IR 05000254/1980030
| ML19341D341 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 01/12/1981 |
| From: | Choules N, Lanksbury R, Streeter J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341D336 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-254-80-30, NUDOCS 8103050394 | |
| Download: ML19341D341 (3) | |
Text
.-
_ _.
.
_. _ _
-.
__ _
. _.
_
--
-
.
til
-
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No.
50-254/80-30 Docket No.
50-254 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company u
Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Inspection at: Cordova, Illinois Inspection Conduct : December 19, 1980 through December 21, 1980 ([. C
&
C.
oules
// / 7-/
/
Inspectors:
'
'
_-)
L
-
R.
anksbury
///2/8/
Approved by:
J. F. Streeter, Chief gjI gifl Nuclear Support Section 1 Inspection Summary
,
l Inspection on December 19 through December 21, 1980 (Report No. 50-254/80-30)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of control rod drive scram
!
time tests; APRM calibration; determination of reactor shutdown margin; and initial criticality following refueling for cycle 6.
The inspection involved a total of 45 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors including 39 inspector-hours onsite during backshifts.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
i t
%10 30 5 0'!N
-
_
.
_
.- -.
.
--
.
.
V DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted N. Kalivianakis, Plant Superintendent 11. Lihou, Lead Nuclear Engineer
- H.
Strub, Assistant Lead Nuclear Engineer P. Knoespel, Nuclear Engineer F. Webb, Nuclear Engineer K. Wogranic, Nuclear Engineer R. Richards, Operating Engineer K. Steffes, Technical Staff Engineer N. Chrissotimos, USNRC Senior Resident Inspector S. DuPont, USNRC Resident Inspector
- Denotes those attending the exit interview 2.
Control Rod Scram Test The inspector reviewed procedure QTS 130-4, Rev. 10 " Control Rod Scram Timing," and determined it to be technically adequate.
The inspectors witnessed the scram timing of 14 control rods per the above procedure on December 21, 1980, and did not note any discrepancies.
All 14 rods satisfied the Technical Specification scram limit of:E3.5 seconds for 90% insertion. The resident inspector subsequently verified fr'a a review of records that the remaining 163 rods satisfied the Technical Specification scram time limit.
No items of r.oncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
APRM Calibration The inspector reviewed procedure OTS 1512-1, Rev. 5 " Nuclear Engineer's Method for APRM Calibration," and determined it to be technically adenuate.
The procedure is used to calibrate the APRM's during the initial power increase following a refueling outage.
The inspectors witnessed the performance of the APRM test on December 20, 1980, and did not note any discrepancies.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Determination of Reactor Shutdown Margin The inspector reviewed procedure QTS 1104-1, Rev. 7, " Shutdown Margin Subcritical Demonstration," and determined it to be technically adequate.
-2-
_ -. _.
..
-
-.-_
-
-. _
= _ -.
_. _
_
_
,
t The procedure requires the most reactive rod to be fully withdrawn and an adjacent rod to be partially withdrawn to verify the shutdown margin.
In a letter to the licensee, the NSSS supplier (General Electric) identified from calculations that the H-13 rod was the
most reactive rod and that the G-12 rod should be withdrawn 24 steps to verify a shutdown margin of 1.27% 4K.
(This is almost twice the
.65% 4 K required by the Technical Specifications).
The inspectors witnessed the performance of the above test on December 20, 1980, and noted that the reactor was not critical with H-13 at 48 steps (full out) and C-12 at 24 steps with the reactor coolant at 160 F.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Initial criticality The Unit 1 Cycle 6 core was taken critical on December 20,1980, at approximately 3:00 a.m.
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's evaluation of the actual critical vs. estimated critical conditions
-
as detailed in procedure QTP 1106-2, Rev. 1, " Initial In-Sequence
Criticality Estimate Evalcation." The reactor was 0.25% A K less reactive than predicted which is within the + 1% 4 K required by the Technical Specifications.
j No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
'
6.
E)(t Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representative (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on December 21, 1980.
The inspectors summari=ed the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection.
Y i
l
,
<
i
_ _ _ _.
-.
... -
_