IR 05000424/1987028

Insp Rept 50-424/87-28 on 870328-0413.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Witnessing of Loss of Offsite Power & Shutdown from Outside Control Room Startup Test

ML20214K193
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	05/11/1987
From:	Bernhard R, Jape F, Mathis J, Szczepanic A, Matt Thomas NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20214K174	List: IR 05000424/1987028 ML20214K172
References
50-424-87-28, NUDOCS 8705280357
Download: ML20214K193 (5)

Text

, P E 8 ?og UNITED STATES

,

[ Qg o

NUCLEAR RE2ULATORY COMMISSION REG 10 Nil

.$ 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W., SUITE 2900 I ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 o

%+..../

Report No.: 50-424/87-28 Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Docket No.: 50-424 License No.: NPF-61 Facility Name: Vogtle Inspection Conducted: March 28, 1987 and April 5-13, 1987 Inspectors: 6 %b 8 7 F7 M. Thomas G Date Signed WS S 7 $7 pq J. L. Ma'thi g Date Signed

'

gt ,

Bernhard cu6b%w </ /

TH21 Date Signed bd % h~ A. Szczepanicc' e'*

s/n /e7 Date Signed Approved by: , h( C fo V 4[d F. Jape, Chief ~,TestsProgramSepion/ Date Signed Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope: This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the areas of witnessing of the loss of offsite power and shutdown from outside the control room start-up test Results: No violations or deviations were identifie G

'

.

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• G. Bockhold, General Manager, Nuclear Operations

• W. L. Burmeister, Operations Supervisor, Start-up Testing

• C. L. Christiansen, Shift Supervisor

• G. R. Frederick, QA Engineering Support Supervisor

• W. C. Gabbard, Senior Regulatory Specialist

1. T. Greene, Plant Manager

1. • T. S. Hargis, Shift Supervisor, Start-up Testing

• F. Kitchens, Operations Manager M. Rowe, Operations Supervisor

1. J. Swartzwelder, Operations Supervisor Other licensee employees contacted included test supervisors, engineers, technicians, operators, security force members, and office personne NRC Resident Inspectors

1. • J. F. Rogge, Senior Resident Inspector, Operatio *R. J. Schepens, Resident Inspector C. Burger, Resident Inspector

• Attended exit interview April 9,1987

1. Exit interview by telecon April 13, 1987 Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on April 9 and by telecon April 13, 1987, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 abov The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings. Dissenting coments were received from the licensee concerning the inspector's question as to whether the licensee met the intent of Regulatory Guide 1.68.2 with regard to maintaining the plant in stable hot standby conditions for 30 minutes. This item is discussed in paragraph The inspectors also informed the licensee that IE Bulletin 86-02, Static 0 Ring Differential Pressure Switches, was inadvertently listed as IE Bulletin 86-01 when it was closed in NRC Inspection Report No. 424/87-1 The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspectio '

.

3. Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspectio . Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio . Loss of Offsite Power Test (72582)

The inspectors witnessed licensee performance of test procedure 1-600-09, Loss of Offsite Power at Greater Than 10% Power, on March 28, 1987. This included attending the pre-test briefing where personnel involved in the test discussed the test sequence and were given final instructions. The test began at approximately 1006 hours0.0116 days <br />0.279 hours <br />0.00166 weeks <br />3.82783e-4 months <br /> (EST) with reactor power at approximately 18%. The inspectors observed test activities in the main control room, technical support center, and other locations within the plant. There was adequate coordination among personnel involved in the test, and their actions appeared to be correct and timely during performance of the test. The plant response during the test appeared to be satisfactor The inspectors will review the approved test results package during a future inspection after the licensee has resolved any test discrepancies and given final approval of the test result No violations or deviations were identified in the areas inspecte . Shutdown From Outside the Control Room Test (72583)

The inspectors observed test activities on April 5 and April 8-9, 198 The test was performed in accordance with startup test procedure 1-600-08 Remote Shutdown Test, Revision 1, and Abnormal Operating Procedure (AOP)18038-1, Operation From Remote Shutdown Panels, Revision 3. During preparations for the test on April 5, 1987, the inspectors raised questions with licensee personnel concerning the pre-positioning of minimum shift crew personnel participating in the test at the various locations prior to commencing the test; and the number of operations personnel which comprise the minimum shift crew as defined in the Vogtle Technical Specification These questions were discussed with licensee personnel and resolved prior to the test. While licensee personnel were completing final preparations just prior to commencing the test, the main turbine generator tripped. Reactor power was between 20% and 25% at the time of the trip but decreased after the turbine generator trippe ,

Licensee personnel attempted to increase reactor power to greater than 20%

in order to continue with the test. However, the reactor tripped on low steam generator level. During trouble shooting, the licensee found that a generator ground fault relay had picked up which caused the generator to I tri The licensee did not find any problems with the generator during further troubleshooting and the actuation of the generator ground fault relay was considered to be spuriou .- .- -. . - - - . - ..

.

.

The test was performed during the licensee's second attempt' on April 8,

, 1987. The ' inspectors witnessed the test activities at the remote shutdown i panels A and B. The reactor was tripped simultaneously from remote shutdown panels A and B at 1323 hours0.0153 days <br />0.368 hours <br />0.00219 weeks <br />5.034015e-4 months <br /> (EDT) with reactor power at approximately - 23%. Reactor Coolant. System (RCS) parameters immediately-following the trip appeared to decrease more than licensee ' personnel expecte The.RCS cooldown rate was more'than expected. This was due to i all four main steam isolation valve (MSIV) bypass valves being left open

per the A0P. Pressurizer level dropped! lower than expected due to the RCS cooldown rate. Actions were taken by the minimum shift crew (six people)

to close three of : the MSIV bypass. The .RCS cooldown rate was slowed after the MSIV bypass valves were closed and pressurizer level stopped

decreasing and stabilized at approximately 10% and began to increase. At this point (1341 hours0.0155 days <br />0.373 hours <br />0.00222 weeks <br />5.102505e-4 months <br /> EDT), test personnel in the main control room (MCR)

j determined that the plant was stable. The minimum shift crew continued

-

to decrease RCS temperature (one MSIV bypass valve was still open) but

"

at a slower controlled rate. Minimum shift crew personnel were being

,

dispatched to' close .the remaining MSIV. bypass valve when the test

personnel in the MCR determined that demonstration of the capability to

maintain the plant in hot standby for 30 minutes had been completed (1411 hours0.0163 days <br />0.392 hours <br />0.00233 weeks <br />5.368855e-4 months <br /> EDT). Licensee personnel stated that the four MSIV bypass valves were left open per the A0P in order to perform a slow controlled cooldown

,

and to maintain condenser vacuum. The cooldown rate immediately.following the trip was greater than expected because of the small amount of decay f heat present in the core.

i

! Subsequent to licensee personnel determining that the test had been

successfully completed, the inspectors expressed the following concerns

with regard to test performance. The first concern related to the time  !

-

when the plant was determined to be stable and whether or not the plant

'

was stable for 30 minutes prior to termination of the test. This did not ,

appear to be clear during observations by the inspectors from the remote shutdown panels. The second concern related to the test demonstration of maintaining the plant in stable hot standby for 30 minutes did not meet t the intent of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.68.2 in that the licensee continued

} to decrease RCS temperature during the entire test, whereas, the intent of ,

RG 1.68.2 is to maintain RCS temperature stable at or near the plant's

no-load condition (approximately 557 degrees F). These concerns were .

j discussed in detail with licensee personnel during the inspection and

during telephone conversations with NRC Region II management on April'13, l 1987.

! With regard to the first concern, the inspectors determined from a review

] of the test results that, from the time pressurizer level stabilized and

'

started to increase until the time that the test was declared complete was  ;

slightly more than 30 minutes. Therefore, this concern was resolved.

l

!

,

i

_ _ ._ _ _ _ _._ _ __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _

.

With regard to the second concern, the licensee stated that the plant had been maintained in hot standby conditions by performing a stable and controlled cooldown per Technical Specifications (RCS temperature greater than 350 degrees F and the RCS cooldown rate did not exceed the limit of 100 degrees F per hour). This satisfied the acceptance criteria stated in the test procedure and the test abstract in the Vogtle FSAR Subsection 14.2.8.2.45. The inspectors stated that the intent of the RG objective is to maintain the plant stable in hot standby at or near the no-load conditions rather than perform a cooldown. One of the reasons for performing the stable hot standby demonstration using minimum shift crew is that in the event equipment necessary for taking the plant to cold shutdown is not available, the plant can be maintained in hot standby until personnel are called in to make repair The inspectors further stated that, in addition to the RG 1.68.2 intent of maintaining the plant in stable hot standby (no-load) conditions, it appears that this is also the intent of AOP 18038-1. Step 14 of A0P 18038-1 states to verify RCS temperature stable at or trending to 557 degrees After the second concern was unable to be resolved during the discussions at the site, the inspectors requested a copy of the approved test results in order that the test could be reviewed further with regional managemen The Vogtle plant general manager made a commitment during the exit meeting that, after further review of the results, if the NRC still did not agree that the intent of the RG was met with regard to the stable hot standby demonstration, that portion of the test would be repeated after the plant reached 100% power and the natural circulation test was performed. During telephone conversations with the plant manager on April 13, 1987, NRC Region II management informed the licensee that the Remote Shutdown Panel Test was unacceptable because it did not meet the intent of RG 1.68.2 with regard to maintaining the plant in stable hot standby conditions for 30 minutes. NRC management further stated that performing the test after the plant reached 100% power was also unacceptable because the RG requires that the test be performed prior to exceeding 30% power. The licensee committed to repeat the portions of the test which did not meet RG 1.6 The licensee stated that, for the portion of the test being repeated, the plant would be in hot standby (no-load) conditions and control would be transferred to the remote shutdown panels where it would be demonstrated that the plant could be maintained stable (at or near 557 degrees F) for 30 minutes. The test was repeated on April 14, 1987. The test was witnessed by the NRC resident inspectors and will be addressed in the resident inspector's next report. The inspectors will review the approved test results during a later inspectio No violations or deviations were identifie l l

l