IR 05000213/1980024
| ML19350B465 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1980 |
| From: | Bettenhausen L, Caphton D, Petrone C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350B459 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-213-80-24, NUDOCS 8103200582 | |
| Download: ML19350B465 (7) | |
Text
.
.
O U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
,
Region I Report No. 50-213/80-24 Docket No. 50-213 License No. OPR-61 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
Con'1ecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company P. O. Box 270
.
Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Facility Name:
Haddam Neck Plant Inspection at:
Haddam, Connecticut Inspection cond ed: N be 19-
, 19 0 Inspectors:
./
dm /.-
-
/
/f a
eac r Inspector
/da te' signed L'
Be erih sjn, Ph. /
4 dr W
JU?
// fD C.' D. Petrone' Reactor Insp6ctor
/date si'ned
~
~
-
_
'
y /g date signed Approved by:
_ / f < (2/ lb
/Z /k D'. L. Caphto4 Chief, Nucleae date/ signed Support Section No. 1, RO&NS Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on November 19-21, 1980 (Report 50-213/80-24)
Areas Inspected: Reutine, unannounced inspection by region-based inspectors
l of post refuelino start up testing, including control rod drops, control rod
'
and boron reactivity worths, temperature coefficient, shutdown margin, incore-i excore detector calibration and axial flux difference, core power distribution,
'
and core outlet thermocouples, and licensee action on previous inspection find-ings. The inspection involved 43 inspector hours on site by two NRC region-based inspectors.
r l
Results:
In the major area inspected, cnc item of noncompliance was found (Failure
!
to adequately evaluate test results).
!
l l
I Region I Form 12 8103200 h (Rev. April 77)
.
- _ _ _ - _ -_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted D. Anderson, Engineering Technician
- R. Eppinger, Reactor Engineer
- R. Graves Station Superintendent
- R. Test Engineering Supervisor
- R. Traggio, Unit Superintendent
- T. Smith, Senior Resident Inspector, USNRC
- denotes those present at the exit interview on November 21, 1980.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Deficiency (50-213/79-11-01):
Temporary Procedure Changes made to startup test procedures reviewed in the current inspection were documented, reviewed within 14 days by the Plant Operations Raview Committee and approved by the Plant Superintendent. This item is closed.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-213/79-11-03):
Procedure SUR 5.3-17 now
'
references and uses the current data form RE-DS-19, Revision 3.
This itsn is closed.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-213/79-11-04):
Procedure SUR 5.3-23 also now references and uses data form RE-0S-19, Revision 3.
This item is closed.
3.
Post Refueling Startup Testing a.
A review of the startup testing program was performed to verify conduct and completion of Technical Specification required tests.
This review encompassed the following:
In-house Startup Report;
--
Control rod drop times;
--
Core power distribution determination;
--
Incore/Excore calibration and axial offset determination;
--
Determination of control rod worths;
--
Isothermal temperature coefficient;
--
Reactor Shutdown margin; and
--
Boron reactivity worth determinations.
--
-
r-
.
~
-
_ _ -
.
.
.
.
.
b.
The k m etor verified by review of facility records in the following areas that startup testing was conducted in accor* nce with technically adequate procedures and that the facility is being operated within license limits.
(1)
Post Refueling Startup Report Review The inspector and licensee representatives discussed the licensee's plans to submit a Startup Report to the NRC. The licensee stated that a Startup Report would not be submitted because no changes had taken place during the refueling which would require a report submittal as specified in the Technical Specifications.
The inspector verified the licensee's determination by review of the following documents that involved the Cycle 10 refueling:
--
BAW-1603, Connecticut Yankee Cycle 10 Nuclear Design Report, January, 1980.
plant Design Change Request #376, Cycle 10 Refueling, approved
--
by Plant Operations Review Committee and by the Station Superintendent 6/26/80 and reviewed by CYQA 6/28/80.
The inspector noted that the licensee's Reactor Engineer generated an in-house Startup Physics Test Report which discussed the tests perfo' med and summarized the results obtained.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
(2) Control Rod Drop Times Control rod drop time tests are performed to verify conformance
,
'
with Technical Specificaton 4.2-2.
The inspector reviewed pro-cedure SUR 5.3-2, Hot Rod Drop Time Measurements, Revision 4 effective 6/11/79 which was used for this verification. Tne
,
j inspector independently reviewed visicorder traces fer selected rod drops and compared his results to licensee analyses with no
'
discrepancies.
The hot rod drop times were conducted with three reactor coolant pumps operating instead of four pumps. A time penalty of 0.05 seconds.was subtracted from the Technical Specification limit of l
2.50 seconds to result in a test acceptance criterion of 2.45 seconds to account for 3-pump operation.
Licensee' representatives stated that this penalty was derived from earlier test results, but were unable to provide the test data. This is an unresolved item (50-213/80-24-02) pending review of 3 pump versus 4 pump rod drop data.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
i
_
.
.
(3) Control Rod Worth and Boron Worth The control rod reactivity worth and ejected rod worth are deter-mined in accordance with procedure SUR 5.3-6-C, Control Rod Group Reactivity Worth Combined with Boron Worth and Ejected Rod Worth, Revision 8, effective 10/23/79, to meet the requirements of Tech-nical Specification 3.10.
Procedure SUR 5.3-6, performed 7/25-26/80, was reviewed to deter-mine technical adequacy and that the measured data compared with the predicted values for control rod worth.
The following results were noted.
Control Red 'ank Measured Worth Predicted Worth (% delta k/k)
(% delta k/k)
B 0.91 0.81 + 15%*
A 1.99 1.82 17 15%
D 2.33 2.04 17 15%
C 1.86 1.75[15%
- Acceptance region is +15% of the predicted worth.
Ejected Control Rod Measured Worth Predicted Worth Ti delta k/k)
(% delta k/k)
Bank B at 243 steps Banks A, D, C at 320 steps B-11 0.025 0.032 B-31 0.015 0.015 Bank A at 166 steps, Bank B at 0 steps Bank C, 0 at 320 steps B-11 0.217 0.210 + 0.1 B-31 0.144 0.139[0.1 The inspector reviewed reactimeter traces for selected rod worth determinations.
The recorded reactimeter trace indicated that a riegative end point correction be made to the reactivity worth of rod B-31 with Bank B inserted.
The data sheet and the final value reported in the Startup Physics Test Report used a positive end point correction. This apparent error of approximately 0.006% delta k did not affect the acceptance value for the rod worth.
In addit'on, there were no review or approval signatures
~
i
.
.
.
for the completed procedure on page 15.
This apparent analysis error and lack of review and approval for the procedure together with the example of paragraph 3.b.(4) below, are considered collectively as an item of noncompliance (50-213/80-24-01).
Boron worth determinations from six critical boron concentrations with corresponding inserted rod worths were compared with predic-ted values from the Nuclear Design Report. A center weighted linear least squares fit to experimental data resulted in an inverse boron worth of 146.5 ppm per % delta k/k. This compares favorably to the predicted values of 146 for all rods in and 149 for all rods out.
(4)
Isothermal Temperature Coefficient Measurement The licensee measures isotherral temperature coefficient in accordance with procedure SUR 5.3-5, Moderator Temperature Reac-tivity Coefficient Measurement to comply with the requirements of Technical Specification 3.16.
SUR 5.3-5 was reviewed and found to give satisfactory isothermal temperature coefficient data.
However, the calculations used to reduce the data and make che corrections necessary to convert the isothermal temperature coefficient to an equivalent hot, full power moderator coefficient of reactivity to compare with Technical Specification and predic-ted values were found to have power-of-ten errors and misapplica-tion of statistical uncertainty. The inspector independently computed the moderator temperature coefficient corrected for full power operation for the (almost) all rods out configuration on the basis of experimental reactimeter chart data. The result was -3.7E-5 delta k/k per OF.
T.S. 3.16 states that the value of the moderator temperature coefficient shall not exceed +7.1E-5 delta k/k per 0F.
The predicted value in the Nuclear Design Report was -6.7E-5 delta k/k per 0F.
The errors in the data reduction analysis are another example of above, in an item of noncompliance (50-213/80-24-01) graph 3.b.(3)
inadequate review and approval, as discussed in para
.
(5) Shutdown Margin The inspector reviewed the manner in which the licensee met T.S.
3.10.F to show that a 3% delta k shutdown margin be maintained during subcritical operations, considering a stuck control rod.
The total measured worth of the control rods, 7.09% delta k, less 0.93% for stuck rod H2, less 0.5% for uncertainties demonstrates adequata shutdown margin at the beginning of Cycle 10.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
.
.-
.
.
.
(6)
Incore/Excore Correlation and Axial Offset Verification The incore/excore correlation is determined in accordance with procedure SUR 5.3-23, Axial Offset Verification, Revision 5, to-comply with Technical Specification 3.18.
The inspector reviewed SUR 5.3-23, the completed data tnd flux maps, and the derived incore vs. excore plots for the period 8/9 to 8/13/80.
The inspector also reviewed data taken 11/12 to 11/14/80 for a quarterly surveillance of the incore/excore correlation.
The computer anrlysis of this data was in progress at the time of the inspection. The inspector had no further questions.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
(7)
C_ ore Power Distribution The procedure and method used by the licensee to verify that the plant-is operating within the power distribution limits defined in Technical Specifications were reviewed and discussed with cognizant licensee personnel.
The licensee performs the necessary core flux maps at operating conditions and transmits these maps along with supportive plant parameters to the Corporate Head-quarters. The data is digitized and fed into a computer which performs the core power distribution determination using the licensee's version of the Westinghouse Incore program. The results are then reviewed and analyzed by the Corporate Reactor Engineering staff, and the plant Reactor Engineer is notified of the acceptability of the results.
Flux maps taken and analyzed to support the Cycle 10 startup and i
power operation are tabulated below. The inspector reviewed i
incore flux data, computer data and results summaries for these l
data.
Flux Mag Power Level Date Taken Date Analyzed X-1-265 25%
7/27/B0 7/27/80 X-2-266 54%
7/30/80 7/31/80
X-3-267 100%
8/9/80 8/12/80 X-4-268 100%
8/10/80 8/13/80 l
X-5-269 100%-
8/11/80 8/13/80 X-6-270 100%
9/11/80 9/16/80 X-7-271 100%
10/14/80 10/17/80
X-8-272 100%-
11/12/80 In Process l
X 9-273 100%
11/13/80 In Process
!
X-10-274~
100%
'11/14/80 In Process l
No items of noncompliance were identifi d.
.
l
,
a h
-
.
.
.
,
(8) Core Outlet Thermocouple Calibration The licensee performs an intercomparison of incore thermocouple readings and reactor coolant loop resistance temperature devices (RTD) at hot, isothermal conditions prior to initial criticality.
An offset value is then computed and made part of the computer correction to thermocouple reading.
The offset value is the difference between the actual thermocouple reading and the average thermocouple reading when all outlying values are removed from the average.
The average thermocouple reading was 529.4F, com-paring well to the 528.7F average of 15 RTDs in the 3 operating loops at the time of the test.
As a result of the test, two additional thermocouples were declared non-functional since they were approximately 15F below the average.
At the beginning of Cycle 10, 8 of 47 thermocouples were thus non-functional.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Exit Interview At the end of this inspection, the inspection scope and findings were presented to licensee management (identified in paragraph 1) by the inspector.