ML20154K785

Insp Rept 50-416/86-01 on 860127-31.Violation Noted:Failure to Update FSAR to Reflect Results of Analysis

ML20154K785
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	02/25/1986
From:	Burnett P, Jape F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20154K398	List: ML20154K395 ML20154K407 ML20154K785
References
50-416-86-01, 50-416-86-1, TAC-57520, NUDOCS 8603110312
Download: ML20154K785 (6)

See also: IR 05000416/1986001

Text

. d. Kid UNITED STATES

/ 'o

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[ , REGION ll

j ,j 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.

• AT L ANTA, GEORGI A 30323

2

%+...+/

Report No.: 50-416/86-01

Licensee: Mississippi Power and Light Company

Jackson, MS 39205

Docket No.: 50-416 License No.: NPF-29

Facility Name: Grand Gulf

Inspection Conducted: January 27-31, 1986

Inspectort.

P.7. BI;rneft ~ am c2f]/fd .

Date Signed

Approved by: A '

b

F. Jape, Section Chief V F Date Signed

Engineering Branch

Division of Reactor Safety

SUMMARY

Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection entailed 31 inspector-hours on site

inspecting the initial startup test program.

Results: One violation was identified - Failure to update the Final Safety

Analysis Report paragraph 5.m.

.

. ~ -- .

8603110312 B60 16

PDR ADOCK O PDR

Q

.

-

REPORT DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted

Licensee Employees

• J. E. Cross,-Site Director

• C. R. Hutchinson, General Manager

• R. F. Rogers, Assistant to the General Manager

• D. Cupstid, Technical Support Superintendent

• L. F. Daughtery, Compliance Superintendent

G. H. Davant, Startup Supervisor

'Other licensee employees contacted included engineers office personnel.

NRC Resident Inspectors

• R. C. Butcher, Senior Resident Inspector

J. L. Caldwell, Resident Inspector

• Attended exit interview

2. Exit' Interview

The inspection scope and findings were summarized on January 31, 1986, with

those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the

areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings. 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 inspection. The following items were identified:

VIO 416/86-01-01: Failure to update the Final Safety Analysis Report in a

,

timely manner, paragraph 5.m.

I

UNR 416/86-01-02: Review test exceptions to level 1 startup test

acceptance for 10 CFR 50.59 considerations, paragraph 6.

IFI 416/86-01-03: Inspect test results for rod sequence exchange at power,

parsgraph 6.

.

IFI 416/86-01-04: Inspect test results for fuel pool cooling using FPC

heat exchangers, paragraph 6.

I

IFI 416/86-01-05: Inspect test results for RHR steam condensing mode,

, ,

paragraph 6.

IFI 416/86-01-06: Inspect test results for floor drain evaporator

j performance and heat load, paragraph 6.

!

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

.

2

IFI 416/86-01-07: Inspect test results for the chemical waste evaporator

performance and heat load, paragraph 6.

3. Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters

This subject was not addressed in the inspection.

4. Unresolved Items

Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to

determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or devia-

tions. One unresolved item 416/86-01-02, identified during this inspection

is discussed in paragraph 6.

5. The following completed startup tests, performed in test condition 6, were

reviewed to assure that the results had been reviewed and accepted by plant

management, that the acceptance criteria had been satisfied, and that all

test exceptions had been resolved:

a. 1-C11-SU-05-6 (Revision 1), Control Rod Drive System, was performed in

conjunction with surveillance procedure 06-RE-SC11-V-0402 (Revi sion

24). Scram time tests were performed during scrams following MSIV

closure at 75% rated thermal power (RTP) and following loss of

generator load test. On both occasions, all rods met the most

stringent criterion for drop time. The results were submitted by the

test engineer on July 25, 1985, and the results were accepted by the

plant manager on August 28, 1985.

b. 1-C51-SU-11-6 (Revision 1), Local Power Range Monitor Calibration, was

performed in conjunction with surveillance test 06-RE-1C51-0-0001. The

results submitted on June 5, 1985, and the results accepted on

September 26, 1985.

c. 1-C51-SU-12-6 (Revision 2), Average Power Range Monitor Calibration,

was submitted on May 13, 1985, and the results accepted on July 9,

1985.

d. 1-C91-SU-13-6 (Revision 1), Process Computer, was submitted on

September 10,1985, and the results accepted on November 11, 1985,

e. 1-821-SU-16-6 (Revision 2), Selected Process Temperatures and Water

Level Measurenents, was submitted on September 3, 1985, and the results

accepted on October 3, 1985.

f. 1-000-SU-18-6 (Revision 2), Core Power Distribution, was submitted on

July 23, 1985, and the results accepted on August 29, 1985.

g. 1-000-Sb-19-6 (Revision 1), Core Performance, was submitted on May 15,

1985, and the results accepted on July 17, 1985.

~

.

3

h. 1-N32-SU-22-6 (Revision 2), Initial Pressure Controller, was submitted

on July 29, 1985, and the results accepted on October 14, 1985.

i. 1-000-SU-24-6 (Revision 1), Turbine Valve Surveillance, was submitted

on August 15, 1985, and the results were accepted on October 22, 1985.

j. 1-B21-SU-25-6 (Revision 2), Main Steam Isolation Valves, was submitted

on September 28, 1985, and the results were accepted on October 14,

1985. The upper power limit for MSIV closure without scram was

determined to be that at which earlier tests were performed. Hence, no

additional individual valve closure time tests were performed.

k. 1-000-SU-27-6 (Revision 1), Generator Load Rejection, was submitted on

July 12, 1985, and the results were acceptad on Septembsr 26, 1985.

Test exception FP-45 is still open because the feedwater pumps tripped

at level 8.

,

1. 1-833-SU-29-6 (Revisten 2), Recirculation Flow Control System, was

submitted on December 10, 1985, and the results accepted on January 4,

1986. All requirements to test the automatic load following features

have been deleted, and the capability to use automatic load following

has been permanently defeated.

m. 1-833-SU-30-6 (Revision 2), Reactor Recirculation System, was submitted

on September 12, 1985, and the results accepted on January 8, 19E5.

Test exception FP-95 was taken to this test. The exception documents a

failure to satisfy a level 1 acceptance criterion, resulting from a too

rapid coastdown of the recirculation pumps following a trip. The

acceptance criterion requires that the coast down flow curve stay

within the bounds of curves based upon 5 second and 4 second inertial

time constants as presented in FSAR Figure 14.2-6. An analysis by

General Electric (GE) Cc: pany showed that the test results were bounded

by a pump curve with an inertial time constant of 3 seconds. GE also

determined that the f aste coastdown would result in an increase in

peak cladding temperature (PCT) of 10 F during a loss of coolant

accident (LOCA). The coastdown problem had first been identified

during test condition 3 testing. The NRC (NRR) had reviewed the test

results and additional analyses at that time, and, in a letter dated

April 29, 1985, had pronounced them acceptable.

However, the updated FSAR issued on December 1, 1985, which should have

been up-to-date through June 1,1985, did not reflect the results of

that approved analysis it. three instances:

(1) Table 6.3-3 did not include a revised value of peak clad

temperature following a LOCA. The analysis provided by the

licensee had shown that peak clad temperature would increase by

less than 10 F.

,

4

(2) Table 15.0-2 was not revised to show that the pump inertial time

constant used in analysis was 3 seconds, and not the 5 seconds

used previously.

(3) Table 15.0-3 was not revised to show that the pump inertial time

constant used in analysis was 3 seconds, and not the 5 seconds

used previously.

The above have been identified as a single apparent violation of 10 CFR

50.71.e (VIO:416/86-01-01: Failure to update the Final Safety Analysis

Report in a timely manner).

n. 1-B33-SU-35-6 (Revision 1), Recirculation System Flow Calibration, was

submitted on August 13, 1985, and the results accepted on September 26,

1985.

o. 1-E12-SU-71-6 (Revision 1), Residual Heat Removal System, was submitted

on September 9, 1985, and the results were accepted on September 26,

1985. The steam condensing mode of operation was not tested. That

phase of the test had been defined as non-essential, hence, performance

was not required. However, the test must be performed prior to using

that mode of cooling. The licensee's schedule is currently indeter-

minate.

p. 1-N64-SU-74-6 (Revision 1), Offgas System, was submitted on

September 20, 1985, and the results were accepted on October 3, 1985.

q. 1-000-SU-75' -6 ( Revi sion 2), Cooling Water System, was submitted on

September 27, 1985, and accepted on October 22, 1985. The fuel pool

heat exchangers were not tested, nor placed into service. They must be

tested before being used.

,

r. 1-000-SU-76-6 (Revision 2), Engineered Safety Features Equipment Area

i Cooling, was submitted on October 15, 1985, and the results were

accepted on October 22, 1985.

s. 1-000-SU-79-6 (Revision 2), Penetration Cooling, was submitted on

May 20, 1985, and accepted on July 9, 1985.

6. Followup Action on Startup Tests (72532)

It appears that some test exceptions to level 1 acceptance criteria were

resolved by re-describing the plant within bounds defined in the FSAR

Chapter 14 test descriptions. Test SU-17-6, System Expansion, is an

example. Although the test acceptance criteria were thus satisfied, it is

not clear that the changes in plant description were then reviewed in the

broader context required by 10 CFR 50.59. This question will be tracked as

an unresolved item (UNR 416/86-01-02: Review test exceptions to level 1

startup test acceptance for 10 CFR 50.59 considerations). The licensee has

committed to complete the review by February 28, 1986.

- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

--

..

5

Several tests of systems or subsystems were deferred as non-essential.

However, testing is required before these systems or subsystems are placed

into service. To assure that the tests are inspected once performed, the

following inspector followup items, requiring no action on the part of the

licensee, are created for tracking purposes:

IFI (416/86-01-03): Inspect test results for rod sequence exchange at

power.

IFI (416/86-01-04): Inspect test results for fuel pool cooling using

FPC heat exchangers.

IFI (416/86-01-05): Inspect test results for RHR steam condensing

mode.

IFI (416/86-01-06): Inspect test results for floor drain evaporator

~

performance and heat load.

IFI (416/86-01-07): Inspect test results for the chemical waste

evaporator performance and heat load.

7. , Followup of Inspector Identified Items (92701)

(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 416/85-29-01: Complete a draft revision of

FSAR figure 14.2-4 to more accurately portray observed performance in

natural and low-flow forced circulation. The licensee produced an accept-

able draft'by August 30, 1985.

(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 416/85-29-04: Evaluate base crit codes on

LPRMs experienced in test condition 4. The licensee. provided an adequate

and instruction evaluation on August 30, 1985.

.- .- .