IR 05000425/1988057

Insp Rept 50-425/88-57 on 881003-07 & 11-14.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Preoperational & Hot Functional Test Witnessing,Preoperational Test Procedure Review & Licensee Action on Previous Insp Findings

ML20196E025
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	11/17/1988
From:	Jape F, Szczepaniec A, John Zeiler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20196E005	List: IR 05000425/1988057 ML20196E002
References
50-425-88-57, NUDOCS 8812090258
Download: ML20196E025 (9)

Text

T /

' 8*,; s UNITED STATES

.

$

g ,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o, * REGION ll

. 101 MARIETTA ST., % ...*

e ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30323 Report No.: 50-425/88-57 Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Docket No.: 50-425 License No.: CPPR-109 Facility Name: Vogtle Inspection Conducted: October 3-7 and 11-14,1988 Inspectors: d Iczepar)iec '

~- '

1. [IT[M Dat.' Signed n . %-- stl/7Y Date Signed g/t/J. Zeiler / ' ' 'C ,

Approved by: kb ho ~

////,7/cY F. Jape, Chief

'

/

ff f Datc' Signed Test Programs Section V Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUtWARY Scope: This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the areas of preoperational and he+ functional test witnessing, preoperational test procedure review, and licensee action on previous inspection finding Results: Hot functional testing proceeded ahead of schedule. Sen.ior management attention continued to be noticeable by their attendance at morning briefings, and participation in the initial turbine roll test pre-briefing, and in discussions regarding the status of systems and equipment, such as steam relief valves and condensate storage tank piping design. Discussions also concerned Unit I testing experience that could be useful for Unit 2 preo3erational testing, and Unit 2 i equipn'ent inspection and testing results that could be useful to Unit

'

1 in-service equipment. A well coordinated test effort was obvious by the continued progress in several tests listed in paragraph 3 of this report, a number of which required control room support.

l In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.

r 0812090250 002122 PDR ADOCK 05000425 G PNU j

. l

. .

.

REPORT DETAIL S Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• J. Ajiuni, Operations Superintendent

• L. Bagale. Hot Functional Test Manager 5*E. D. Groover, QA Site Manager - Construction

1. • S. M. Ifall, Procedure Superintendent

1. S. D. Haltom, QA Engineering Support Supervisor

• H. M. Handfinger, Project Startup Manager

• C. W. Hayes, Vogtle QA Manager f*C. C. Miller, Test Review Board Chairman

• R. H. Pinson, Vice President

• D. Smith, Construction Engineer Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included engineers, operators, mechanics, technicians, and administrative personne NRC Resident Inspectors

• R. J. Schepens, Senior Resident Inspector - Construction

• R. Aiello, Resident Inspector

1. Attended exit interview October 7, 1988

• Attended exit interview October 14, 1988 Preoperational Test Procedures Review (70300, 70352) Unit 2 The inspector reviewed several licensee approved preoperational test procedures either totally or in part including:

- 2-3RP-02, Post Accident Sampling System

- 2-300-10, Shutdown Panel Preoperational Test

- 2-3AB-02, Turbine Bypass System The inspectors verified that the procedures were consistent with the requirements of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.68, Revision 2. The procedures had proper managerrent review and approval and the test purpose and objectives were clearly stated. The procedures included appropriate references to FSAR sections, drawings, vendor data, specification 3, and administrative controls of test performance, review and approva Test equipment was specified along with proper equipment calibration controls. Adequate notes and precautions were provided where needed. Prerequisites and initial test conditions

>

_

-

.

.

were specified, including initial valve and system lineups, electrical power and control requirements, and appropriate test performance approvals. Adequate quality control hold points were specified. Test instructions appeared to be complete to the extent necessary to assure that the test objectives were me Test data sheets were provided fer recording selected test information. Provisions were available for +"e verification and signoff of test steps and for recording details c: i.h e conduct of the tests. The procedures contained system and comp </elt realignment instructions to ensure proper system restoration fr.d!cwing test performance. Acceptance criteria and limits were clearly identified and provisions fcr test results re/few and approval were include No violations or deviations were observed in this are . Preoperational and Hot Functional Test Witnessing (70312, 70300, 70301, 70438,70370,70432,70314,70317,70447) Hot Funct'm i Test Witnessing During this inspection, the licensee continued with hot functional test (HFT) activities conducted with the plant at Norma' Operating Temperature, 557 F, and Normal Operating Pressure, 2235 psig in accordance with Procedure 2-300-07, Revision 0, RCS Hot Functional Preoperational Test Procedure. The inspectors witnessed portions of Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS), Balance of Plant, and Turbine Generator test activities. The inspectors observed control room activities and operations in progress to verify that prerequisites and plant conditions were established as required by the controlling HFT procedur The inspector verified that the test was being performed in accordance with the HFT procedure and that test changes were made in accordance with administrative controls. Prosicms identified during testing were evaluated and appropriate corrective action was taken. The inspectors also observed adequate coordination among test personne The inspectors witnessed portions of 6.5.2.1.4 (Pressurizer Control, 2-388-05), 6.5.2.1.12.2 (Turbine driven AR148 hour run, 2-3AL 03),

6.5.2.1.72.4 (Vibration of Steam and Auxiliary feedwater piping, 2-300-11), 6.5.2.1.12.6 (pump room HVAC, ST-41), and 6.5.2.1.1 (Boron The rmal Regeneration System testing, 2-3BG-03). The commencement of heatup of the secondary plant, paragraph 6.5.2.2,

"Balance of Plant Testing" was also witnessed. The testing was coordinated by an Integrated Testing Supervisor in the Control Room who worked closely with operations personnel. Testing was closely managed at daily test supervisor personnel meetings and at daily briefings by the Plant Startup Manager to other site managers. The testing was proceeding ahead of schedul Preooerational Test Witnessing The inspectors observed specific tests being conducted to determine if requirements were being net relative to NRC requirements such as

>

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

.s .

. .

< 3

, .

I contained in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.68 and the Final Safety Regulatory Report (FSAR). The following attributes were among those verified in this revie ,

- Tests were performed in accordance with approved procedures:

- Latest revisions of the approved test procedures were available and in use by personnel performing the test Test ec.uipment required by the procedures were calibrated and installe Test data were properly collected and recorde Adequate coordination existed among personnel involved in the tes ,

,

- Test prerequisites were me Proper plant systems were in servic Temport y modifications such as jumpers were installed and tracker 'n accordance with administrative control Proble, ncountered during testing were properly documente Test personnel were properly cert ** fe The following tests were witnessed I

(1) 2-388-05, Pressurizer Pressure and Level Control System ,

The inspector witnessed paragraph 6.3.2, Pressurizer Pressure Cor. trol Response and Stability Demonstration, and paragraph 6.3.3, Pressurizer Pressure Control, Protection and Indication Demonstratio Delays in testing werc encountere) during the l test when the "Pzr. Hi Press. Alarm" and "Pzr. Hi Press. Channel t Alert" alarms sounded. Even though the alarms sounded at the proper setpoints, the procedure had the alarms and corresponding setpoints reversed. The test personnel did not recognize the alarm actuations did not match the procedure untii reviewing the procedure later, af ter a power operated relief valve closing indication did not properly operate upon reduction in pressu' Test personnel then realized the previous two alarms did not operate as stated in the procedure. Upon thorough investigation, the problem was determined as being in the procedure and not in the equipmen One further observation was that this course of events appeared not to have been clearly turned over to the day shift test supervisor Upon clarification testing continue Other delays were satisfactorily resolved and tha paragraphs were completed in an acceptable manne . .

'

t

The inspectors also observed portions of Section 6.3.5 which further demonstrated pressurizer level control, protection, and indication. During the licensee's performance of Sections 6.3.5.1 th ugh 6.3.5./.3, which demonstrated the ru ration of various prusurizer controls, a problem with the e.harging flow control-ler was encounterd. The test supervisor took the appropriate corrective action; the test was interrupted and a maintenance work order was written to repair the controlle The problem was later identified as being with the cont.oller's lower flow limit setpoint which was set too lo The inspectors also observed the performance of Sections 6.3.5.25 through 6.3.5.30 which demonstrated the operability of the pressurizer lower level alarm and control functions. While performing this series of steps, the licensee discovered a problem with the group C backup pressurizer heaters. By the test procedure, the heaters are mancelly energized; as the pressurizer level drops, the heaters automatically deenergize on low pressurizer level. The group C heaters deenergized as required, but their control breakers tripped and had ta be locally rese The test was interrupted and a maintenance work order was prepared to investigate the proble (2) 2-3AL-03, Auxiliary Feedwater System Testing During Hot Functional Testing The inspeckor witriesseu paragraph 6.8 which demonstrated the turbine driven auxiliary feedwater pump ability to operate continLously for 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> During performarce of the test, which d?scharges water to the condensate storage tank (CST), the tank bladder, which is used to minimize oxygen in the condensate, ruptured and prevented draining the tank. The decision was made to finis." the test which was near completion; however, some overflow f rom the i;ST did occur. The licensee then took action to dra hi the CST and repair the bladde The test of the pump was completed satisfactorily with no further impact on the system or test schedul (3) 2-3BG-03, Baron Thermal R0 generation System (BTRS)

Paragraph 6.3, which was the checkout of the BTRS during hot functional testing was witnessed. Flows, temperatures 'id valve operations were observe The test was well directa by knowledgeable, experienced test personne (4) 2-300-09. Power Conversion and Emergency Core Cooling System Dynamics Test The inspector witnessed paragraph 6.1 which invol s icensee personnel visually monitoring the trip of the t liary Feedwater Turbine Stop Valve at the cor.clusion sf the

.

.

.

. .

turbine driven pump ru The paragraph was completed satis-factoril (5) 2-300-11, Steady State Vibration Monitoring of Safety-related Piping Paragraph 6.8.3, monitoring of the Auxiliary Feedwater Systen Train C piping, was witnessed. The inspector r.oticed what appeared to be excessive vibration in the tulline driven AFW pump discharge piping which was also documented by licensee perscnnel. Trouble sheets were initiated in accordance with the procedure for resolution by engineering and test personne (6) 2-3SF-01, Reactor Control. Rod Control and Rod Position Indication Preoperational Test The inspector witnessed portions of Section 6.3 of the procedur The steps verified proper manual rod control of various control rod mechanis All observed manipulations were within the acceptance criteria and no problems were observe (7) 2-3SF-03, CRDM Initial Timing Paragraph 6.3 of the procedure was observed for various control rod drive mechanisms (CRDM). This test consisted of obtaining and evaluating CROM initial timing traces, verifying proner operation of the mechanism. Test personnel appeared knowledgeable in all areas regarding operation of the equipment and were well organ'ted and efficient in performance of the observed testin (8) Special Test (ST)-41, Piping Penetration Ventilation Temperature Survey and Equipment Building Ventilation Fan The inspector only witnessed paragraph 6.3 of the procedure which entailed auxiliary feedwater pumproom train "C" R-106 Temperature Data Acquisition. Observeri data was acceptable and appropriate test equipmen' was use (9) 2-35B-01 Reactor Protection Portions of paragraph 6.12 Containment Pressure Reactor Protection were observe Tes.' ; was well-coordinated and performed by knowledgeable test personnel. The test procedure steps observed were completed with all required data entere (10) 2-3BG-04, Boric Acid Blender The inspectors observed portions of Section 6.15.3, which verified the ability of the basic acid blending system to makeup the design boric acid concentration in the boration mode of

,

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

. .

. .

.

operatio During this evolution, a problem was discovered with the boric acid flow controller. The controller setpoint was adjusted to a flowrate of 35 gpm, but during the boration operation, the controller only indicated a flowrate of 30 gp The test was interrupted and a maintenance work order was initiated to repair- the controlle (11) 2-400-01, Initial Turbine Roll The purpose of this test was to demonstrate the function of the turbine generator mechanical and backup electrical overspeed trips and to demonstrate the generator's ability to synchronize with and parallel with the utility gri The inspector's

>

witnessed portions of subsection 6.2, from steps 6.2.1 through

.

6.2.36, which demonstrated satifactory turbine operation at

'

rated speed and verified the proper function of the mechanical and electrical overspeed trip A problem was ancountered during the initial acceleration of the turbine when the turning gecr became disable The licensee discovered that the problem involved loose leads to the turning gear oil pump. The turbine was off the turning gear for fifteen minutes; by the test procedure, the turbine was required to be rolled an additional ten minutes for each minute stopped. Based on recommendations from the GE turbine representative, which was present for the i

test, the licensee made a procedure change to allow the turbine to be rolled less than the prescribed ten minutes for each minute stoppe The inspectors discussed this decision with the GE representative who confirmed that ten minutes was a conservatively high value. The test continued and the licensee verified proper turbine operating characteristics at turbine speeds of 100, 800, 1500, and 1800 RPM. As the turbine reached rated speed, the licensee satisfactorily verified the operation of the mechanical and electrical overspeed trip Shortly after, testing was interrupted again and the turbine was manually tripped due to low steam generator pressure. Testing resumed the next day and the turbine generator was sucessfully synchronized to the utility gri Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie . Preoperational Test Results Review (70400)

The inspector reviewed the results of preoperational test 2-3BJ-01, SIS Preoperational Test. The results were reviewed to verify that test changes were made in accordance with administrative procedures, test changes did not change the basic objective of the test, test deficiencies had been resolved, individual test steps and data sheets were completed properly and that data was withiri the acceptance criteria specified. An evaluation and approval of the test results had been completed in accordance with administrative procedure However, left unexplained and unconnented on

-

_ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ _ _ - -_______ _ _ - _ _ _

, .

. .

.

.

after approval was a resolution of a comment which sas inapprorpriate for a procedure review connent sheet. Although the comment was documented as resolved, it certainly did not resolve the issue satisfactoril When brought to management attention, it was agreed that the coment sheet should not have been left as it was. The licensee stated the coment sheet would be modified to delete the inappropriate remarks and state any further explanation if indeed warranted. This modification will be reviewed during a future inspectio No violations or deviations were noted in this are . Action On Previous Inspection Findings (92701) (Closed) Construction Deficiency Report (CDR) 85-03, "Westinghouse Flux Mapping system."

i NRC Information Notice 85-45, dated June 6, 1985, reported the potential for the seismic interaction of the Westinghouse Flux Mapping System used in Westinghouse designed plant The analysis conducted at Plant Vogtle indicated that the flux mapping system could collapse and fall on the instrumentation tubing / seal table during a seismic event. This could cause multiple failures in the

flux mapping tubing or fittings that would produce a small break loss

-

of coolant accident. The corrective actions identified t the j licensee's seismic analysis were the addition of a stiffener and anchor brackets to each of the four wheel assemblies to prevent possible lif toff and lateral movement of the flux mapping i system along the rail direction. The brackets are used to bolt the ,

system to the I-Beams located above the seal table. This work was documented by Process Control Sheet Number 2-360- The inspector reviewed this documentation and visually inspected the work performe This item is considered closed, (Closed) Temporary Instruction (TI) 2500/16 - "Inspection to Determine if a Potential Seismic Interactior. Exits Between Movable In-Core Flux Mapping System and Seal Table at Westinghouse Designed Facilities or facilities with Similar Designs."

This TI defined the NRC inspector requirements for NRC Information Notice 85-45. The inspectors completed the requirements detailed in the TI during this inspection as described in the closecut of CDR

85-03, Paragraph (Closed) CDR 86-136, "ESFAS Load Sequence Board."

,

This item was reported to the NRC Region II Office on January 7.

, 1987, and concerned the lockout of the Chemical Volume and Control System (CVCS) charging pump breaker during a safety injection (SI)

l condition with a subsequent loss of offsite power (LOP). This

condition was discovered during Engineering Safety Features Actuatien

System (ESFAS) preoperational testing on Unit 1. The inspectors

!

.

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

.. .

. . .

t

reviewed the licensee's letters dated January 10 and 14,1987, which discussed this item. In the condition identified, two signals, load shed to open the centrifugal charging pump breakers and the first sequence step to close the breaker, were simultaneously present at the first step load breaker This caused the breaker's anti-pump feature to operate and lock out the breakers, preventing it from closin The licensee's corrective action was to adjust the reset time of the load shed circuit reset timer from 1.0 second to secon This assures that the load shed contact will open befora the load sequencing starts. The inspectors reviewed Field Change Request E-FCRB-1507N which documented the implementation of the design modification in the ESFAS Logic for Units 1 and 2. The inspectors also verified that appropriate changes were made to approved plant drawings of the ESFAS Logic Syste This item is considered closed, (Closed) Inspector Followup Item (IFI) - 88-52-01, "Correct Hot functional Procedural Items i

The previous inspection identified several minor inadequacies in the Hot Functional preoperational test procedur The inspectors verified that the procedural corrections were made as identifie This item is considered close . Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on October 7 and October 14, 1988, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1. The inspectors described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results. Proprietary information is not contained in this repor Dissenting comments were not received from the license ,

i

)

,

i i

i

?

I j

i

'

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