IR 05000213/1986023

Insp Rept 50-213/86-23 on 860728-0801.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Cycle 14 Startup Physics Testing Program,Precritical Tests,Zero Power Physics Tests & Power Ascension Tests

ML20212Q225
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	08/27/1986
From:	Eselgroth P, Wen P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20212Q203	List: IR 05000213/1986023 ML20212Q200
References
50-213-86-23, NUDOCS 8609040103
Download: ML20212Q225 (9)

Text

.c ,

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No. 50-213/86-23 Docket N License No. OPR-61 Licensee: .Conr.ecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Engineering and:0perations Group P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Facility Name: Haddam Neck Nuclear Power Plant

, Inspection At: Haddam Neck, CT Inspection Conducted: July 28 - August 1, 1986 Inspectors: [ -s //#7/#4 date pP.C. Wen #actorEngineer Approved by: MM

. W. Esebfs6th, Chief g//7/#4 date

/TestProgramsSection,08,DRS Inspection Summary: Inspection on July 28 to August 1,1986 (Inspection Report No. 50-213/86-23).

Areas Inspected: Cycle 14 Startup Physics Testing Program, precritical tests, zero power physics tests and power ascension test ,Results: No violations were identifie NOTE For acronyms not identified, refer to NUREG-0544, " Handbook of Acronyms and Initialisms".

8609040103 860827 PDR ADOCK 05000213 G PDR

. .

DETAILS Persons Contacted Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company J. Beauchamp, Quality Assurance Supervisor J. Ferguson, Unit Superintendent G. Goncavrovs, Chemist

R. Graves, Station Superintendent

• J. Stanford, Reactor Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission S. Pindale, Res.ident Inspecter

Denotes those present at the o<it interview on August 1, 198 The inspector also contacted other licensee employees in the course of the inspectio . Cycle 14 Reload Safety Evaluation and Core Verification The Cycle 14 reactor core is comprised of 153 fuel assemblies (FAs) with stainless steel clad and 4 lead test assemblies with zircaloy cla Because of difference in cladding material, the LOCA linear heat gener-ation rate (LHGR) limits were different for these two kinds of fuel assem-blies (see paragraph 5.5).

During the Cycle 13/14 refueling outage, 3 once-burned Batch 15A FAs were damaged and resulted in the premature discharge of a total of 4 Batch 15A FAs to preserve core symmetry. These were replaced by 4 thrice-burned Batch 11 FAs (L34, L23, L36, and L38). The revised reload safety evalu-ation (RSE) along with the required Technical Specifications (T.S) change were submitted to the NRC for review. This reload submittal was found acceptable (Letter from F. M. Akstulewicz, Jr. (NRC) to J. F. Opeka (CYAPC), dated April 14, l98s).

The inspector revie\ed see . re verification videotapes and verified that the core loading agrued wiso the intended core loading plan. No inade-quacies were identifie . Cycle 14 Startup Testing Program The startup test program was conducted according to engineering procedure ENG 1.7-33, Startup Physics Testing for a New Core. The test sequence outlined the steps in the test program, specified calibration or surveil-

"

lance procedures at appropriate points in the sequence, and referenced detailed tests and data collections in separate test procedures.

.

v -

e - - - e ,r- e , w - - ! - w - +

'

. ..

<

Initial criticality of Cycle 14 was achieved on May 6, 1986. The Zero Power Physics Testing (ZPPT) was completed on May 8,1986, and the Power Ascension Tests (PAT) were completed on June 12, 198 The inspector independently verified that the predicted values and accep-

-tance criteria were obtained from " Connecticut Yankee Cycle 14 Redesign

~ Nuclear Design Report", BAW-1913, dated May, 1986. -The inspector reviewed

'

test results and documents described in this report to ascertain that post startup testing was conducted in accordance with technically adequate pro-cedures and;as required by TS. The detailed findings of the review are described in Sections 4 and . Cycle 14 Startup Testing - Precritical Tests The inspector reviewed calibration and functional test results to verify the following:

--

Procedures were provided with detailed instructions;

--

Technical content of procedures was sufficient to result in satisfactory component calibration and test;

--

Instruments and calibration equipment used were traceable to the National Bureau of Standards;

--

Acceptance and operability criteria were observed in compliance with T The following tests were reviewed:

4.1 Control Rod Drop Times

,

The licensee performed control rod drop time tests to verify confor-mance with Technical Specification 3.10H'. These tests were performed at cold conditions as a preliminary check for control red freedom and at hot conditions to satisfy the technical specification requiremen The licensee performed the cold rod drop tests in accordance with Procedure ENG 1.7-8, Cold Rod Drop Time Measurements, May 4, 1986, which employs a rod time data acquisition computer to record the drop i time of each rod in a given bank. Using this method, the drop times for all rods in a given bank were measured during a single drop (scram), rather than the one drop for each rod required when using the old visicorder metho The inspector verified that the licensee's rod drop computer program was properly verified and validated prior to its use. Test compar-ison between the visicorder and the computer method from the previous two cycles' test data indicated that the computer method provided satisfactory results.

!

l .

. .

On May 5, 1986, the licensee performed the hot rod drop time m asure-ments in accordance with SUR 5.3-39, Hot Rod Drop Time Measurements Using Digital Method, Revision 3. The inspector reviewed the results of these rod drop tests and noted that the prerequisites had been signed off, all procedure steps had been completed, all required data had been recorded and the data sheets had been reviewed by the Reac-tor Engineer and the QA Auditor. The rod drop time for each of the 45 control rods was less than the maximum 2.50 seconds allowed by Technical Specification 3.10 No discrepancies were identifie .2 Reactivity Computer Setup / Verification The reactivity computer was setup and calibrated according to pro-cedure STS-126, Rev. 4. The inspector independently verified that the reactivity computer was adjusted with the correct inputs of de-layed neutron fractions (betas) and decay constants (lambdas), and noted that the results of this " cold" calibration check were satis-factor The reactivity computer was further checked when the reactor reached criticality, and during ZPPT. Comparisons of predicted and measured reactivities based on doubling time measurements were acceptabl .3 Reactor Coolant Temperature Calibrations All 24 Reactor Coolant System RTDs were checked in accordance with procedure SUR 5.2-15 Reactor Coolant Temperature RTD Test (Iso-thermal), Rev. 6, on May 5, 1986. The inspector reviewed the cali-bration data and noted that the calibration checks were satisfactor Core exit thermocouples were evaluated per the same procedure on May 5 and 6, 198 No unacceptable conditions were identifie . Cycle 14 Startup Testing - Post Critical Tests 5.1 The inspector reviewed selected test programs to verify the following:

--

The test programs were implemented in accordance with Cycle 14 Startup Physics Test Program;

--

Step-wise instructions of test procedures were adequately provided including Precautions, Limitations and Acceptance Criteria in conformance with the requirements of the TS;

--

Provisions for recovering from anomalous conditions were provided;

-

.

. o

--

Methods and calculations were clearly specified and the tests were performed accordingly; and,

--

Review, approval, and documentation of the results were in accordance with the requirements of the TS and the licensee's administrative control .2 Boron Endpoint Determination The licensee measured the critical boron concentration in accordance with test procedures SUR 5.3-3, All Rods Out Just Critical Boron Concentration, Rev. 9 and SUR 5.3-6, Control Rod Reactivity Worth Measurements, Rev. 15. The inspector reviewed the test data. The following results were noted:

Predicted Value Measured Value Configuration (ppm) (ppm)

All Rods Out 1609 100 1596 Banks A, B, and D In 864 100 888 Bank C Fully Withdrawn Test results were within acceptance criteri .3 Isothermal Temperature Coefficient Isothermal temperature coefficients (ITC) were measured in accordance with procedure SUR 5.3-5, Isothermal Temperature Coefficient Measure-ment, Rev. 9. The inspector noted the following result Predicted Value Measured Value Configuration (pcm/ F) (pcm/*F)

All Rods Out -5.66 i 4 -1.933 Banks A, B, and D in Bank C fully Withdrawn -16.19 i 4 -12.60 The calculated Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC) from the ITC measurement is:

MTC TS Limit Conditions (pcm/ F) (pcm/ F)

AR0/P?P/BOL -0.213 <+ Test results were within acceptance criteri . . . .. . - - - - . _ _

. .o

5.4 Control Rod Worth Measurement The control rod reactivity worth measurements were performed in accordance with procedure SUR 5.3-6, Control Rod Reactivity Worth Measurements, Rev. 15. The following results were noted:

Predicted Worth Measured Worth Control Rod Bank (pcm) (pcm)

B 961 i 15% 929 A 2008 i 15%' 1929 0 2183 15% 2114 TOTAL 5152 1 10% 4972

,

Criteria based Predicted Worth Measured Worth on the Cycle 14 Ejected Control Rod (pcm) (pcm) RSE (pcm)

Hot Full Power Rod Configuration Rod #11/ Bank 8/H-4 26 24 <170 Hot Zero Power Rod Configuration Rod #31/ Bank B/D-4 301 i 100 230 <830 Test results were within acceptable criteri ,

5.5 Core 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 Headquarters. 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 progra The results are then reviewed and analyzed by the Corporate Reactor Engineering staff and the plant Reactor Enginee .

---

~v- ,- er m -~e'w-

. .

The results from flux maps which were taken to support the Cycle 14 startup physics testing are tabulated below:

Quadrant Power LHGR (kw/ft)

Flux Map / MONBR Tilt Ratio (Fuel Batch)

Power Level Measured TS Limit Measured TS Limit Measured FB/ Location TS Limit xiv-1-376/25% 13.337 .022 --

11.17 (15A at J10) 14.20 9.31 (ISB at N8) 11.00 xiv-2-377/80% 5.782 .006 1.02 10.69 (16 at N11) 14.20 8.92 (ISB at H13) 11.00 xiv-3-378/80% 5.650 .012 1.02 10.90 (16 at N11) 14.20 9.09 (158 at H13) 11.00 xiv-4-379/80% 5.540 1. 3 1.009 1.02 10.92 (16 at N11) 14.20 9.11 (ISB at H13) 11.00 xiv-5-380/100% 3.968 .013 1.02 10.44 (16 at N11) 14.20 8.90 (ISB at N8) 11.00 xiv-6-381/100% 4.003 .011 1.02 10.29 (16 at N11) 14.20 8.90 (ISB at N8) 11.00 xiv-7-382/100% 4.021 1. 3 1.016 1.02 10.38 (15A at M9) 14.20 9.02 (ISB at H13) 11.00 xiv-8-363/100% 3.980 .015 1.02 10.46 (16 at N11) 14.20 9.16 (ISB at N8) 11.00 No unacceptable conditions were identifie .6 Incore/Excore Correlation The incore/excore correlation was determined in accordance with pro-cedure SUR 5.3-44, Power Distribution Measurements for a New Cor The inspector reviewed SUR 5.3-44, the completed data and flux maps, and the derived incore vs. excore plots performed on May 19, 198 The calibration results were acceptabl The incore/excore correlation needs to be verified every full power month by using the results from the full core flux map as specified in the TS. During the inspection period at about 41 EFPD, the in-spector verified that the new incore/excore correlation was generated based on flux maps XIV-6-381, XIV-7-382 and XIV-8-383, and was in use by the control room operato No discrepancies were identifie . .

!

l 5.7 Core Thermal Power The procedure and method used by the licensee to calculate the core thermal power were reviewed and discussed with cognizant licensee '

personnel. The inspector performed an independent calculation. The plant parameters taken at 1113 on June 30, 1986 were used as inputs for compariso Licensee Calculated Inspector Calculated Test Date Result (Mwt) Result (Mwt)

1113-1213 1822 1821.79 06/30/86 Licensee computer calculated result agreed fairly well with the in-spector calculated resul The inspector also reviewed the data from the measurements per: formed for the month of June,1986, and verified that the frequency of eval-uation and excore power range channel calibrations were performed within the requirements as prescribed by the TS and plant operation procedur No unacceptable conditions were identifie .8 Shutdown Margin

'

The inspector reviewed procedure SUR-5-3-19, Boration Reguirements for Reactor Shutdown, Rev. 13, which is used to ensure that the reac-tor is at least 3% delta K/K shutdown on all reactor shutdowns, as required by TS 3.10. These Boron concentration requirements are provided on a plot of Boron concentration versus cycle lifetime for

,

various RCS temperatures. Through discussion with control room operators, the inspector determined that the operation staff were

'

knowledgeable in the use of these curve During this inspection period the reactor was shutdown. The inspec-tor verified that the required boron concentration was being met. No unacceptable conditions were identifie .9 Reactor Coolant System Radiochemistry A typical Iodine-131 value during this cycle steady state full power operation is 5 x 10 8 uci/ml; this value is similar to the previous fuel cycle operating data. The associated Dose Equivalent Iodine and 68/E RCS activity criteria are well within the TS limit (approxi-mately 1%). Based on the result of licensee's radiochemical fuel evaluation, no leaking elements were . identified at the current fuel burnup (about 41 EFPD).

- - _ _

. *.

This cycle's operation inyolves a unique situation with 4 Batch 11 (thrice-burned) FAs and 4 zircalloy clad (once-burned) FAs. The other FAs are all stainless steel clad fuel with less fuel burnu During cycle 13/14 refueling outage, these 8 FAs were inspected prior to loading to their current core positio No unacceptable condi-tions were identified. Subsequently, these fuel assemblies were qualified for the current cycle operatio The inspector had no further questio . QA Role in Cycle 14 Startup Testing The inspector reviewed the licensee's QA involvement during the post re-fueling startup testing, and noted that QC provided surveillance coverage (QC 86-04) during Cycle 14 startup. The QC inspector witnessed perform-ance of NOP 2.1-7, New Core Initial Critical Approach, and SUR 5.3-3, ARO Just Critical Boron Concentration. The QC inspector also verified that the core loading pattern agreed with the intent configuratio No unacceptable conditions were identifie . Independent Calculations / Verifications The inspector performed independent calculations / verifications of Cycle 14 startup physics testing and related activities. These included the following:

--

Core loading verification as described in Section Test acceptance criteria were verified to be consistent with B&W document " Connecticut Yankee Cycle 14 Redesign Nuclear Design Report", BAW-1913, dated May, 198 Core thermal power calculation as described in Section . Management Meeting Licensee management was informed of the scope and purpose of the inspec-tion at an entrance meeting conducted on July 28, 1986. The findings of the inspection were discussed with licensee representatives during the course of the inspection. An exit meeting was conducted on August 1, 1986 at the conclusion of the inspection (see paragraph I for attendees).

At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee. Based on the NRC Region I review of this report and discussions held with the licensee representatives at the exit, it was determined that this report does not contain information subject to 10 CFR 2.790 restric-tions

_ - _

- - _ - -