05000366/LER-1979-021-01, /01T-0 on 790207:during Test,Two Recirculation Pump Drive Flow Coastdown Transients Failed to Meet Level 1 Stds.Plant Taken to Higher Power for More Testing,Thereby Deviating from Fsar.Caused by Sys Vendor Error

/01T-0 on 790207:during Test,Two Recirculation Pump Drive Flow Coastdown Transients Failed to Meet Level 1 Stds.Plant Taken to Higher Power for More Testing,Thereby Deviating from Fsar.Caused by Sys Vendor Error

ML19274D958
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	02/19/1979
From:	Thomas Greene GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML19274D957	List: 05000366/LER-1979-021, Forwards LER 79-021/01T-0 05000366/LER-1979-021-01, /01T-0 on 790207:during Test,Two Recirculation Pump Drive Flow Coastdown Transients Failed to Meet Level 1 Stds.Plant Taken to Higher Power for More Testing,Thereby Deviating from Fsar.Caused by Sys Vendor Error
References
LER-79-021-01T, LER-79-21-1T, NUDOCS 7902270290
Download: ML19274D958 (3)

LER-1979-021, /01T-0 on 790207:during Test,Two Recirculation Pump Drive Flow Coastdown Transients Failed to Meet Level 1 Stds.Plant Taken to Higher Power for More Testing,Thereby Deviating from Fsar.Caused by Sys Vendor Error

Event date:
Report date:
3661979021R01 - NRC Website

text

• CONTROL BLOCK: l l

l l

l l lh (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE ALL REQUIRED INFORMATioN) 1 6

i c I A 4 E l I l H l 2 l@l 0 l0 l0 l 0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l@l4 l1 l1 l1l1l@l'l l@

o i

8 9 LICENSEE CODE 14 tb LICENSE NUMuEH 2b 26 LICENSE TYPE JO bl CAT b3 OON'T 5UC7 l L l@l 0 l 5 l 010 10 l 3 l 6 l 6 l@l 0 12 10 l7 l 7 l 9 l@l0 l 2 l1 l 9 l 7 l9 l@

o 8

t,0 61 DOCN E T NUMB ER 6d 69 EVENT OATE 14 lb REPORT DATE 60 EVENT DESCRIPTION AND PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES h o

2 l During the performance of HNP-2-10527. the two recirc pump drive flow coastdown I

o 3

I transient failed to meet a level l criteria.

The plant was not subsequently placed j

I in a suitable hold condition per unit 2 FSAR section 14.1.4.5, paragraph 3 and HNP 1 o

4 o

s i 10001, Administration of Startup Test Procedures, but was taken to a higher power l

o e

i level where testing was allowed to continue.

I o_[1]I l

o a

I l

8 9 80 DE CODE SLBCO E COYPONENT CODE SLBC dE S

DE l C l B j@

A l@ lX l@ l PJ U Ml Pl Xl Xl@ l B l@ [ZJ @

o 9

8 9

10 11 12 13 Id 19 20_

SEQUENTI AL OCCURRENCE REPORT REVISION LER EVENT YEAR 4 l REPORT NO.0l2l1l l/l l0 l1 l lT l l_l l0[

CCDE TYPE N O.

@ g*HO l7l9l

- l

_ 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 JI 32 AKE?

A T ON O PL A T iT Lt HOURS 22 S B IT F OR* 1 dVB.

SLFPLIE MAN FACT REA [XJgl4Zlg Wg lZl@

l0l0l9l Nlg lNlg lNlg lBl5l8l0[g J3 3

3b 36 31 40 41 42 43 44 47 CAUSE DESCRIPTION AND CORRECTIVE A TIONS h i

o ] During the performance of PNP-2-10627, turbine trip on November 23. 1978, both I

i i

i l recirc pumps were tripped and failed to meet the recirc pumo drive flow coastdown I,

This is a level k criteria consisting of a curve constructed by graphing

, i cri'te ri a.

l 3

]

initial drive flow versus tirm and requiring the test data curve to show a coastdown l 3

4 l that is less than or equal to the analytical curve.l 8 9 8C ST S

% POWE R OTHER ST ATUS blSC HY DISCOVE RY DESCRIP TION 32 TIT] W@ l Ol 7 l 2 l@l N/A l

l A l@l Notification from NSSS SuppTier (GE) l ACTIVITY CON T E NT RE LE ASE D CF RELE ASE AMOUNT OF ACTIVITY LOCATION OF RELEASE i e lZ @ lZl@l N/A l

l N/A l

PERSOEtt exPosuAEs NU*.'B Y H TYPE DESCHiPTION l0 0l0l@lZl@l N/A l

1 7

PE RSO4NE L INJU IES occRiPTiON@

^i Nu nEn l0l0l0l@l N/A l

i a

8 9 11 12 80 LOSS OF Ort GAMAGE TO FACILITY -

TYPE E,l SCHIP ilON

]@l N/A i

o 8 9 10 60 E CHIPTION IMut t@l N/A I

I l l I I I I I I I I LJ :,

lfLJ 2

o T. V. Greene. Supt. Plt. Eng. SePvices (V12')' 367-7781 l

fJAME OF THCPARER PHONE:

7 9 0 2 2 7 0 2 '7 d

[

~

I i

Georgia Power Company Plant E. I. Hatch Baxley, Georgia 31513 s

Reportable Occurrence Repo?t No.

50-366/1979-021 Cause Description and Corrective Actionscriteria was failed General Electric in San Jose was contacted and informed of the problem. After investigating and discussing the problem General Electric gave their permission to go to the next test condition and continue testing, their justification being the insignificanca of the RPT at that point in the fuel cycle.

The responsible startup personnel for Georgia Power then requested that this be sent to them in writing.

It was received by Georgia Power and presented to management at which time it was decided to go on testing.

On February 8,1979, General Electric again contacted Geor-gia Power and told them that they believed it was a mistake to have increased power and continued tcsting after the level l criteria failure and that they could not further support Georgia Pcwer in operating the plant above 75%

power which was the power level at which the criteria failed.

This was dis-ment decided it best ty{ Electric and Georgia Power at which time Plan cussed between General take the plant to the test condition below the one at which the criteria was failed.

This decision was immediately put into

{

action.

The next action taken whs an investigation of the instrumentation which was used in this tes) to determine the magnitude of the delay time in this in-strumentation that would cause the plot of the test data to fall outside of the criteria.

While this investigation was being performed it was found that the curve in the criteria was obtained from analysis which was done for 104.2%

power instead of the 75% power level at which the test was performed.

Gene r-al Electric then performed an analysis at the 75% power level and supplied a new graph for the criteria.

Using the correct graph in the criteria and the delay time found in the instrumentation it was found that the test data did pass the level 1 criteria.

e a

I-e i

e

m

NARRATIVE

REPORT FOR LER 2-79-21 During the performance ofliNP-2-10627, the two recirc pump drive flow coast-down transient failed to meet a level l criteria.

The responsible person-nel discussed the level 1 criteria failure with the system vendor and per-caission Nas given to go on with the testing.

The plant was then taken to a higher power where testir.g was continued and not placed in a suitable hold condition per unit 2 FSAR Section 14.1.4.5 Paragraph 3 and HNP-2-10001, Administration of Startup Test Procedures.

The system vendor later recog-nized this action as an error and therefore a deviation from the FSAR.

The deviation was reported to the NRC site representative and after discus-sing the problem it was decided that the proper action would have been to contact the NRC and explain the justification,for increasing power before any action was taken to do so.

f

\\

\\

l P

,r

.4