system uncer flow-induced vibration conditions and the accuracy of the analytical vibration modol.

The inspector witnessed the conduct of this test and observed the test personnel during the performance of this test. Test results were verified to be acceptable as outlined in the test procedure.

b.

1-833-SU-30-3, Recirculation System Test The inspector witnessed and reviewed subsections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of this tes _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l

.

Subsection 8, Recirculation Flow Control Valve Runback test - verified the adequacy of the recirculation system flow runback interlock to prevent a scram upon the loss of one feedwater pump.

This test was performed with the "A" feedwater pump on master 3 element level control and the "B" feedwater pump on minimum flow at approximately 3200 RPM.

! Initially, water level rose slightly then dropped before the l feedwater control system recovered and maintained level prior to l reaching a steady state condition.

Preliminary review of. test ! results indicates the' test conditions and acceptance criteria were j satisfactorily met.

l Subsections 5 and 6, Single Pump Trip - l l The purpose of this section of the test was to obtain recirculation system performance data during the individual pump trips, verify flow coastdown and pump restart, verify that the feedwater control system can satisfactorily control water level l without a turbine trip or reactor scram.

The inspector reviewed the test results and witnessed performance of this test.

In addition, the inspector attended the PSRC meeting for approval of Permanent Test Change (PTC) Number 3.

PTC #3 was incorporated to allow the test engineer to place the l Total Feedwater Low Flow Interlock switch to the bypass position, l to prevent an inadvertent trip of the active recirculation pump i due to the Low Frequency Motor Generator (LFMG), which would l invalidate the test. As noted during the PSRC discussions, with l this PTC in effect an operator was required to closely monitor the ! feedwater flow to manually trip the running pump if the level l decreased to the interlock setpoint (3.84 x 10' lbm/HR) for 25 seconds or more.

This limit was not exceeded during the test ' l and therefore was not instituted.

The inspector witnessed the entire test and reviewed the preliminary test results to ensure that the test acceptance criteria were met.

, l Subsection 7. Recirculation Pump Trip of Two Pumps - The purpose of this portion of the test was to record and verify , acceptance of the recirculation system two pump circuit trip and ' obtain interval vibration data.

This portion of the test was performed satisfactorily with the following exception.

While l verifying the initial conditions, test personnel noted that the ' validyne flow transmitters would not meet the Level 1 acceptance criteria as stated in FSAR section 14.2.12.3.27.2.d.

The startup

test group determined that the flow transmitters required by the i test procedure would not provide the required test data due to flow oscillations in the process fluid flow line.

The required test data could be obtained by using the installed plant l l L

O

instrumentation.

These data cculd then be sent to General Electric (GE) Engineering in San Jose for evaluation to determine if the flow coastdown criteria could be met.

Since this is a Level 1 acceptance exception, it should be noted that a resolution will be required prior to exceeding test condition 3.

This is identified as an Inspector Followup Item, (IFI) 416/85-11-01, Resolution of Data for Level l' Acceptance Criteria in Test 1-B33-SU-30-3, Subsection 4.7, figure 4.

c.

1-000-SU-27-3, Turbine Trip - Test Condition 3.

The purpose of this test is to demonstrate the response of the reactor and control system to a turbine trip.

The test was initiated by tripping the turbine while loaded to approximately 822 mega watts of electrical power.

The inspector witnessed the following aspects of the turbine trip test to verify that: the reactor scram occurred and all rods were inserted into the - core as indicated on the main control panel, P-680.

the feedwater system controlled vessel water level to prevent - flooding of the main steam lines.

vessel pressure did not exceed the Level 2 criteria by more than - 25 psi.

the heat flux did not exceed the Level 2 criteria by more than 2% - of rated value.

there were no Main Steam Isolation Valve (MSIV) closures during - the first three minutes of the transient and no operator actions occurred to prevent these closures from occurring.

all other criteria were met.

- The preliminary review of the test results appeared adequate to meet the acceptance criteria as outlined in the test procedure.

Within the areas examined no violations or deviations were identified.

7.

Followup on Previously Identified Items The inspector reviewed the following inspector identified items: (Closed) Inspector Followup Item - 416/83-49-01, Level 1 trend plot - acceptance band.

The inspector verified that the resultant trend data were evaluated and documented in the test procedure.

l - -

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

! (Closed) Inspector Followup Item - 416/83-49-02, Confirm the actual - pipe movement for points which were rebased at 260F and include these l results in the final thermal expansion analysis.

i Trend plots and scribe mark data were reviewed to ensure that the l maximum thermal movement verses the maximum temperature met the acceptance criteria.

(Closed) Inspector Followup Item - 416/83-49-03, Repair instruments - and perform new trend plots. The licensee subsequently repaired and performed a trend plot analysis to verify that the thermal expansion met the FSAR acceptance criteria.

(Closed) Unresolved Item - 416/85-01-01, Identification and Resolution I - of Test Idantified Deficiencies.

, The inspector reviewed the licensee's program established in the Startup Manual to resolve identified discrepancies.

Program actions included a method of tracking these items. This tracking procedure is called the Startup Punchlist.

In addition to tracking these items, this punchlist is reviewed by the PSRC on a bi weekly basis.

Within the areas examined no violations or deviations were identified, t l l.

- . -- - .. - _.

. - --. - }}