IR 05000416/1985029

Insp Rept 50-416/85-29 on 850730-0802.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Completed Startup Tests & Loss of Feedwater Heating Test

ML20134J799
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	08/08/1985
From:	Burnett P, Jape F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20134J770	List: IR 05000416/1985029 ML20134J766
References
50-416-85-29, NUDOCS 8508290482
Download: ML20134J799 (7)

Text

.

' d EE UNITED STATES i o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

[ 3 j

REGION 11 101 MARIETTA STREET, ,

l

--* I ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323

'

$, ,/

• • • • • ,

l Report No.: 50-416/85-29

Licensee: Miss'issippi. Power And Light Ccmpany Jackson,'MS 39205 Docket No.: 50-416 License No.: NPF - 29 Facility Name: Grand Gulf 1 Inspection Conducted:' July 30 - August 2, 1985 Inspector: sm!W QbsnslPG ~

T. T. 1urnett,. Reactor Inspector Date Mgned Approved by: M F. Jape, Section Chief (/ /

dyddiL_ 8/[f Date Signed Engineering Branch Division'of Reactor Safety

.

SUMMARY Scope: This routine, unannounced, inspection entailed 32 inspector-hours at the site in the review of completed startup tests and in witnessing the loss of feedwater heating tes Results: No violations or deviations were identifie ;

8508290482 850812 7 PDR ADOCK 05000416 q g PDR

- ~

f) .1

~

.

REPORT DETAILS 1.- Licensee Employees Contacted

• J. E. Cross, General Manager

• J. C. Roberts, Technical-Support Superintendent

• R. F. Rogers, Technicas Assistant

• L. F. Daughtery,': Compliance Superintendent

• J. D. Bailey,~ Compliance ~ Coordinator M. J. Wright, Manager, Plant Operations-

• D. Cupstid, Start-up Supervisor

• S. F. Tanner, Manager, Nuclear Site Quality Assurance ,

G. H. Davant, Startup Engineer

.

!

W. C. Cade, Shift Superintendent G.:L. Lee, Shift Superviso W. Russell, Assistant Operations Superintendent Other licensee employees contacted included rector operates, engneers, and office personne Other Organizations r

T. R. Enright, General Electric Company J. A. Marshall, Bechtel NRC Fasident Irspectors

'

• C. Butet e , Senior F" 't "mspector J. L. Caldwe'1, Resider r:or

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview The insper -noe and f ineings were marized lust 2, 1985 with those per t re ated in paragraph I a: . The t :ctor described the areas int -+cd e i discussed the inspec- finding: No dissenting comments m . e recs ed from the License ficensee .id not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided :r reviewed by the inspector during this inspect 'n. The licenne made - ~ :'owing commitrents , AicF will be tracked as ir spector follow.a iter i

h

-

416/85-29-01,_ Conplete by August 30, 1985, a dra revision of FSAR Figure 14.2 - to more accurately portray uervec porfm ance in

-

natural cir- 'ation and with low flow forced 'ecircula ma, paragraph S /E -29-02 Include a revised cury. of powm-flow performance along with discussion of the reasons fc" and s, ificance of differences frorr TAR Figure 14.2-4 in the Starup Repart, paragraph S M - '

.

--

-

- 416/85-29-03 - Concurrent with the submission of the Startup Report, submit proposed changes to FSAR Figure 14.2-4 and Technical Specifica-tion Figure B 3/4.2.3-1 for review by NRC/NRR, paragraph S /85-29-04 - Evaluate by August 30, 1985, the effect of the changed axial power distribution, as evidenced by 43 of 44 LPRM strings having base criticality codes, on the values of the thermal limits galculated

'in TC4, paragraph S A draft of the above commitments was discussed with and reviewed by members of the licensee staff prior to the Exit Intervie . Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters Not Inspecte . Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio ReviewofCompletedStartupTests(72532)

The followir; completed startup tests were reviewed to assure that the results had :.een reviewed and accepted by plant management, that the accep-tance criteria had been satisfied, and that all test exceptions had been resolved or were being actively pursued:

2 ., Tests in Test Condition 4 (TC4)

(1) 1-B21-SU-16-4 (Revision 2), 50lggted Process Temperatures Water Level Measurements, was perfonned on May 7-8, 1985. The results were accepted by t:he nuclear plant manager on May 14, 1985 with no open test exceptien (2) 1-000-SU-19-4 (Revision 1), Core Performance, was performed without exceptions on May 7,1985, and the results were accepted

,

on May 13, 1985.

I (3) 1-000-SU-21-4 (Revision 2), Core Power-Void Mode, was performed on May 7, 1985. The results were accepted on July 9, 1985 with no open exception (4) 1-N32-SU-22-4 (Revision 3), Initial Pressure Controller, was performed on May 7-8, 1985. The results were accepted by the nuclear plant manager on July 29, 1985 with test exception FP-16, a level 2 acceptance criterion unresolve (5) 1-000-SU-23-4 (Revision 1), Feedwater System, was performed on May 7, 1985. The results were accepted on July 8,1985 with no open test exception . . .- .- .-

r .

a-

3

!(6) ?1-B33-SU-30'-4..(Revision 3) - Reactor Recirculation System Perfor-mance Measurement, was performed on May 7, 1985, and accepted on

- May 13,1985_with no open test exception '

The' review tof the TC4 tests: revealed that all had been f d at a '

' - . nominal power level of 39% of rated. thermal power (RTP) per ormeand a nominal,

. natural-convection, core flow of.26% of rate When plotted on the thermal power versus core flow map of FSAR Figure 14.2-4, the test

condition did not match the graphical description of TC4, .which cen-tered .on a . point ccorresponding to 51% RTP and 32% flo However, Figure 14.2-4 also contains a written description of TC4 as, " The natural circulation condition,. within 5% power, from the intersection of the natural circulation line and 100 percent rod line." The licensee stated the graphical portion of Figure 14.2-4 is in error, and the natural circulation capability of the reactor is not as great as indicated in_the figur '

-

Earlier, the licensee had corresponded with the NSSS vendor (General Electric Company) on lower than expected recirculation flow capability -

using the low-frequency motor generator. In a letter dated January 25, '

~ 1985, GeneralL Electric (GE) responded that the lower flow (24% vice-32%) did not affect the FSAR Chapter 15 safety analyses, the 'l CFR 50

- Appendix K ECCS analysis, and had only minimal effect on the _MCPR ,

,

-limits in the Technical: Specifications. Additionally .the licensee had-acknowledged in a letter to the' NRC (AECM-85/0015) that experience-through December 1984 indicated a need to revise Figure 14.2-4, and J i

committed to issue the necessary revision by the end of startup testin At the exit interview the licensee made a commitment to have a draft revision of the figure available for review by the inspector by August  :

30, 1985. (Inspector followup item 416/85-29-01)  !

The licensee also committed to include the revised curve in the Startup  !

Report along with a discussion of the reasons for and significance of  !

the changes. (Inspector followup item 416/85-29-02) l l

'

A.further comitment included submitting the corresponding changes to the FSAR and bases of the Technical Specifications for NRC/NRR review concurrently with the Startup Repor (Inspector followup item 416/85-29-03)-

, Throughout TC4 testing, the plant computer output from P1-3 program, =

'

- Periodic- Core Evaluation-Thermal Limits, indicated base criticality )

.

codes for '43 of the 44 LPRM strings. ~ A base criticality code is indicative of a significant difference in current axial power distribu-

tion from the distribution that existed when the LPRM string was last

calibrated. The large number of codes called into question the validi- )

ity of the conclusions that the acceptance criteria on themai limits

~

!

j -had been satisfie .

.

.- _- .- .

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

-

k

.: r

,

At the ' exit interview, the licensee made a connitment to evaluate the effect of the changed mode of. operation or. the axial power distribu-

-tion. From that they will re-evaluate the measurements of thermal limit This work is to be completed by August 30,1985. (Inspector followup item 416/85-29-04). Test Condition 5-(1) 1-C51-SU-12-5 (Revision 2), APRM Calibration, was performed

'without test exceptions on May 3-4, 1985 using 06-RE-1J11-V-0001

.(Revision 23), Power Distribution Limits Verification, for data collection. The results were accepted by the plant manager on May 7, 198 I-(2) 1-000-SU-19-5 (Revision 1), Core Performance, was performed without test exceptions on May 3-4, 1985. The results were <

accepted on.May 7, 198 (3) -1-000-SU-21-5 (Revision 2), Core Power-Void Mode, was performed on May 4-5, 1985. and the results were accepted by the plant manager on May 7,1985 with no test exceptions open.-

(4) 1-N32-SU-22-5 (Revision 2), Initial Pressure Controller, was performed on May 1-7, 1985, and the results were accepted on July 9, 1985 with no open test exception (5) 1-000-SU-23-5 (Revision 2), Feedwater System, was performed-without test exceptions on May 2-5, 1985. The plant manager accepted the results on May 7, 198 (6) 1-000-SU-24-5 (Revision 1), Turbine Valve Surveillance, was performed without test exceptions on May 5,1985. The results were accepted by the plant manager on July 17, 198 (7) 1-B21-SU-25-5 (Revision 2), Main Steam Isolation Valves, was performed without test exceptions on May 5-6, 1985, with the results accepted by the plant manager on July 29, 198 (8) 1-B33-SU-30-5 (Revision 3). Reactor Recirculation System, was

.

performed without test exceptions on May 4-5, 1985. The results were accepted on May 8, 198 .: Loss of Feedwater Heating Test (70302)

The loss - of feedwater heating test, section 7 of startup test procedure 1-000-SU-23-6, Feedwater System, was witnessed during the evening of August 2-3, 1985.' The temperature decrease was less than predicted and correspondingly, the power increase was less than anticipated. Prior to

' initiating the test,.the operating crew received an adequate briefing from the test engineer. The test was conducted in a safe, deliberate manner and

__

A

,

=

.c. .: .

-in apparent full compliance with the approved test procedure.- The completed test package will be -inspected ~during a future inspectio Attachment:

. Grand Gulf-Unit 1:

Power Level Data Review

/

-- __ _ _ __ ._ __ _ _ _

.

.,

I '.

• ^

'

. ATTACHMENT TO INSPECTION REPORT 50-416/85-29

. ..

GRAPO GULF UNIT 1: POER LEVEL DRTR REVIEW (file GG72532) -

Startup Test Performance and Review Schedule

.

'

(NR = r.ot required by FSAR Tat:le 14.2-3 ) '

Test Condition '

i Test N Titl'e

-

.Neatup One Two Three Four Five Six t .

-

__ _ _ u_____ _ _ _ _ _ --___

"

'

50-01 Chrmical and radiochemical NR NR

,

i SU-02 Ridiation measurements NR NR E

! -50-05 Control rod drive system

84-04 m 85-21 85-25 m W l 5U-06 SRM performance & rod sequence 84-04 85-21 NR PE PR m NR i 5U-08 Rod sequence exchange P PR NR NR NR NR 50-10 1RM performance 84-04 85-21 NR NR NR PR HR

.

SU-11 LPRM calibration ,

85-25 84-46 NR 85-25 NR PR

! SU-12 RPRM calibration 84-04 84-46 84-50 85-25 NR i 5U-13 Process computer 85-25 85-21 NR 85-25 NR te

, 50-14 RCIC system 84-04 PR 85-21 NR NR W NR

, 50-16 Selected process temperature 85-25 85-21 84-50 85-25 85-29 PR t ~

SU-!7 System expansion 85-26 85-26 NR 85-26 M PR

'

50-10 Core power distribution -

PE PR NR 85-25 te PR SU-19 Core performance PE 84-46 84-50 85-25 85-29 85-29 mp l

SU-21 Core power void mode response PR PR NR NR 85-29 85-29 HR 50-22 Pressure controller setpoint changes W 85-21 85-21 85-25 85-29 85-29 ,

l 50-23 Feedwater system 85-25 85-21 85-21 85-25 85-29 85-29 i SU-24 Turbine valve surveillance PR M NR 95-25 te 85-29

'!

SU-25 Main steam isolation valve PR NR 85-25 NR 85-29 *

53-26 Relief valves 85-25 IW 85-21 PR NR PR tel SJ-27 Turbine SU trip & gen load rejection PR PR 85-21 85-25 NR PR 5U-28 Shutdown from outside control room te W 85-21 PR NR PR NR l SU-29 Recirculation flow control system PR 84-46 NR 85-25 PR te j SU-30 Recirculation system PR M 84-50 85-25 85-29 85-29 j SU-31 Lossof turbine / generator & offsite power PR PR 85-21 te NR PR NR

! SU-33 Drywell piping vibration PR NR j SU-34 RPV internals vibration IR NR -

i SU-35 Recirculation system Flce calibration PG PR NR 85-25 NR PR

, 5U-36 Isolated reactor stability -

84-04 PR NR PR NR PR NR

,

SU-70 Reactor water cleanup system 85-25 PR *NR NR NR PR NR 5U-71 Jesidual heat removal system 84-04 84-46 NR NR NR PR l

4 5U-72 Drywell atmosphere cooling 85-25 m 85-21 PE PR ~ le ,

j SU-74 OFFgas system 84-52 84-52 NR 84-52 NR PR j S0-75 Cooling water system -

05-25 85-21 PR 85-25 PR PR

84-04(ttp) = Inspection in which review .

of the completed procedure was finashe l tel = Not required per letter of July 23,

1985 from T.M. Novak(PRC/PER) to *

J.8. Richard (P54L)

, _