IR 05000424/1986134

Insp Rept 50-424/86-134 on 861216-19.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Review of Proposed Startup Tests

ML20210C939
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	01/14/1987
From:	Burnett P, Jape F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20210C921	List: IR 05000424/1986134 ML20210C917
References
50-424-86-134, NUDOCS 8702090483
Download: ML20210C939 (4)

Text

m

.

,

km Kf 4 UNITED STATES

/ 'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[g ' ,$

,j REGION 11 101 MARIETTA STREET.N.WJ

• '* ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323 i g'*

.....

Report Nos.: 50-424/86-134 Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Docket No.: 50-424 License No.: CPPR-108 Facility Name: Vogtle 1 Inspection Conducted: December 16-19, 1986 Inspeetor: mouN M 7' O P. T. BurnE t Date Signed

'

Approved by: _

//(&'t //

F. Jape, Secti6n Chief y/ Date Signed Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection addressed the review of proposed startup test Results: No violations or deviations were identified.

I

i

!

83 870123 0002200K05000424

,

l G

'

PDR l

l l

t

r e

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• C. E. Belflower, Quality Assurance Site Manager

• R. M. Bellamy, Plant Service Manager W. L. Burmeister, Operations Supervisor

• E. M. Dannemiller, Technical Assistant to General Manager

• C. Gabbard, Regulatory Specialist

• Z. Hartka, Senior Nuclear Engineer, Licensing

• W. F. Kitchens, Manager Operations

• A. L. Mossbaugh, Assistant Plant Support Manager

• R. E. Spinrad, Independent Safety Engineering Group Supervisor Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, security force members, and office personne NRC Resident Inspectors H. H. Livermore, Senior Resident Inspector, Construction J. F. Rogge, Senior Resident Inspector, Operations R. J. Schepens, Resident Inspector

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on December 19, 1986, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and di: cussed in detail the inspection findings, including the observation that the Loss of Offsite Power Test, as described in Amendment 29 to the FSAR, did not meet the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.68 and that the issue of blockage of the safety injection signal to components controlled from the remote panels had not been resolved. No dissenting comments were received from the licensee. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspectio . Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspectio . Unresolved Items No unresolved items were identified during this inspectio .,

5. . Review of Proposed Startup Tests (72564, 72572, 72576, 72580,.72582, 72583, 72584) _

The following procedures were reviewed for conformance to FSAR Chapter 14 test descriptions, - Regulatory Guide 1.68, and the proposed Technical Specifications: SF-04 (Revision 1), Rod Drop Time Test (Revision 1), Isothermal Temperature Coefficient Measurement, in step 6.1.3 recommends a 7 degrees F temperature change but does not specify a minimum, - which should be at least 4 - 5 degree The moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) is calculated from this measurement, but no guidance is provided on further action should the Technical Specification limit of MTC Sor= 0 be exceede SF-09 (Revision 1), Boron Endpoint Measurement, reflects poor practice in data analysis on Data Sheet Each endpoint measure-ment should be analyzed and the results averaged rather than averaging the observations of temperature and reactivity and calculating a single endpoin SC-01 (Revision 0), Power Coefficient Determination, will require revision to insert data now represented by LATTER, but is otherwise acceptabl SF-04 (Revision 0), Pseudo Rod Ejection . Test (Revision 1), Plant Trip from 100% Power (Revision 0), Remote Shutdown Test, includes specific test termination criteria, which is a strong poin In step 6.2.3, the test crew, CREW 1, should be dispatched from the control room to simulate the abandonment' of the control room rather than prestationed at the remote locations. From that point on, any further action by CREW 2, other than silencing alarms should be logged and evaluated for impact on the tes Since the safety injection signal is blocked to components controlled from the remote shutdown panels, some further modification of the procedure to simulate manual safety injection may be require Chapter 14 of the FSAR was reviewed to assess the impact of proposed Amendment 29. The change to paragraph 14.2.8.2.46, Loss of Offsite Power at Greater than 10% Power Test, resulted in a test description that did meet the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.68 Appendix A, paragraph 5.jj to initiate a station blackout. This issue was referred to NRR by telephone on December 18, 1986, and oral agreement with the inspector's finding obtaine Following discussions with licensee personnel, the inspector had no further question No violations or deviations were identifie .. - . . .-

'*

..

3 Followup on Previously Identified Items (9)

.(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 424/86-73-03: Delete use of makeup to VCT during RCS leakage measurements. In Revision 5 to 0914905-1, RCS Leakage Calculation, the licensee defined any makeup from any source as invalidating the test.

f l

!

l l

'

,

i r

t I

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